What do JFK’s assassination, Mercury retrograde on Election Day, Hurricane Sandy and the striking similarities between Democratic and Republican presidents have in common? Dwight D. Eisenhower holds the key and Eric turns it in the lock in this week’s subscriber issue of Planet Waves. Also included are an impressive roster of astro-news briefs and this week’s horoscopes for all 12 signs.
You can pick up this issue individually here. Or, sign up for our free one-month trial subscription here and keep your hand firmly on the rudder as you steer through this Mercury retrograde.
All I had time to do was do a copy-and-paste of this article (and the ones at all the links) for thorough reading later. But based on what I saw, this is brilliant … oh-so-encouraging … thought-provoking … a road map for truly centered, searching people who want authenticity in their relationships, only relationships that are worth having, and relationships that promote mutual growth and healing. Can’t wait to read the whole thing later! Thanks again so much, Eric … I’m a grateful subscriber! 🙂
Beautiful comment Eric….could not agree more! Save this somewhere…its a winner.
There are two thoughts I want to address in reply to some of the conversation here. I will handle them separately. One is the question of supposed male orientation on work, and issues of female parity in terms of both money and relevance to society. I’ll get to that second. The first is about the theme of “being healed before you can be in a relationship” vs. “the relationship as a vehicle for healing.”
We have been told a lot that relationships are the way we heal and get to know one another. This is a point about which the eminently secular Fritz Perls and the totally religious Course in Miracles are in full agreement.
I believe there is a theme missing from the conversation, which C. T. Butler summarized last summer in our conversation about polyamory. He said that you know you’re ready for polyamory when you would rather have no relationship than be in a relationship that does not work for you.
Like most things said about polyamory, my take is that this applies to all forms of intimate relationship. There is a self-esteem issue that is not usually addressed in the relationship discussion, the one that feels and sounds a lot like, “I am not a full-fledged person if I don’t have a spouse/significant other.” Note, this is pushed on us, often and at times with a kind of emotional violence and threat of disenfranchisement from the community if we do not go along.
There are all the ways that people get emotionally involved specifically to have that sensation of completeness within themselves, acceptability within society and to relieve the suspense of not knowing “what’s going to happen,” along with the “I want someone for the rest of my life” thing. These often seem to get rolled into one nugget, the pearl of great price, the Relationship.
The relationship does not get its validity from statistical analysis of what really happens (divorce rate, cheating rate, domestic violence incidence, etc.). It gets its credibility from the movies and advertising, which pound us with images of the perfect lifestyle and idealized ideas about romance. These might start with Ken and Barbie, Cinderella and other concepts that many kids are embalmed with at an early age.
Once we really know what happened in our ancestors’ relationships, we cannot really look to them as models; we get pumped up on much less realistic sources of imagery. I don’t see this image-making, brainwashing function accounted for within most discussions of relationships. Were exactly do our ideas and images come from, and what do they conceal?
I believe that one thing concealed is a self-esteem deficit, related to an identity crisis. The lack of self-esteem, and trying to “find yourself in someone else,” as far as I can see, are responsible for much of the struggle and outright misery in our relationships. They are part of why so many separations are so devastating.
As a kind of opportunistic infection along side this, the mutual fear of jealousy becomes a kind of binding glue that replaces loyalty and fidelity. There is a difference between not having sex with someone else because you fear your partner’s jealousy (usually cast as “don’t want to hurt him/her”) and actually experiencing fidelity. This is rarely called what it is.
I think that to have healthy, approximately egalitarian relationships (there are always inequalities, but conscious people can adapt to them if they want), we need to have a certain amount of self-esteem going: there is a kind of critical mass point that’s necessary. I am not saying this is “total healing” or “being perfect” or even “being truly ready” (though that would be a good idea).
What I am suggesting is that there’s a point where someone knows him or herself and is able to center their awareness that they don’t get lost in their relationships, as we KNOW so often happens. It’s part of the phenomenon, “Well, now that I’m out of this relationship, I can go back to being ‘the real me’ and write, draw, see my friends, etc.”
Part of the self-esteem threshold is about some consistency of self, whether ‘in’ or ‘out’ of a relationship. There are other markers, including an intolerance for being badly treated/neglected, not putting up with abuse and aggression (passive, active, whatever). I would also include the willingness and ability to graciously receive love, nourishment, whatever is offered (which is one of the most challenging).
Part of what needs to happen is an honest discussion of death, which includes topics such as transience, the use of time, and a confrontation with the unknown. These topics often get trivialized in petty matters, and the real issue is often bypassed.
Obviously we are “imperfect people” however, we can get to the spot where we at least know we’re people, and don’t need a relationship to demonstrate that fact, and where we have a sufficient sense of who we are that we don’t need someone weaker or hurt to make us feel stronger or more useful/valuable.
