Maggie West

Still Unequal in Pennsylvania

    Offended? Few things offend me. My anger rears its ugly head when someone disrespects our elders; as I watch inconsiderate cell-dweebs on the road, or at a counter expecting fast service; and listening to arguments in which one person, driven solely by emotion, has no basis for his opinion. There are a handful of things that bring my ire to the surface, affront me, or that I resent; whether or not someone pays for my dinner isn’t among them.
     My husband and I are blessed with visitors from time to time. Some are relatives. Some are not. Before each visit, we discuss any excursions, or activities. If we venture out for the “wastes and tastes” of our town, it’s because we have the funds to do so. If not, we entertain at home, and prepare meals that surpass the quality of most restaurants -- all made by my better-than-the-average-chef spouse. One of the determinants, however, is not our friend’s or family member’s earning potential, or stroke of monetary luck; winning the lottery, inheriting a family fortune, or finding gold in the Adirondack Mountains (yes, this is sarcasm). In other words, how much money he, she, or them possess makes no difference to us.
     One of our visitors may offer to take us out to dinner, and that’s okay. We aren’t expecting it, though. That anyone does is rather disconcerting.
     I asked a few people, which I see on a weekly basis, how they’d react in a similar situation. Andrew Browning’s sister’s finances exceed his own, yet, he finds it rather disturbing that someone assumes she should pay more, or end up with the bill, because of it. Taylor Price has a younger brother who, in all likelihood, will someday make more money. These extra green-backs won’t change his paying for a night out on the town. It may, on occasion, have them enjoying each other’s company in a simpler setting. That’s a good thing. Isn’t it? In my humble opinion, more memorable moments are made from less expenditure, not costly settings. To prove my point, I invite the reader to think back to the fondest of memories.
     Continuing…Jeremy Vester and Neil Franklin are both more financially-set than their siblings. Hence, they haven’t experienced Unequal’s situation. Neither, however, becomes offended if a wealthier guest foregoes paying for dinner during an extended stay.
     Then, there’s Karen Ankner who responded to my posting the previous blog on our Facebook page:

     “It is pretty telling that he referred to himself as ‘Unequal.’ He needs to let go of whatever resentment he has toward his sister. I don’t think it has much to do with whether or not she bought him a meal. I agree that the advice was really bad too I never read [Dear] Abby anymore, but whoever took over is not very good if this is a typical example. I stick to Dan Savage for sheer entertainment and shock value. People ask that guy some crazy shit and his answers are great.”

     So, with my faith in humanity somewhat restored, I end this post. There are others who think as I think: who know the true meaning of hospitality, who know that generosity is not withheld due to monetary gain, and who know how to truly be a host.
     Now, how to tackle rudeness toward our elderly; cell-phone freaks who air their dirty laundry within earshot, block the grocery store aisle, and lengthen our wait at many a traffic light; and the un-neighborly neighbors just to name few.
     Stay tuned…

Unequal in Pennsylvania

This is one of the “Dear Abby” dilemmas answered in Sunday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

 DEAR ABBY: “My sister and her husband are well-to-do and cheap. They recently invited themselves to stay three nights in our snowbird condo on their way to a vacation in the Caribbean. My wife and I hosted them, and during their stay we went out twice for dinner. I am offended that they didn’t show appreciation for our hospitality by at least taking us to dinner once. I have wanted to confront my sister about my feelings, but my wife has vehemently told me I shouldn’t. What would you suggest?” ~Unequal in Pennsylvania

DEAR UNEQUAL: “I see two ways of dealing with this. Keep your mouth shut, avoid confrontation and the next time your sister tells you she’s coming for a visit roll up the welcome mat saying you already have other plans. Or, tell your sister how you feel.

Personally, I think it would be healthier to express your feelings, because your sister’s and her husband’s behavior was rude. It shows that because people have money doesn’t necessarily mean they have class.”

 My turn…

 First, let’s tackle one part of the first sentence: “Well-to-do and cheap.” One feels the angst and jealousy in that phrase alone. The writer could’ve chosen many alternatives: Affluent, prosperous, or comfortable; economical, frugal, or economizing. But he didn’t.

