Six Men Won't Fit In a Bucket

Unhappy because power had not been restored to her home after a damaging storm, an irate customer called her local power company to complain.*

Customer: I can see the truck from my window, and there are six men out there, but only one of them is in the bucket fixing anything on the pole! The rest of them are just standing around on the ground! Why aren’t those other men working?

Power employee: Well, ma’am…all six of them won’t fit in the bucket.

Customer: Oh. (click)

As a former power employee myself, the story made me laugh, and then it made me think: How many times do we get all worked up because all the men aren’t in the bucket?

The caller had a single point of view – her power was off and she wanted it back. She had limited knowledge – she knew that power was reconnected by the man at the top of the pole, but she knew nothing about the number of men it took to remove and replace a damaged pole, cut and move fallen limbs, or ensure the safety of the guy in the bucket. She had limited perspective – her pole was the only one she could see. Yet with so little to go on, she was sure there was slacking going on and that said slacking was the reason she was still in the dark.

How often do we do that? How often to we get all fired up about a situation before we really know what’s going on?

So often, situations go like this: Someone does something that seems offensive to me. I have limited knowledge, limited perspective, and only my own little problem in my sights. So what do I do? I invent all those other details, filling in the blanks with just enough information to support my righteous indignation, making up a story that supports the offense theory and fuels my ire. The more I think about it, the madder I get!

Why is that? In the best of all worlds, we would have a wider view, one that made it harder to focus on a potentially offensive act or word. We’d resist feeling offended until we had all the facts and knew the intent and context from the other person’s perspective. That might require a conversation, some questions, some honest listening, but it would be worth it. If that’s too much trouble, we would at least make up a story that felt good rather than one that just makes us madder. If we are supplying the missing details, why choose the ones that cause the most misery? Do we enjoy having our feelings hurt?

Things are not always what they seem, and offense is taken far more often than it is really given. Next time you find your knickers all wadded up about something, take a step back, refocus, and learn the facts. You won’t be giving up your right to a good head of justifiable steam if the situation really warrants it. You also won’t waste your precious energy writing a story to piss yourself off. Before you get mad, remind yourself that six men won’t fit in a bucket.

*An all-too true story borrowed and paraphrased from my friend Indigo Satin.

How Big Can Love Be?

I've become quite a fan of the HBO Series "Big Love" that airs on Sunday nights. The show features a fictional Mormon family who live "The Principle" - the idea that a man should take multiple wives and have many children. I don't know much about The Principle; actually, I don't know anything other than the tiny bit I've gleaned from the show, and I don't count an HBO series an accurate source of information. I do know two things - the show opens up all kinds of thought about the nature of romantic love, marriage, and family, and the show paints a beautiful picture of people trying to live their faith in a positive, loving way.

Ever since I first read Robert Heinlein as a young adult, I've been intrigued by the theory of multiple partner marriages. The idea of love and realtionships simply expanding to encompass as many people as want and are wanted to be there makes perfect sense to me. At the same time, I am personally and intimately aware of the difficulties and pitfalls of such relationships. What I wonder most is - are those difficulties unavoidable or somehow inherent in human nature, or are they the product of our belief that such relationships are supposed to be limited to just two people?

That's not a new or original question. A lot of people ask and there are numerous answers. There are those who firmly believe that the two person partnership is the only legitimate romantic relationship, whether through Divine sanction or human nature, or both. There are others who believe that love will, indeed, expand to include multiple partners. Some, like the small number of Mormon Fundamentalists who continue to practice polygamy, believe that God encourages (commands?) the practice with rules about how it takes place, including the one-man-many-wives rule; others simply believe that the human heart has a limitless capacity for love, that we are not monogamous by nature, and that with conscious choice and effort "polyamorous" relationships of various types are not only possible but desirable.

My own heart is split on the issue. Philosophically, I embrace the idea that love is big enough to share. Ah, but when I think about my beloved with another woman, I feel a strange mixture of compersion and unease. I want him to know all the love there is to know in this world; but I still feel...what? Threatened? Maybe...sort of...though I know he loves me and I don't believe that would change? Jealous? I'm not even sure what that means, to tell you the truth. Scared? Yeah...I just don't know what I'm scared of.

Before I go any further, it's important to add that this is a conversation I have mostly in my own head. My husband and I are monogamous and have had no serious discussion about changing that. We do talk about the idea of polyamory, though, and about how, in an uncertain world with more and more demands on our time and resources, forming bigger families makes sense in a lot of ways.