We need to address the issue of self-esteem to the degree where we understand it, and feel comfortable talking about it — and not projecting the whole matter onto someone else, as our hero when a relationship is new, and as a villain when things don’t quite work out.
Intimate relationships are important vehicles for healing, but often this degrades to a wilderness of pain, as the projection issues are so intense. Therapy needs to be done in therapy, with a disinterested party, and what we learn in therapy applied to the relationship.
I cover some of this in several archive pieces from the Friday subscriber series. I will offer three (note, if you hit the paywall on the first — we are removing it now):
Let’s Get Real: Saturn in Libra
http://planetwaves.net/astrologynews/633687844.html
The Sacred Space of Self
http://planetwaves.net/pageone/sacred-self
Unraveling the Mystery of Self-Esteem
http://planetwaves.net/pagetwo/daily-astrology/astrology-self-esteem/
Eric and staff: the Friday edition was landmark. I always share brief snippets of the weekly edition with my hubby – even though he’s a “green man” and not much tuned in to astrology – but we had a really interesting discussion about the astrology of the assassinations and the past 40 years of US history. Additionally, my mouth literally fell open when I read the “Sky” section” – bringing the emotional body from the past into the present, addressing feelings of isolation, etc. … so very pertinent to issues we’ve been having with my 18-y/o stepdaughter, who lives with us and has a newborn, and is also stuck in a lot of past patterns she learned (and still imitating) as a result of growing up with a Type 1 bipolar mother. Such a guide PW is for helping me navigate the (sometimes tsunami-quality) tides of Fate. Many thanks!
Hey Jinspace and Patty (et alia),
Warning: “Do Not Try This at Home.”
Really, I’ve been around for a while, but sometimes I *do* fall asleep at the wheel. My little tantrum about the SaggX was not all that smart: opened myself to psychic and physical attack — the Daughterest standing off to the side, going “oh MOM!” as the arrow came whistling to its target. Might as well’ve put runway lights down my back ending in a Jasper Johns painting.
Ah, well… love and learn. (Or just ‘love’ since they’re pretty much synonyms).
***
**
*
Mystes – you saved me from having to chime in about the pathologically lying Sagg in my life. Though in fairness to Patty, she did say the truth “as they see it…” – indeed.
Paolo – you made my day.
GSG, many thanks for the link! I will dive in tonight.
Whole love, half wit,
M
Mystes you crack me up! Love it!
Here is an excellent book for probing the paradigm of the Patriarchy – how we helped co-create it and how now, women especially are being called to dismantle it. The book is called “Unplugging the Patriarchy” by Lucia Rene . Her website:
http://www.unplugfromthepatriarchy.com/
I’ve given away loads of copies of this book because it is all about understanding how we’ve all helped co-created the paradigm and what needs to be done to clear it. I will say also that there are many parts of her practise that I do not agree with and her teacher was a very controversial figure. Also, the story, because it is a fiction has some pretty big holes….but…that said, her work as a visionary is remarkable. She’s very committed and dedicated and what she has to say is important, though she is abrasive some times.
She also has a lot of lectures that are available for free in the archives section of the website, plus I think there are Youtube interviews as well out there. She advocates a clearing process that will be familiar to many and she’s all about healing the Shadow. She has co-developed an amazing process for dealing with fear and the complex emotions that sit in the spaces just above fear. Her work is remarkable and I recommend her highly….AND she really pisses me off from time to time so she may you as well. Don’t let it stop you. She’s a clear channel for something revolutionary. Not the only one out there, but a good one worth knowing about. And she’s really dedicated to empowering women at the core level, though she does do workshops and lectures that are also for mixed gender audiences as well….but, the centerpiece of her work is that she really sees/feels that women HAVE to be the ones who reclaim their lost selves in order to shift the Patriarchal paradigm into what is next for us as a species. It is the only way to dissolve the dysfunctional systems and build new ones. Brilliant stuff.
Lovely, Pam. You always give such great references. Have been meaning to re-read that book since last summer, now where did it get to…?
Steer: point perhaps? ie each to his own tiller – that was too loosely written. Sorry!
How about Women who run with the wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes. That does it for me: faced with x y or z how do you get purchase. She has some ideas to start you off with.
If you ever meet a woman who wears her relationship like a badge, or her beauty, or anything else, or whose stockings give her more support than anything else in her life (Julie Birchill’s words for the young POW) steer her towards the deeper waters of her soul (and that is not necessarily sexual either. Probably Not sexual in fact; given the circumstances?!) Standing shoulder to shoulder even for a moment.