Second, how does someone invite themselves to stay for three nights; especially if she’s family? This automatically has the reader thinking “Shouldn’t you know her by now?” If her behavior(s) bother him so much, where was the “Not this time, sis,” “This isn’t a good time,” or “Are the hotels all booked?” response? Okay, the last one was my poor attempt at humor. But it’s his sister for Pete’s sake.

Thirdly, in the second sentence, he writes, “our snowbird condo,” not “our place” or “our home.” Perhaps this is his way of showing the reader he has assets of his own. Whatever the case may be, I call it dick-waving: “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” mentality.

My favorite was the “show appreciation for our hospitality” portion of the piece. My first thought was “Does he even know the definition of the word hospitality?” Let’s refresh his memory, shall we? These definitions are taken from the American Heritage Dictionary: “Hospitality, the act or practice of or a tendency toward being hospitable. Hospitable, welcoming guests with warmth and generosity…Having an open and charitable mind; receptive.” Therefore, I ask “What hospitality?” Where’s the warmth? Where’s the generosity? Is one of the conditions for showing either of these the amount of money someone has, the number of material things she owns, or how many vacations she takes? Not to my mind. It’s not in the definition, either.

Finally, he signs the letter “Unequal in Pennsylvania.” If we weren’t certain about his need to measure up, or measure out, before, this seals it. What is this need to be equal? And who measures it? I know people who have very little financially, but are rich beyond compare in their relationships and family. This, above all other terms mentioned, is subjective.

I don’t know about “Dear Abby,” but my advice to the writer is that mentioning his feelings to his sister would most certainly stop any future visits and drive a wedge into their relationship for years to come. Additionally, he may want to schedule a few sessions with a psychologist or a psychiatrist in the hopes of resolving his jealousy and gauging issues.

In all probability, his sister is at home beforehand discussing the visit and her brother's awkward behavior to her spouse: “But honey, he’s my brother. We should visit. It won’t be for long.” After all, our body language and mannerisms reveal our thoughts long before our mouths do. Right? Of course right.

It’s food for thought at any rate.

Please, take a minute to tell me your thoughts in a comment below.

 NOTE: I plan to follow up this piece with on-the-street interviews around the Atlanta area. Let’s see if others feel the same way this man does. 

 

My Opinion of Dear Abby's "Wary in Minnesota"

Between writing for the local paper and Examiner.com, I had little time in the past year to print anything here. i will attempt to remedy this in the future.

In the meantime, though, you're all invited to visit my latest installment of "The NEW Dear Abby vs the ORIGINAL Maggie West," which I wrote for Examiner.com, and leave any suggestions or comments on here or there.

Your feedback is rather important to me.

Until later...

Loving The Single Life

"DEAR ABBY: I was widowed three years ago at age 40. A previous decade-long marriage ended in an amicable divorce. Since my husband's death, I have been engaged twice but have broken off both relationships for sound reasons. My most recent engagement was to a man who turned out not only to be manipulative and controlling, but also had an undisclosed mental illness.

Is it normal not to want another relationship? I'm enjoying the time and freedom to pursue my hobbies and friendships. Most men my age seem to have more emotional or financial baggage than I want to take on. Am I on the rebound, in denial, or just self-fulfilled?

LOVING THE SINGLE LIFE

DEAR LOVING: You do not appear to be either on the rebound or in denial. You appear to be grateful for the good things in your life and in no hurry to encumber yourself. Those are attractive traits, and one of these days you will meet someone who recognizes it."

Now, it's my turn.

Before I start, let me just say that I have read this "little gem" to six other people (so far); without reading the "New" Dear Abby's answer. What stands out for each of us, in the query as a whole, is the inherent irony of the nom de plum: Loving The Single Life. What single life?

Prefacing the question, this woman admits to having two engagements, since her husband's death, that ended "for sound reasons." She then mentions her most recent engagement: Is that the third? In three years?

So, again, I ask: What "single life"?

Engagement: That which implies commitment, devotion, and loyalty. Not "single." Dating may, to some extent, imply single – single and searching, curious, interested. Any or all, pick one. But engagement refers to a commitment. My experience in this matter leads me to believe that if one commits that often, he or she is troubled by being alone and seeks out one partner after another: Bouncing the ball.

In the many conversations I have had with men and women who have revealed similar behavioral patterns, most have ultimately disclosed this "alone syndrome" as the culprit in the many relationship miscalculations and/or poor judgments made.