And I'd like to know what you think...if you even think about these things. I suppose there are lots of people who don't even give it much thought. If you do, though, I'd love to know what you're thinking.

Back to the show, "Big Love"...

Another thing I've enjoyed about that show is the way they portray the lead character, Bill, responding to those who disrespect and try to discredit his faith. In one episode recently, a man contradicted a portion of history that Bill and his family believe to be true. Bill didn't engage or call the man down for it and, later, his young son asked him why. Bill's response was that there was no need to embarrass that man in front of his family. They knew they were right and that was enough. Later in the same episode, he was accosted by a man claiming to be a Baptist minister and behaving very badly. The man was angry and accusatory, telling Bill that they had perverted the gospel, among other things. Bill tried talking to him a bit, but finally turned and left without engaging further.

In my book, the title "Big Love" applies to more than the show's marital configurations. Bill's love is bigger than that of a lot of people I know. It was big enough that he chose to disregard someone contradicting and dishonoring his path rather than embarrass him. It was big enough to walk off and leave a spittle-flinging man arguing with himself rather than engage in a fruitless battle, and without degenerating into the same kind of accusations and name calling.

What I want most is a world where no one disrespects or discredits another's walk or accosts anyone with accusations of perverting whatever sacred text they have decided to follow as the path to truth. Until that day, examples of people who won't allow themselves to be dragged down to the same level are worthy of note, even if they're fiction. We should all be so strong.

Marriage, the Law, and Doing the Right Thing Twice

Did you happen to catch Keith Olberman's Special Commentary on the passage of Prop 8 in California? It's passionate, articulate, bordering on brilliant. I can't figure out how to share it directly in this blog so please click on the link to watch.

I cannot be silent on this issue. Like Mr. Olberman, I'm not gay nor is anyone in my immediate family. But this isn't just a gay issue. It's a human issue, universal and timeless. And unless we keep the momentum headed toward positive change, it will remain a universally unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong issue.

My stance on this issue is simple and straightforward:

Marriage should be defined by federal law, consistant in all states and territories, and should consist of a set of binding legal agreements to which applicants agree and are held accountable. The government should not get involved in defining the relationship or who can participate. As long as all parties meet the legal requirements (primarily age and the ability to contract), government has no responsibility and no right to place any further restrictions on the arrangement.

If faith-based organizations want to further define the relationship according to their beliefs, so be it. As precedent, the Catholic church has long refused to recognize marriages that don't meet the requirements of the faith, even when those marriages are perfectly legal from a civil perspective. The consequences of the Church's approval or disapproval are only relevant to the practitioner from a personal, spiritual standpoint. Any religious institution should be free to use whatever moral compass they possess to decide if they and their god(s) approve of the union, but they should have no say in the legal aspects.

Here's how I get there:

Legal marriage in the United States is first and foremost a property agreement. Under our current system of employer-sponsored health care benefits, it also provides a consistent framework for determining who can be considered a dependent for the purposes of insurance coverage. It establishes a next-of-kin relationship wherein spouses have first and final say in certain health care decisions, hospital visitation rights, and so forth. And there are tax provisions for married couples to lessen the tax impact on two income families.

Nothing about legal marriage as it is currently defined has anything to do with relationship, love, comittment, or morality. It has to do with legal rights and contracts. And nothing about those legal rights and contracts has anything to do with the gender or orientation of the participants. People of the same gender are just as capable of fulfilling all the obligations inherent in legal marriage as are one-man-one-woman couples.

Where we've gone astray is allowing the religious definition of marriage - specifically the mainstream Christian definition - to creep into the legal definition. We have abandoned the constitutional principal of separation of church and state and given that power over to religion. Shame on us!

Interestingly, that influence seems only to have gone so far as to restrict who is allowed to participate. It hasn't done anything at all to enforce the other ideals of Christian marriage. The government doesn't care one bit whether people who apply for a marriage license have been married before, as long as they've fulfilled the legal obligation to divorce. There is no government mandate that individuals share the same faith, that they love, honor, cherish, or respect one another. Marriages of convenience or for economic considerations are common. The only absolute requirements are that the couple be of legal age, not currently married to someone else, and that there be one man and one woman.

The age requirement makes sense from a legal standpoint; binding contracts require that parties be of legal age. Not being married to someone else is debatable, but the argument can be made that allowing multiple partners would require rewriting estate law among others, so I'll concede that one temporarily even though it, too, is a moral judgement. The one for which I can find no sustainable argument whatsoever is gender.