Hey Rob dear, was really chuffed you appreciated my comment – but what’s up dude? What’s with the aggression? (tough astrology this weekend, I know – had my first ever skype-tiff yesterday evening with a close friend who lives far away, not a nice experience).
Snarkiness is next to trolliness.
Me, I prefer to throw my drink directly in the eyes of the insufferable morons who have attached themselves to my life-force. I find that it is: a) not passive-aggressive and b) good for the digestion.
As for wholeness and the implicate order of ‘relationship,’ well, who here is nubile enough to think (even for a second) that they can find their significance in the Other? The best partnerships I’ve enjoyed/suffered have had ~know where your sh*t is~ as the Secondary Directive; the Prime Directive being Never Copulate on a Bed of Nails.
Unless you are *really* ticklish.
“There’s this idea that many have that you’re only really a whole, balanced person when you’re able to have a whole, balanced relationship with someone. Being a whole, balanced person is a lifetime’s journey for most people, and you can be that whether you’re single or in a relationship – it’s ones relationship to the whole of life that matters, not just to some significant other.”
Thanks, Huffy, for affirming an essential truth – one that apparently isn’t getting much traction here today. Likewise the input of those who aren’t obsessively chasing (inter)action (or indirectly complaining about their lack of it) under the rubric of political history/gender dynamic/social commentary.
Might be time for some to update the gender studies section of their personal libraries. Though doing so may not arm mid-life polyamorists with better pick-up lines, it could help broaden their perspective — and the conversations that ensue from it.
Mystes, so your husband is to Sag as Romney is to Pisces? I’m so sorry!
“There isn’t a Sag alive who doesn’t tell the whole truth as they see it most of the time.”
Oh Patty, Patty, Patty…
As much as I would *love* to ratify that remark, I can only say: You haven’t met my Sagg X half-husband. Who tells *our kid* that we were never married (it was common-law), that wives #1-5 never sued him for alimony (at least one did), who tells other people that he has an undergraduate degree (he doesn’t), and that I “abandon” my son to him (guffah). Oh, these and SO many more are piled up in the “honest-Sagg” graveyard.
Which is why I am counting the *minutes* till my son turns 18. At that point the whole karmic knot comes unraveled (well, with the help of a little nitroglycerin). 388,800 to go.
(But I take responsibility… I have *no* business being married to anyone. I fell into the trap baited w/ a derisive comment by my stepfather during a family dinner, and lo, a year later I was married. That was my last lunge for conformity.)
AdW, autobiographical enough for ya?
***
**
*
Great discussion all!
Carrie, thank you, always.
Alex, lovely post!
Jinspace, you made me smile.
“If you can be both/and in preference to either/or and if not.. well best wishes and keep trying to find a way!”
The following is NOT in any way directed at you, Alex. I really liked what you wrote but it made me wonder and question which brought on the following thoughts:
The above quoted sentence, in itself, is an either/or idea. What I mean by that is this: if a both/and person feels best being both/and, why would they suppose that this way of being is best for everyone? As you said, people are so individual and diverse.
That is like saying people who prefer vanilla over various exotic types of chocolate are somehow missing out, unfulfilled, or in need to changing their preference. That sounds like we are pathologizing people who have a different path to travel in life; perhaps it is the either/or person’s path to BE either/or in their thinking and to grow and deal with life within that thinking paradigm. If we see it that way then we would give them space to be who and what they are instead of encouraging them to be both/and. How about we be inclusive (as both/and people usually are) and just allow those who are either/or to be what they are. If they are supposed to change (and we can see that they want to) THEN we can help faciltate that but if they are unable to change then let them be because maybe they are not supposed to change right now. Maybe they are supposed to live out this life as either/or.
I hope I am making sense. It is early, I have a major test to do and coffee is only barely kicking in. Great post, Alex; you always make me think and I enjoy that.
“There isn’t a Sag alive who doesn’t tell the whole truth as they see it most of the time”. You’re so right, Patty! It can drive me nuts at times, but I love ’em for it, love them for being so genuine.
There’s this idea that many have that you’re only really a whole, balanced person when you’re able to have a whole, balanced relationship with someone. Being a whole, balanced person is a lifetime’s journey for most people, and you can be that whether you’re single or in a relationship – it’s ones relationship to the whole of life that matters, not just to some significant other.
I was thinking that we should have had one of those growth chart thingies like you put up in the children’s room, to show where we made real accomplishments and where we back=pedaled over the years. 2010 would have had the entry – Overcame Homophobia (for him). 2011 embraced part-time vegan diet for health reasons (him again). 2013 should have a mark for confessing what happened in Viet Nam – I think he’s that close. It’s easy to see what someone else needs to do, but we tend to wear blinders to our own issues. He is a Sag and can’t help but tell me where I need to change, but I don’t need to list it here. There isn’t a Sag alive who doesn’t tell the whole truth as they see it most of the time.