In these cases, the need to be with someone – all the time – is great.

This pattern, these repeated cycles of commitment to various individuals, without leaving ourselves any breathing room, is a sign that we find it difficult to break free – to be alone.

We must do a little personal "soul-searching" to determine why; or even how to break these cycles.

Continuing with the content of the piece written last weekend…

Let us now discuss another perplexing matter.

This woman admits to ending two engagements for "sound reasons," and another for an "undisclosed mental illness." First, consider this: This very paragraph led me to believe that her three engagements occurred in the three years following her second husband's death. Second, the vagueness, the generality, to me, demonstrates that these "reasons" were, in all likelihood, behavioral quirks rather than mental illnesses.

Think about it.

In how many discussions with friends, or relatives, have we heard what's wrong with their relationships, or reasons for their breaking ups, without getting an earful of particulars? None? We usually hear all the gory details. Do we not?

There are many times that I often speculate our reason for airing these troubles is to shift the blame onto our counterparts. We want ourselves to emerge as the "better" half in our relationship dilemmas or breakups. So, we "let loose" with a barrage of the sordid details and adverse circumstances of our affairs.

We might also intend to cover-up our own blunders; our own deceit; our own dishonesty.

Now take these conditions and suppose we write to a newspaper, or magazine, about our relationship quandary – anonymously: No real names are used; no one will ever know who wrote it. Wouldn't we become extremely detail oriented? Almost certainly.

Yet here, of all places, the exact reasons are omitted.

Admittedly, the newspaper might have opted to exclude this – and other – information. This has crossed my mind. But, this comes from my "never believe everything you read (or see on television, for that matter)" mentality. Usually, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and is rarely spoken (or written) by either party: "Every story has thirteen sides," as a journalist friend of mine often says.

Lies on one side of an issue; lies from the opposing point of view; one must sift through the dirt to find the gem: The truth.

But I'm digressing…a little.

Let us move forward with the behavioral quirks vs. mental illnesses clause I mentioned earlier.

Anxiety is a mental illness. There are certain levels of depression and stress disorders that are categorized as mental illnesses as well. These are described as neuroses.

A better explanation in given on www.minddisorders.com:

"Neurosis is a term generally used to describe a non psychotic mental illness, which triggers feelings of distress and anxiety…"

How many of us know people who suffer from such angst, distress, or depression? How many of us are classified with one, or two, of them ourselves?

Yet, we are still able to function. We are still able to live, and love. Are we not?

My question, then, is: What sort of mental illness did this man have?

Instead, perhaps, this woman may have become largely dismayed by this man's behavioral quirks. Anger, clinginess, distrust, infidelity, jealousy, and obsessions, among others, fall into this category. Possibly, it was the recognition of other traits: Slobbishness (My word: Rhymes with snobbishness, which can also be mentioned.); laziness. Perhaps he's headstrong, weak, or the "couch potato" type.

At this time, I must reintroduce the concept of dating.

It is, for the lack of a better description, when two people experiment having a relationship with one another. Each one attempts to establish whether or not the other possesses the characteristics and traits required for the "long haul:" A lifetime of discovery. If this is not the case, rounding up a few more dating candidates may be in order. Trial and error, folks: Trial and error is the name of the game.

One keeps the "contract" in escrow for a time, as it were. This is the purpose of dating.

Have we forgotten the significance behind being engaged? Have we lost the meaning of commitment?

When committing to one another, we are essentially saying we want to spend the rest of our lives with someone. We'll take him or her with all of his or her assets, faults, and weaknesses. If we are unsure about, or question, this obligation, we should by no means become engaged.

Hence, as I see it, this woman is, indeed, in some sort of denial or rebound. And, most definitely, she has not given herself enough alone time to figure what she really needs, or wants. I am, however, not a psychologist. I am merely someone who has researched relationship problems for six years. So, this advice stems from my years of hearing similar issues.

This woman may want to seek a professional opinion – it couldn't hurt.

Found My Soul Mate

"It's called an addiction, Maggie."

"Don't look at it."

"Don't pick it up."