Why? Why does the government care who enters into the agreement? Why do we insist on denying the legal rights of marriage to anyone who is willing and capable of agreeing to the terms of the contract? We let anyone with decent credit and income buy a house, a contract that lasts longer than most marriages. When you strip away the moral fru-fru attached to marriage, what's left is no different than any other contract. If you can buy a house without a genital check, why can't you enter into a marriage contract without one? From a legal standpoint, the government has no business checking genitals for a contract that has to do with property and taxes.

As important as this issue is to gays and lesbians who wish to enter into legal marriage, it's even more important in the bigger picture. If we allow religious beliefs to shape government policy, we will eventually be a religious state. Notice I said we. America is a democracy and we are responsible for blurring the line between church and state. If, in fact, the majority of people support something so clearly unconstitutional, we have lost our own compass. We're giving up our rights as we wander blindly, thoughtlessly accepting what has seemingly always been. Every erosion of that all-important separation erodes the ability of each of us to choose our spiritual path and live it without fear.

I support the right of every adult in this country to marry whomever they choose. If I believed it morally wrong for same sex couples to marry, I would still support their right to do so. It harms no one and the disapproval of it is based solely on religious beliefs which, under the Constitution of the United States, are not to be imposed by governement. In protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, we're protecting our own rights to worship and live as we choose.

It's doing the right thing twice, a double good too important to be quiet about.

The community that keeps you...

Ok...so I'm repurposing a lot of content here, and I make no apology! Thoughts come unbidden most of the time, and often when I'm least prepared to blog. The only fair thing to do is to help them eventually migrate to this blog and into your waiting mind.

Mostly, I want to know what you think? What is "the community that keeps you?" How do you build and strengthen your community? Here's what I was thinking at the time...originally posted on Chattanooga-Pagans (local Yahoo! Group):

April 22, 2008 - I'm in Santa Rosa, California right now, attending a communications and social media conference. One of the speakers, Joe Jaffe, made a statement tonight that struck me as profound and particularly appropriate to the recent thread about community. Without going into the entire context, he said, "You are the community that keeps you."

Within the discussion context, the community that keeps me is at once one and many communities. It starts with my family. It includes the extended family of spiritual brothers and sisters I celebrate and work with. It's a group of women who come together for occasional "goddess weekends" and stay in touch as we can. I count people I love but see infrequently in the list, too. It's the temporary community created at CPCG and other gatherings. It's the recurrent community that attends PNO. It's individual friends that join me and make a community of two or more for the myriad of reasons friends come together. It's the ever-changing community made up of whoever happens to be in Spiralady's when I drop by. And it certainly includes this list and, within it, even more subsets.

Each of those individual communities and more make up the larger community. Actually, I like Mel's word - web - better. If I could graph my community as I described it above, it would indeed look like a big web. When I am pulled hard in any one direction, it's the web that keeps me from going too far. When I'm strong and full and whole, my strength reinforces the web and keeps someone else from falling. With or without a defined structure, with all the flaws inherent in an ungoverned, borderless community, that web sustains, nourishes, and supports me and gives me an avenue through which to sustain, nourish, and support others.

When I think, then, about "community," I think about micro and macro. Every interaction I have is either community building or community demolition. I can't separate my personal relationships from my relationship with the larger community. Those personal relationships ARE the larger community. The stronger each point on the web becomes, the stronger the web becomes.

I build community one person, one group, and one interraction at a time, and I know others who are doing the same. None of us can claim perfection; we've had to repair the web more than once and there's almost always another hole that needs mending. Fortunately, a good mend is often stronger than the original knot, especially when accompanied by a heartfelt, "Well, that sucked. What can we do better next time?"

If you're reading this, you're part of my web, part of the community that keeps me. Thank you. Keep strengthening your own connections and I'll keep working on mine. Together, we're amazing.

What is forgiveness?

Something brought this to mind recently and I decided to look it up and republish it. This was written in response to someone who was hurting and asked, "What is forgiveness?" I still think it's as true as anything I've ever written and worth repeating from time to time.

Have you ever heard someone talking about "forgiving a debt?" A lender who forgives a debt does not require repayment. If they're still lending to that borrower, they stop. They don't deny that the money was borrowed. They simply do not enforce their right to repayment.