On this vexed question of “special” relationships we often chase our tails endlessly and look in the wrong direction for answers. It is the pain of our cumulative relationship experience that seems to erect the signposts that discussion subsequently follows. We end up believing we are credibly discussing the theory and politics of relationships when really is emotional autobiography! Let’s get past that if we can. This will call for awareness based upon the “is-ness” of realities we share. So, we must adopt a perspective, a standpoint. What I suggest is one slightly different than we are used to but which gives a fresh entry point to the subject.
Humans are creatures of habit. It takes energy both to recognise that and counterveil it. When humans interact sexually and emotionally it is (usually) in pairs.. duality. Were we to think of The Lovers card in tarot, even when there are three humans in the picture we have Cupid aiming to intoxicate and entice into a choice between two women so that a pair bond can emerge. We easily forget that humans are choosing all the time (not simply in terms of Eros), even where they appear NOT to be choosing.. aka being passive, resisting or saying “No”. When humans are habituating within their lives (which is ALWAYS simply a matter of DEGREE), they are choosing passively. This is easier because less challenging and less requiring effort, energy, direction and purpose.
Any relationship, whether starting from healthy or unhealthy roots, has the capacity for dynamic transformation, for growth or stagnation.. this growth or otherwise is in reality less determined by a “theory of relationship” and more by each participant’s attitude to the tracks and grooves of their personal existence.. Are they living deeply and dynamically? Allowing their energy to percolate and shift? Or are they seeking predictability and ease? Or are they merely drifting? Let’s be clear that all those options are validly on the table as a viable choice.. regardless of how we judge the issue. But what is clear is that each person makes their unique response to this issue of their own life.
Because we are creatures of habit then at ANY point we can change our priorities in this area.. often we do so radically. It can be ushered in by sickness or ageing or even traumatic experience. There are truly no rights or wrongs because life is both a meandering process and a complicated business! However, the distinction in habituation or non-habituation involves having 1) an either/or mentality or 2) a both/and mentality.. The first is an exclusive approach that is seeking always to reduce options (effectively in a complex and challenging contemporary world to simplify, thus reducing a sense of tension/pressure/uncertainty.. which is prevalent). The second is an inclusive approach seeking always to expand options (maintaining tension in a positive fashion in order to swim in diversity and open out experience, keeping things fresh, but ultimately juggling the intrinsic pressures of managing life on a very broad and complex platform).
Let us not underestimate how challenging the second option is even for an individuated self. When you come home from work each day and wish to release built up pressure, sinking into another’s arms may seem much more desirable than a quick shower and some phone calls to arrange a cultured social experience for that very evening, in the spirit of diverse, productive and expansive living.
We are ALL under huge strain and demand in our respective worlds. Our individuated bubbles can make contact on a deep level much more difficult to procure. Such encounters feel qualitatively different to the functional aspects of productive living. Yes, choosing the arms of another above a relaxing bath can become an anaesthetic or analgesic but because the flip side of either/or can seem like a cold and barren plce, there is much hankering after the simplification to “guarantees”. We should not dismiss this, as sometimes seems to eventuate, as “vulgar” but for me should instead explore the both/and option.. People need people. They need them in close. They need to bond chemically, biologically and emotionally in order to be healthy. Emotional starvation is prevalent. You can become an adrenaline junkie, who even overdoses when being deeply hugged, perhaps for the first time in an age. Individuated must not be aligned with cut off. We should not disparage flawed models completely because they DO show us something crucial (albeit in a warped manifestation). It seems to me that we need to better grasp the need to keep our own lives fresh and interesting(aka attractive). Ironically, when pair bonded, it may be your loving and deeply invested partner, who points out your need to branch out and keep it fresh, where otherwise on your own, you may have taken your eye off that particular ball and imperceptibly shifted into habit and then depression and then isolation and then alienation..
If you can be both/and in preference to either/or and if not.. well best wishes and keep trying to find a way!
A great issue! Thank you for the care and thoughtfulness put into these issues….this one is outstanding.
I agree with many of the contributors here who have spoken so eloquently of what is possible in a healthy, loving intimate partnership. Frequently a women’s ways of defining herself in the world is different from how males generally do it. How many men do we know who define themselves by the work that they do or by their career and how much time and effort they have dedicated to it? This is never questioned as “dysfunctional” or unenlightened because our culture is still yang-centric and values ‘doing’ more than loving. If women (generally speaking) place a good deal of weight on their relationship status to help define themselves as a person, I think it is most likely because we are generally relational creatures. It is NOT a weakness to be this way… though many men (and much of the culture) still may see it that way, again because in the Yang-centric world what you DO is seen as more important and more valuable than who and how you love.