I must have said these things at least a hundred times to myself last Saturday, as I casually walked by the newspaper on the kitchen table. One disagreement is all it took, apparently, to become addicted to this new source of relationship material. By Sunday evening, the urge to search through the Living section of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution was too great: I couldn't wait any longer. I grabbed the stack of papers from under the end table, in the den, where the Saturday paper had been placed, and began my search. It didn't take long to find it: Section E, page two.

"DEAR ABBY: 'Brent' and I have been friends since grammar school. We always had chemistry, so at 18 we started dating. After three months, I broke it off because it didn't feel right.

We're now 21 and ran into each other recently. All the feelings I had for him came flooding back and he said he felt the same way. Only one thing is holding me back. I've heard the phrase, 'An ex is an ex for a reason.'

FOUND MY SOUL MATE

DEAR FOUND MY SOUL MATE: Sometimes there's a kernel of truth in clichés. It's important for you and Brent to examine what went wrong the first time before becoming involved. It could save one or both of you from getting hurt."

In my opinion, there is a marked difference between the ages of 18 and 21. Isn't it likely that at the age of eighteen, one is leaving their "childhood" friends behind and entering the "the big cruel world" alone? And alone does not mean without friends and acquaintances: It simply means we begin making some of our own choices; our own decisions. Therefore, at twenty-one, isn't it just as likely that one has muddled through some adult adventures as captain of his or her own ship? Enter…some degree of maturity. At this age, we begin to develop our own personal preferences. We begin to discover our personal flaws and weaknesses: A little self-awareness, so to speak (Or, at least, I would like to think so. Self-awareness can be difficult for some.).

As a result, we recognize quite a few of our adolescent beliefs as misconceptions as we age – as we mature.

So it stands to reason, then, that what we look for, need, or want in relationships can also shift, or change, with time. As we mature, so do our idealistic notions.

Examining what went wrong the first time in a "second time around" relationship is good advice, but my guess is that whatever it was, it is no longer an issue. I'll even go so far as to surmise that this time around it has already lasted more than three months and that it's nothing like the last time. It's hundred times better – isn't it? My guess comes from two facts: One, referring to someone as a soul mate usually takes longer; and two, one doesn't usually ask relationship longevity questions during a short courtship.

Proceeding with caution, questioning one's feelings for another and the desire to hold onto a good "thing" (relationship) forever are all human qualities. Most people feel the exact same way as they take the "plunge."

Living is a risk.

Every step is a risk. Walking out the front door, each morning, is a risk. Driving down any street, in any town, is a risk. Who knows what will happen from one day to the next? Hence, a new relationship is just as risky – even more so – due to the fact that in its making, our hearts could be lost, our lives changed, and our emotions taken for granted.

But, with whom would one rather take that risk: With an old, yet familiar, acquaintance, or someone new? Each implies a certain amount of risk. Each could also bring years of happiness and joy. That's the funny thing about love – one never knows.

Stating the phrase, "An ex is an ex for a reason" is perhaps a way to maneuver around the "flood" that has unexpectedly happened.

I can state many other phrases – just as meaningless.

(Quoted from memory)
"What's good for the goose may not be good for the gander."
"Never look a gift horse in the mouth."
"Throw caution to the wind."
"Love is temporary insanity."
"Love is a choice that you make from moment to moment."
"The heart has its reasons, which reason knows not of."

Why are they meaningless?

When love comes knocking at one's door; the cute, little phrases derived from the experiences of others can not match the force of the current that pushes ever forward.

These phrases are as meaningful or meaningless as we wish them to be. I agree with most for the record.

We can choose to ignore our feelings, our hearts, or our minds. But it is usually to no avail. Once "love" has pierced our skin, there's no going back.

I have witnessed many relationships where two people have found each other again and made it last 'til the end of their days. I have also observed those who have tried time and time again to make their relationships work, only to have them end in agony and despair.

There's no definitive answer to the question. "An ex is an ex for a reason" was, in all likelihood, noted by those who have been caught up in the latter situation mentioned above.

There's always that risk.

I will end this piece with one more phrase:

"Nothing in life is guaranteed."

It has taken me years to realize this one "small" fact.

Anything can happen: Accidents, adultery, death, financial despair, various pressures and demands, or serious medical illness. Any one of these things could wreak havoc on a relationship.

So, why worry about clichés?

There are so many other things that will cross one's path through life. And there is no escaping them.