I think that defines forgiveness pretty well. When we've been hurt, abused, molested, neglected, accused unjustly...all the painful, damaging things that hurt so bad, it's like the abusers are taking bits of us. In many cases we actually participate in the process in one way or another, though rarely do we recognize it at the time. We become lenders and borrowers and, in essence, a huge debt is created. Even after we're removed from the situation and no longer being abused, molested, etc., we're left with this aching place, a painful, raw emotional wound, because the debt that was created isn't paid. Sometimes all it would really take is a heartfelt apology. Sometimes the debt is bigger than an apology can cover. But until we get something that feels like repayment, we're left with the debt and the misery that goes with it.

That's where forgiveness comes in. We can choose to forgive the debt. We're not saying "it's okay" because you're right - it will never be ok. We're not denying that it happened, that it was wrong, that it was horrible and it sucked and it carved out part of our life when it was happening. Instead, we can recognize that, as horrible as the abuse was, it's no more horrible than the pain and misery of carrying the anger and the resentment and the feeling of unresolved debt around with us, eating away at what should be growing healthy again. If we're still in the situation - the relationship, the circumstances - we have to get out, just like that lender has to stop lending money to the borrower who won't or can't repay. And then we make a deal with ourselves - NOT with our abusers. The deal is this: I will move forward today, right now, with this person out of my life forever. I forgive the debt I am owed by them, knowing that the Universe will hold them accountable without my help. For me, I sever those ties, cut my losses, and walk away from that life for good.

That, in my opinion, is forgiveness. And with time and intent, if we're truly blessed, we may be able to move from forgiveness to compassion, wherein we realize that even people who hurt us are people who've taken some seriously wrong turns and are lost, probably without realizing it. That's when you know you're truly free. And forgiveness is the first step.

Forgive the debt...the repayment can never, ever equal what was actually taken from you. The best thing you can possibly do for yourself is to set yourself free of it.

That helpless feeling...

I hate knowing something is wrong, knowing someone is in trouble and needs help and not being able to make it happen! Arrrrrrhhhh! It's infuriating and frustrating and makes me feel helpless and ineffective and ... awful. I'm watching that happen right now with a woman in a horribly abusive situation, mentally and physically, and it's driving me nuts.

I'm doing what I can, which isn't much, but the ball is really in her court. There are people trying to help her, making a way for her to get out of the situation she's in, but until she is willing to take the proferred hand and make the first step out the door, all the efforts are in vain. That's the part that frustrates me most.

I believe with all my heart that we learn lessons in life through experience. Most of the time we're where we are, experiencing whatever we're experiencing, because we've got something to learn. Sometimes it's a direct, immediate cause-and-effect relationship; sometimes I have to think it's more karmic. In all cases, we usually keep experiencing until we get the lesson. The learning shifts our behavior which changes our experience and we start with new lessons. I don't want to interfere with anyone's learning experience but DAMN! Get this one already and get the hell out of there!

Sorry...had to say that somewhere. End of rant...back to work...

Boiling point

We boil at different degrees. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher, (1803-1882)

Have I ever mentioned how much I love Emerson? This statement sums up much of what I believe makes up the difference in individuals. So many times I've heard people become frustrated with their friends, partners, spouses, children, coworkers...it baffles them when someone doesn't take an action they believe should be taken, or reacts too quickly for their taste...someone who changes more slowly or more quickly than they. Assuming basic psychological and emotional stability, we all simply move at different rates, react to different stumuli...we reach boiling at our own set point.

In this context, I'm referring to "boiling" as the point at which we affect change. When water boils, it changes to steam. When we boil, we make changes in our lives. Like water, the molecules will probably have been in motion for a long time before the first bubbles break the surface. Just because we don't see the changes, we can't assume the other person isn't simmering quietly inside, temperature rising slowly toward their own set point. When they get there, the bubbles float to the surface, break, and the steam rises.

People sometimes forestall the boiling. They resist the change to the point that they "turn down the heat." The heat is the stimulus to change, usually in the form of pain or discomfort with the present status. A statement I've heard used (and used myself) is that people only change when the pain of change is outweighed by the pain of staying the same. I think that's true. To avoid the discomfort of change, the pain of breaking that surface tension and morphing into another form of ourselves, we ignore the heat. Fortunately, the heat remains and, eventually, forces us to change. Maybe not in this lifetime...but eventually.

Our challenge, then, is to pay attention to our own heat sources and to let those we love pay attention to theirs. It's hard, sometimes, especially when the relationships are very close. Many a marriage has fallen apart because one partner is still simmering while the other is boiling away! Ahh, but perhaps that's part of the change in progress. Maybe the pain of that failed relationship is what it takes to get the other partner from a slow simmer to a rolling boil. Maybe not. One thing is certain - life is change. We all boil at different degrees but we still boil. Steam happens. So does condensation. And then we boil again.