Women (generally speaking) have the relationship-as-aspect-of-the-self fairly hard-wired into our nature and it is our gift to be this way, though it is a gift that is not very highly valued at the moment. Being relationally-centric is not better or worse than other ways of being, it is just different- though it can get easily dysfunctional just as being a workaholic or hyper-competitive can be dysfunctional. Of course cultural systems, programs and expectations have a lot to say about what we “should” do/be in the world. Part of evolving the paradigm is to question those definitions and change them if they don’t fit who we truly are… individually and collectively.
Thank goodness we are all evolving, now more quickly that ever, hopefully. I grew up in the age where so many dreams were lit on fire in one moment and shattered in the next. My mother adored Jackie because she represented what was for her generation an “ideal” ( albeit a fantasy) woman… someone who embodied grace, dignity, fidelity, and devotion not to mention beauty and style (deeply Venusian in every way). When I was a little girl this was the model that was being held up for me both culturally and personally because my mother (like many women of that era) was trying so hard to be just like Jackie… a perfect fantasy wife to her movie-star handsome husband (who was as equally unfaithful as King Jack it turns out).
But that dream-fantasy trajectory was ripped open and laid bare for me personally on that November day because I was celebrating my birthday when Camelot was assassinated in Texas. As a result of that day part of the fragile, emerging feminine self that was just beginning to awaken in me was also deeply wounded with those bullets. For me, one of the most profound images of that terrible passage was seeing the photo of Jackie on AF-1, the woman I had been taught to admire and look up to as a model of the ‘perfect’ example of the living Feminine who now had the blood and brains of her dead husband spattered over her perfect (pink) suit having to stand in a sea of men while power was transferred (seized??) from her family. I could not imagine what she was feeling in that moment… I can remember staring for hours at that photo when it appeared in LIFE magazine and realizing that there was something utterly profound in this moment for oh so many reasons. (and Eric I am REALLY looking forward to whatever else you have to say about this Scorpionic passage in our collective’s psyche).
For me, in a very surreal way, this moment was my first taste of the political becoming personal. In that moment, some part of me read the “news” in that image and the message was this: No matter how much they may adore you and have you thinking that you’re important and that you can do anything with your life, just remember: the REAL power in this world still is wielded by and revolves around the whims and wishes of the male half of this world and if you EVER need to be reminded of that, just remember the blood and brains on that perfect pink suit and how it got there.
For better or for worse, this is one of the big ‘ born on 11-22 Saturn conj. Venus conj. Mercury conj. Pallas in Scorpio in the 12th’ lessons that I have been working on, with and thru all my adult life. In all my significant relationships this is THE shadow that I as a woman have wrestled with… and have tried to heal it because I know it is mine to work on (since it is in my incarnational mapping) AND because of the evolutionary journey we are now engaged in, I know that it is a wound that can be healed but it is taking some time.
It is so wonderful to hear the stories here about the young women who are growing up now who seem to be utterly free from these shadows; those who know independence AND those who know deep, committed partnering … I celebrate both and cheer them on!
“Eric, I think what is missing in this world are examples of 2 people being *devoted* to each other. Spending their lives seeing not just to their own growth and expression, but also to the other person’s health, well-being and happiness. Helping that person become all they are meant to be.”
That’s how Dave and I interact; we are inter-dependent, not co-dependent.
“Devotion is not co-dependency and projection. Devotion is Love in Action.”
Yes! That’s it exactly! Thank you for writing that; I am going to remember it and use it.
“then promptly run after the ass who is great at fucking.”
Having tried both types I have to say the asses most assuredly were not “great at fucking.” They were only great at acting like they were great at fucking. More show than substance if you get my drift. Once I figured that out I went for the nice guys and most of them WERE very good at fucking. Just sayin’.
To President Kennedy’s legacy.
neil diamond america
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ttDUGM-1mU&feature=fvwrel
I don’t know why, but I always think of the Kennedy’s when I hear this song
Must be a Camelot Theme
Excellent article; thank you Eric for publishing this.
Pisces horoscope very helpful and insightful. Thank you again.