The answer, to me, should be to give love every opportunity to survive: Work hard, love wholeheartedly, and never give up – never surrender. The rewards are endless. And the future can be very bright for those who have the courage, the understanding, and wisdom to accept, cherish, and give love.

IN LOVE in New Jersey

Anyone who has read the “relationship issues” category on my website, knows that I can be a bit outspoken at times. What am I saying? Make that most of the time.

And this is no exception.

Saturday morning, June 14^th, as I’m having a peaceful moment, drinking my morning “pick me up” at the kitchen table, my better-half reads the “Dear Abby” section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution – out loud.

It’s a good thing we have placemats: I nearly dropped the cup from my hand, and sprayed my “little country bumpkin” with java (Too cutesy for the proprietor of Green Hell? Oh, well. This is my blog, not his.).

This is what he read:

“Dear Abby: I have been dating a wonderful man for a year. We love each other – no question about that – but when I tell him, he never responds. He says he doesn’t know what that means. He asked me to explain the difference between loving someone and being in love. He says it doesn’t make sense to him. Please help me explain what it means to be in love. I need to know that he’s in love with me, not that he just loves me.

IN LOVE

New Jersey”

Ah, now here’s the spewing coffee portion:

“Dear In Love: If you have to explain to this wonderful man what it means to be in love, then I’m sorry to be the one to tell you he may not BE in love with you. While it’s possible for a man or woman to “love” many people (and cats, and pizza, and shiny cars), when someone is IN love, then only the object of that emotion will satisfy him or her. There is nothing unsure or doubtful about it, and no substitute will suffice.”

After exchanged looks of amazement, and a simultaneous “What the…?” my intelligent, redneck counterpart (An oxymoron? One is inclined to believe such a thing. But not in this case – I assure you.) hands me the page: Knowing all too well how I intend to use it.

So, here I sit in front of my instrument of rebuttal, coffee in hand, and a grimace on my face. This time, the keys are aimed at The Journal and their New Dear Abby who is obviously green when it comes to matters of the heart. 

Let’s reread In Love’s query one more time, slowly. Shall we?

“I have been dating a wonderful man for a year.”

Two crucial pieces of information are stated in this first line. One; she describes him as wonderful, and two; they have made their relationship work for a year – twelve months. In this day and age, that’s a substantial amount of time. Nowadays, people throw in the towel as soon as one bead of sweat forms on their brows. Not this young lady. Her relationship is still going strong. How do I know? She describes him as wonderful. Ah, the power of a quick wit.

“We love each other – no question about that – but when I tell him, he never responds.”

Here, the young lady has unequivocally stated the love that is present in this particular relationship. There is no reason to doubt her. Were she dissatisfied with how it has progressed, she’d mention it – right? She does, however, affirm that her love interest has an issue with verbalizing his love for her. Notice, I use the word “verbalize:” Because, clearly, he has no problem expressing it.

The article does not mention the couples’ ages, and this information would be useful in narrowing the reasons for such a situation: So would a little “history” on the young man. Nonetheless, let us move forward.

This man may have verbalized his sentiments many times in the past, in many relationships, only to witness each pairing “crash and burn” for his efforts. Or, perhaps, he is too young to have had these experiences, but has observed an overabundance of bad endings to other relationships. Could it be that his mother has been married multiple times, and he’s heard “I love you” spoken by her so many times that it makes him want to puke? Is it also possible, then, that he’s been the “shoulder to cry on” for friends and relations, hearing them verbalize their agony through statements such as: “I told her I loved her every day, and she still left me,” “I said I loved her, like she wanted me to, and the next day, she wouldn’t even answer my calls,” or “I will never tell a girl I love her again”?

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard these “expressions of love,” I’d be a rich woman.

The final point I wish to make regarding this portion of the query is that, in my experience, it takes men much longer than women to verbalize any affection. They’re more cautious, and rightfully so: Women can be erratic, fickle, and in some cases, psycho (I know I am – ask that intelligent redneck I mentioned earlier). 

“He says he doesn’t know what that means. He asked me to explain the difference between loving someone and being in love.”