Chattacon Weekend - Come and Gone

This weekend was spent at Chattacon, partying among the geeks and nerds, the freaks and fetishists, and all the assorted and uncatagorized who come out to play at Sci-Fi conventions. It is my fourth Chattacon (had to count the t-shirts to be sure); it is Jim's 20-something-th Chattacon.

Even if I hated cons, I don't think I could possibly refuse to attend with him and try to have a good time. He loves these things. Fortunately, so do I. Truthfully, I doubt that I enjoy them as much as he does, but that's ok. We have a good time and it's fun to watch him revel in the revelry.

My husband is a very loved man - by me, of course, but also by a host of friends who truly cherish him and the magic he brings to their lives. Jim has the uncanny nack of making everyone around him feel welcome. He especially is good at making women feel attractive and sexy and desired, without ever making them feel disrespected or demeaned. The only explanation I have for that is he honestly, truly, loves and respects women. He finds them fascinating and mysterious and sexy. He loves 'em all...tall, short, fat, thin, old, young... and he enjoys different facets of the - slutty, demure, all-business, playful, intelligent, emotional. And women, it seems, are able to bring more and more of those facets out to play when they feel safe.

Safe from what? Safe from someone who respects the demure woman or the business woman but treats the slut with derision. Safe from someone who would attempt to take advantage of the emotional. Safe from someone who would treat that emotion with disdain.

Jim can ogle a woman's breasts openly and she will enjoy it. She won't get mad, or tell him to look at her eyes. Most, given a little time to get to know him, will shake their ta-ta's for him in a heartbeat. It's quite amazing, actually. And he loves it. Interestingly enough, so do I. Well, most of the time.

Occasionally, the green dragon raises her head and gives me a bit of discomfort. I try to keep her under control because I am convinced that jealousy is a totally non-productive emotion. Nonetheless, she lives. Fortunately for us, though, she's an easily controlled dragon most of the time. Jim is a unique man and squandering that special gift on possessivness would be a shame.

So... back to Chattacon. It was a blast! I hope we can continue to enjoy the cons for a long time. It's just another good thing my husband has brought to my life. :) Thanks, Baby.

Morning Song

New blog...first post...my morning song.

I've been journaling lately using paper and a humble pen - a big change for one so tuned to technology. I've been composing at the keyboard for 25 years! Returning to handwriting was freeing, rythmic and peaceful. Unfortunately, it's also slow, and time is so short. And there's the problem of others not having access to my handwritten journal.

One might think it an asset to have one's private thoughts remain private. In truth, I believe that we call those thoughts private, not so much because we don't want to share them, as because we fear rejection or derision. Deep down, we want more than anything to be understood, to have others know us well enough to understand the heart behind the hapless blunders, the giving spirit behind the goof-ups, the shy child behing the silly humor. We want our most private thoughts to be known to those who will hold them delicately, careful not to bruise or soil. We want to be known.

This blog is a leap of faith for me. Most people who know me characterize me as an open book. I have come a long, long way from the girl I was 30 years ago, the girl who was so good at being a chameleon that she couldn't remember who she actually was. I am no longer that girl, and yet there are still times when I feel the old fear of rejection creeping in. Through this blog, I hope to ignore the fear and say those things my heart longs to say, taking my chances that some may choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject me along with my ideas.

There is another aspect to the faith behind this journal. I read years ago, in a book called The Adjusted American (Snell and Gail Putney, publication date unknown), that one of the greatest gifts we can give to others is to let them in on our fears, foibles, and fantasies, our doubts, dreams, and desires, our beauty and our beast (and our absurd fondness for alliteration). Our culture emphasises sharing only the positives. We stoically keep our shortcomings to ourselves. In doing so, we increase the isolation in which we all move through life. We begin to think of our personal struggles as unique, unusual, out of the norm - when, in fact, they're absolutely normal. We all struggle, we all fail, we all triumph. And if sharing mine will make others feel less isolated and alone in theirs, the share them I will.

So, settle in, mark the spot, and visit again often. Here in my hymnal will you find the songs of my heart, the music and rhythm of my life. Sing along if you like... harmony is always welcome. So is discord, when delivered with respect and honesty. Or simply listen, if you prefer. Either way, I hope the song eases your path for a little while.