As for the “boyfriend in 5 min” conversation – I am one (of I’m sure many) woman who enjoys intelligent, thoughtful and sexual relationships – and the “neeeeed” for “boyfriend” or such has never been on the radar. A facet of Being this way is that I also experience that being considered/perceived as “independent” means I am not on the radar for most men.
xo
Dawnbrocco, that is a photographer’s pose – not a natural pose. We have family photos where everyone was told exactly where to put their hands – daughter’s on my shoulder, baby on my lap, everyone connected and touching. I remember thinking at the time of the photo that we should group touch more often because it was such a good feeling; and I remember being a little distraught that the photographer seemed to get how a family was supposed to connect. It was something I had to learn along the way and found it troubling that a photographer had to tell us how to look like a family. nevertheless, to photographers everywhere, thank you. I guess I worry needlessly, because 40 years later we are still a sweet but rather headstrong little family of four plus a son in law. Longevity in marriage is surely about being yourself, and allowing everyone else to be who they are meant to be too, with room for growth spurts and paradigm shifts. One of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that at the end of each saturn transit, we go through about a week or so of big adjustments. I didn’t put it together in my head until this last change. The last end of Libra saturn transit was a little rocky too (28 years ago), but maybe because it coincides with moving through my first house. He’s an aries rising, and there is something about scorpio that makes him turn into someone I don’t know and I start thinking, you mean I stuck it out all this time and it comes to this? I could have left years ago. Well that was a few days ago and now we are somewhat normal again, although he’s taking an interest in my shop and making his own plans. Did I say paradigm shift? Open to change? yeah – all that and more. Guess it’s his turn again.
Paolo – You’re welcome!
Nobody goes into relationships already knowing how to do them; you learn how by being in one and learning within it, or by being in many and learning something more from each one. You say know diddley squat about relationships? Sounds to me like you do know what feels right for you.
So why don’t you want *her* to know what feels right? You write, “But of course I don’t tell her this! But…trust me… I’m feeling her beside me, gently wanting to know more about me.”
Tell her. That’s not your secret, it’s what exists between the two of you, and because of the two of you 🙂
” …what is missing in this world are examples of 2 people being *devoted* to each other.
Devotion is not co-dependency and projection. Devotion is Love in Action.”
Yes, and yes.
We are just using different words. I chose the words commitment and dependability and by that I mean devotion.
It’s not just about couples. It’s a relationship to existence. You could call that our company ethos, as well. We deliver most of our message by example.
I agree that often, examples are difficult to find, and it would help if we could go beyond “all is fair in love and war.”
Also I would add: the self-esteem situation is pretty serious, and it can really take people some ugly places in relationships. Self esteem is a form of devotion to your own life, and unless one has that, devotion to others can be dangerous. I think this is a scenario where there is polarizing at both ends of the extreme, and relatively little balance.
Part of the problem is that a relationship becomes the excuse for self-esteem. And this is supported by society, some places more than others: something “is wrong” if the person does not “have a relationship,” and it’s really easy to take that on — and challenging to hold one’s space, in or out of “a relationship.”
“There are lots of grooves without a life of codependncy and projection.”
Eric, I think what is missing in this world are examples of 2 people being *devoted* to each other. Spending their lives seeing not just to their own growth and expression, but also to the other person’s health, well-being and happiness. Helping that person become all they are meant to be.
Devotion is not co-dependency and projection. Devotion is Love in Action.
Eric, thank you for that Gestalt Prayer and your further elaborations.
Dawn, I always love how you talk about the Man’s side things, and Woman’s too of course.
Dawn, here is a point of view that I would describe as a second cousin of my own. I am someone who is deeply devoted to the experience of commitment and dependability, which Fritz Perls does not touch below. I believe in expectations — grounded ones. I believe he is talking about ungrounded expectations. Anyway — here is the Gestalt Prayer, which is a therapeutic tool.
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.
(Fritz Perls, “Gestalt Therapy Verbatim”, 1969)
Wikipedia’s editors write: The key idea of the statement is the focus on living in response to one’s own needs, without projecting onto or taking introjects from others. It also expresses the idea that it is by fulfilling their own needs that people can help others do the same and create space for genuine contact; that is, when they “find each other, it’s beautiful.”
My comment is based more on observations of casual conversation than “romantic conversation.” Unless of course so many woman feel a need to announce their supposed lack of availability in the first five minutes of talking to me. I think it’s more about who they think they are, and the extent to which “being a person” is equated with being in “a relationship.”
To a real extent, anyone’s fear of losing their independence in “a relationship” (I use quotes, because everything is a relationship; I mean the Special Relationship) is grounded, because there are not widely-known or understood models of relationship that support our barely-extant notion of an individuated person.
And to a real extent, the “taken” phenomenon is overrated. I have tracked the story-arcs of many of the models I’ve photographed. They can be Little Miss Boyfriend one day, and announce “I’m going to New Orleans because I met this guy” the next day. These have one thing in common, which is an identity based on that of a man.
Many women have a difficult time with me because I don’t get into that groove. I am myself and I fully expect everyone I meet to be themselves. It’s possible to have a great time with someone without losing yourself in that person. There are lots of grooves without a life of codependncy and projection.