For the previously stated reasons, he may have lost what “being in love” really means, or perhaps, he is truly questioning its meaning. In either case, I believe he has asked a very good question. Today, “I love you” is wielded like a magic sword: In hopes that the power of using it will transform a casual date into a lifelong proposition. No one questions its true existence, its principles, or even its validity. We just accept it when it’s thrust in our direction. Possibly because it is what we want to hear: Someone loves us, someone has finally said those three little words to me.

Others walk around, after receiving the “blow,” with an imaginary “merit badge” displayed on their chest: Another successful conquest. Love isn’t a battle to be won or even a status symbol. So, why do some of us treat it as such? The reader’s guess is as good as mine.

Now allow me to throw a “wrench” into this scenario: What if he merely wants to know if she knows what being “in love” means, or what she believes it is? It may ease his mind knowing that her love is real, and that their love has “a future.” Hmmm, it’s just another thought that popped into my head.

The reasons why this man may need an explanation are veritably numerous. 

“He says it doesn’t make sense to him.”

It often doesn’t make sense to me, either. And I am constantly involved with the “makings” and endings of many a relationship. Sitting next to a gathering of women as they talk about their relationships; listening to their conversations of “being in love” is mind boggling, at best, and very confusing to most of us. Is this not true?

“Please help me explain what it means to be in love. I need to know that he’s in love with me, not that he just loves me.”

First and foremost, let me say that I admire this woman for her inquisitiveness. It’s refreshing. Searching for answers to any relationship issue is noteworthy: Most give up without showing an interest in any answers, causes, or motives. She could have jumped ship, months ago. But she didn’t. Too often, I see the damage caused by rough currents. It’s refreshing to know there are still those who are willing to “work” at their relationships – it’s definitely hard work. It does, however, have its rewards.

Second, that he loves you is a big deal. It’s a start. Loving someone, caring about him or her, looking out for his or her well-being is, in my opinion, a better way to start a relationship than jumping right into “being in love” mode.

Remember, it may take a while for Cupid’s arrow to penetrate the armor that some men have chosen to wear, but ultimately, it does happen. And in these cases (thick armor), more often than not, it pierces the heart with great passion and vigor – a great love is born.

Let him take his time: The relationship will be a much stronger one because of it.

And thirdly, I can express what I think “being in love” means, and hopefully, it will help. Note, however, that everyone has his or her own meaning(s) attached to this phrase. So, when asking this question, one could receive numerous and various responses.

A small survey, which asked, “What do you believe is the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone?” and taken this afternoon, revealed these answers:  

“A special state of being.”

“A different thought that goes along with the same emotion.”

“That feeling that you can not be without this person. He/She means everything to you.”

“Having an intimate connection.”

“A natural chemistry. The honeymoon stage of love.”

“Passion. Commitment. Obsession.”

“Giving the control of your emotions to someone else.”

“Being in love is a choice.”

“You want to be around someone 24/7.”

“You’re not in love with someone that you can let go.”

“There is only one special person for you to spend your life with, that’s being in love.”

“A bonding, sexual experience. Something you don’t have when you just love someone.”

“When you’re in love, you give your heart and soul to someone.”

“ ‘In love’ has a physical attraction attached to it.”

“Being in love goes above and beyond just plain loving someone.”

Still think the man in question doesn’t need an explanation?

As I stated in a previous post, “Love is the eternal question.”

And unlike the “New” Dear Abby professes: Uncertainty and doubt surround every relationship at one time or another.

To be sure, there are many levels to love, different phases that occur; there are many types; but only one fills the peculiarly shaped void in one’s heart. For some reason, no other kind of love fits this space. It is a love that surpasses all others in adoration, admiration, closeness, commitment, devotion, faithfulness, passion, and trust. Without it “something” is always missing. And with it, a “new world” is discovered.

This love brings two people together as one body, one mind, and one spirit – for life: A common purpose.

It is mentally, as well as physically, fulfilling.

It is a one-of-a-kind experience.

It is pure, and unrivaled by any other love.

It is as old as time.

Optimistically, I have given the information that I believe In Love should have received from the "New" Dear Abby. And just as optimistically, I hope this article makes its way to her, somehow. Heeding the advice given, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this past weekend, will surely steer her relationship into rough waters.

"That's female thinking. Nothing will get you into more trouble:" A quote from the 1953 version of Calamity Jane starring Doris Day. Miraculously found on www.script-o-rama.com. Thanks Drew.