I think that De Beauvoir has a good point, and I would love to hear from anyone who has actually read this book and is familiar with her approach. De Beauvoir’s theory was what I wanted to offer, and I think that she is a worthy philosophical source who meant what she said down to her last blood cell. Her intent was the freedom of women from so much that is whined about and so rarely addressed in a bold, conscious and sincere way.
There is tremendous responsibility in independence, and that cusp of actually discovering oneself outside of a relationship can feel extremely daring and even dangerous. It’s like being near a cliff, not knowing exactly where the edge is. Self-discovery puts us into unfamiliar territory. I have observed that this is terrifying to many, and appealing to a few.
“You cannot be on equal terms with a man who is “your whole life.” Feminism is about men and women relating to one another as individuals, and a relationship is a meeting — not a merger.”
So cynical. And why not a merger? So long as the woman is everything to that man, as well, then they are equally invested in that relationship, and are equals to each other. And yes, some men are not only capable of, but desiring, deep emotional attachment, having learned how fulfilling it can be.
Any inequality between man and woman, within a relationship, comes from having diverse expectations and desire for depth, as well as not accepting that a relationship needs to be worked at, as people evolve and grow.
Men, can, in general, desire to work more on their careers (thinking that will provide Joy, Satisfaction and Contentment) than their relationships, and are surprised they can end up alone, once their women get tired of being the ones giving the most, and getting his leftovers of time and attention.
SPLINTER ALERT:
Hurricane Sandy is:
Weather Manipulation
Climate Change
Resist the urge to take up sides. Both sides are valid and if they start fighting each other…well, divide and conquer.
== Holiday — “climate change,” meaning global warming, is weather manipulation. They are the same thing, particularly now that global warming is an intentional act. –efc
jinspace, wow. You just spoke all the words that have been pent up inside my brain this whole year. Thank you. I know diddly squat about relationships. I’ve had very few, but I’m still pretty young. I’ve also had a life where I was either hijacked by my parents or hunkered down in a creative cave of sorts for many years. So I think I have a predisposition to the fear of losing my independence. I have an outstanding gut though, and although I continue to work through this, I also know when I feel relaxed with a woman. More often that means that she allows me to be me – one or two beautiful woman in particular come to mind. Its rare. And then I allow her to be her. Then its okay. The past few years have been hard as, first and foremost, I am the source of my own happiness and stability. Softening my attitude to allow relationship while retaining my grounded awareness is not particularly easy esp when I need to surrender. I have learned to wait, to gain trust, to make an emotional connection, to – yes – really enjoy her company. But of course I don’t tell her this! But if I reach for a book at the book store, trust me, I don’t care about the book. I’m feeling her beside me, gently wanting to know more about me.
As far as women saying they have boyfriends in the first five minutes, well, sometimes. Dudes are equally at fault for dwelling on rather superficial disclaimers. I think we say a lot of weird things in general to each other. I also think that you have a point Eric about seeing more women in relationships that don’t need to be. Its probably because I’m a guy wondering why in the hell she fell for such a slob. Most of my female friends admit to wanting the nice dude who is mature and confident in his life, then promptly run after the ass who is great at fucking.
It’s important in the context of such discussions to rely on demographic reality tells us, rather than personal (and possibly outdated) assumptions based on anecdotal evidence. From Mother Jones Magazine:
“More than half of all adults—100 million or so—are currently single; about 1 in 7, or around 31 million, are living alone. In Manhattan and Washington, DC, single people make up half of all households. Nationwide, single people now outnumber nuclear families…
The typical American now spends most of his or her adult life unmarried and living alone. The impacts of this unprecedented change can be seen in everything from the battles over gay marriage and contraception to trends in child rearing and suburban architecture.”
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/02/eric-klinenberg-going-solo-singles
Times change, and with them, the degree of primacy relationships hold for women — and men — today.
“For every woman who may yearn for a boyfriend, there’s a man who’s afraid he’ll somehow lose his independence in a relationship, even if he does find someone whose company he truly enjoys.”
What jinspace said; I have seen that too.
“…I can tell you that I know very few women who don’t have to be in a relationship, all the time. Men in the audience: how often do you talk to a women when the word “boyfriend” doesn’t come out in the first five minutes?”
Eric – Maybe that’s just the kind of women you’re drawn to? It’s not the rule.
In my experience, men get themselves plenty twisted up in knots with the ‘relationship’ theme, too. They just come at it from a different angle. And they project an awful lot of their own relationship anxiety on women. For every woman who may yearn for a boyfriend, there’s a man who’s afraid he’ll somehow lose his independence in a relationship, even if he does find someone whose company he truly enjoys. Couldn’t that be because he also hasn’t learned how to strike a balance? Or that he’s just as afraid of his own emotional vulnerability, but wearing it differently?
That’s not the thinking of a man who’s been “raised to accept relationships as an aspect of life,” and yet it’s all around. I don’t think it’s accurate to pin the notion of relationship anxiety solely on women.
Holy f*ck this issue was dense and chewy. Eric’s Info-Meal. I’m having digestive time displacement. A cup of tea, a few thousand mantras, I’ll be back. I have comments and questions. But not now. Dear informative gawds, not f*cking now.
ooooohhhh-mmmmmm
Well done Carecare. Well done! Your daughters are lucky to have such informed and loving role models.
Eric-
Yes, most women seem to be that way but the young adult women (ages 18 to early 20’s) show some promise. Yes, too many of them still see it that way and pair up as early as their teens but more and more of them are thinking in terms of their lives as people with something to contribute; relationships are not the focus for them. This is a trend I want to encourage. Though I was raised to think of myself in terms of relationships, my husband and I didn’t raise our kids that way. Despite being a very outwardly seeming traditional nuclear family with me as stay-at-home wife and mother and my husband as breadwinner, we taught our kids that our way of living is not for everyone and certainly not normative. Instead we exposed them to all kinds of people which helped them see that we approved of these people and that we see them as normal.
Having three daughters in college (ages 20, 20, and 17) allows me to know a bit of what they are thinking and doing (and what they say their female friends are thinking and doing). It makes me hopeful.
“This looks like Mercury changing directions is questioning the extreme beliefs of Mars.”
I would hope this translates into a sea-change of ideology that involves questioning and moving away from the warmongering (Mars being the god of war) we have lived under for so long. The military industrial complex (sounds like a Mars [military]-Capricorn [government and big corporations] type of thing) has been in control too long; time for a change.
Carrie, I don’t know about kids — I don’t socialize with them — but I can tell you that I know very few women who don’t have to be in a relationship, all the time.
Men in the audience: how often do you talk to a women when the word “boyfriend” doesn’t come out in the first five minutes?
“Why did Obama sign this?”
Obama is a child of the Assassination Generation; every kid alive during the 60’s will always remember that the gnosis gets killed; the Kennedy’s, MLK, Malcolm X. Obama KNOWS who his masters are just as every president since JFK has known. Cheney’s cryptic remarks prior to Obama’s inauguration were not cyrptic; they were truth in plain sight. Add to all that the fact that Obama has had more death threats to him and his family (based a lot on racism) than most presidents have had and you can see exactly why he did it; he wants his wife and kids safe and for them to have a husband and father.
As a fellow Assassination Generation member, (I didn’t get that label anywhere; I started calling my generation that years ago), I understand him signing it and maybe that’s why so many people act as though it is ordinary “business as usual.” Maybe we expected this kind of action because many of us would probably feel compelled (for the same reasons he may have felt compelled) to sign it.
I disagree that women are still being raised to think that relationship is their whole life; the younger kids now are not acting like or saying that as much as even my generation was. My daughters are very split; one does want a relationship (with marriage and kids) but the other two eschew that relationship stuff saying it will get in the way of what they want to do in life. They both feel relationships are optional and not at all what they are destined for. They tell me several of their female friends are acting and saying the same things. To them, their lives are about what they want to do or accomplish and where they want to direct their energies; not defined by relationships or lack thereof.
To me, their thinking is a huge improvement on the way I was raised (thinking relationships are my whole life). My husband and I encourage them (and their more traditional sister) in their choices.
Regarding election results, the delivery of absentee ballots – especially those arriving from overseas – has also been slowed down because of the hurricane. I wonder whether extra time – and how much – will be allotted for those.
Excellent newsletter today, Eric. Thank you.
Another corker of an edition – wonderful, on every level. Thanks so much, Eric and team.
Simone de Beauvoir explains this in The Second Sex. In a nutshell, she says that women are raised to think that their relationship is their whole life. Men are raised to think that their relationship is an aspect of their life.
This may be the core idea of the entire Second Sex approach to understanding women, and therefore, laying the ground of feminism. You cannot be on equal terms with a man who is “your whole life.” Feminism is about men and women relating to one another as individuals, and a relationship is a meeting — not a merger.
Yet if someone does not have experience individuating, if this is not a life goal, or if it’s the thing that you resist the most, then it’s nearly impossible to do.
I highly recommend reading The Second Sex for any woman who is curious why she and her fellow women don’t seem to be fully recognized by society, or by one another, as actual people.
“Why did Obama sign this?” You pointed out why just the other day, Eric – Damocles.
Noting the traditional pose. He’s facing forward, she’s leaning in towards him, holding him, but he’s not holding her, he’s holding himself.