Posts Tagged ‘happiness’

Setting limits for ourselves and our children

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

“Cut it smaller!” said our two-year-old daughter, DD2.

“Is this good?” asked the well-meaning, patient dad as he cut a slice of pepperoni in half.

“No, cut it smaller!” whined DD2.

“Even smaller… Like this?” asked dad as he cut the pepperoni into even tinier quarters.

“No, smaller, smaller!” whined DD2 with a higher and more annoying tone of voice.

“Honey, please stop. That’s small enough.” said I, the exasperated mom.

“But sweetheart, I read this article the other day that talked about listening to one’s kids…”

That article happens to be my previous post:)

Listening to our kids is very important but setting limits is equally important for us and our children. The dangers of listening and then doing as we are told are many. If we ever want to have a good (=peaceful, friendly, enjoyable, thougtful, honest, etc.) relationship with our children, it’s not going to happen if we only listen to them and do their bidding. Of course, we can listen and NOT do their bidding…

Listen or not to listen? The answer is simple: to listen. So that’s not the problem. To do or not to do as we are told by our children is the real problem. Fortunately, there IS a middle way, which is extremely difficult to reach. We will move from one extreme to another like a pendulum until we find that peaceful medium. This dance between the extremes and finding the balance is what I call the ‘art of parenting’.

What’s wrong with doing what we are told to do? Nothing. It’s a matter of choice and our choices are largely influenced by:

a) our character/personality;

b) our experiences with our own parents;

c) cultural influences;

d) our immediate mood.

I have seen a vast array of parents ranging from those who try to do everything for their children to those who are content observing their children.

We need to set aside all the factors that shape our choices and tune into ‘the moment of struggle’. Our kids are different; times are different; situations we find ourselves in are different. Even though there may be similarities, if we put everything together (person + time + place + event), we ALWAYS end up with a unique situation.

This does not mean that there are no guidelines for the parent to be a parent. After all, we ARE the parents—the grownups—and even though at times it seems like our kids DO run our lives and our household, we need to keep the following in mind.

1. A kid does not run the household.

Who cleans the house? Who does the grocery shopping, the laundry, the dishwashing, the ironing, the cooking, etc.? Who takes the kids to the doctor when they are sick? Who earns the money to pay for all the food, the clothing, the home, the games, the toys, the holidays, the techno gadgets? Yes, you guessed right. WE, the PARENTS do!!!

The parents are in charge and they are the ones taking care of the kids. We, as parents, already do a whole lot of stuff for our kids without them even asking for it! So chill, if you feel guilty you didn’t get the itouch that your kids wanted so badly from you. They will live.

2. Set YOUR limits.

Think of limits as a field of tall grass. The grass bows to the wind in order to keep its peaceful existence. A strong wind may flatten the grass as long as it lasts, but as soon as the wind is gone, the grass raises itself once more gracefully—unharmed. Our children are our wind: sometimes a breeze, sometimes a hurricane.

Planting a field of tall grass and then taking care of it so that it does not wither away are not easy tasks, but they’re important. It gives us—the parents—and our children a nice playing field.

Just like every child being unique, every parent is unique. Thus, every parent has a different idea of what kind of field they would like to plant: how big it will be, what kind of grass to plant, how often to trim the grass, etc.

We reach, what I call, our ‘boiling point’ when we neglect our field of grass and our dear wind starts to wreak havoc on our crops, i.e., when we let things slide and let our kids push our (their) limits. Our household starts brewing like a witch’s cauldron: we get frustrated and/or angry and scream at our children; in return they scream back at us; we wonder where we went wrong and how our dear little angels turned into such spoiled brats.

We need to set our own limits with our own children – not the neighbor’s limits. (We got these extremely cute polka-dotted wooden clogs for DD2. She loves thomping around the house in those clogs, but after about 5 minutes of tock-tock-tock-clickety-clock, I have enough. The first day, after 10 minutes of toleration, I blurted out inadvertently, “Sweetie, it’s too much noise for the neighbors. Take the clogs off.” My husband joined forces with me and our DD2 stomped even harder. Oops!!! Our household just reached the ‘boiling point’: she protested loudly, I got even more frustrated, my husband joined my frustration. First of all, why did I tell her about the neighbors? The neighbors had not complained—yet. It was I—the mama—who was annoyed! Who knows whether the neighbors were even at home or not? Maybe our neighbors’ noise tolerance is way more than 10 minutes… I don’t know! What I know is my own limit, but I was not paying attention to that until the noise was getting totally on my nerves and even then I had to use the neighbors as an excuse… The next morning, when DD2 headed towards her beloved clogs, my husband tried to create a new rule in the house and announced that the clogs were not to be worn inside because the noise could disturb the neighbors—again the not-yet-complaining neighbor’s limits were being enforced… Our pendulum just swung from 10 minute toleration to 0 minute toleration. Ding dong! You know what I mean? Our solution: let her walk around a bit—not more than 5 minutes!—and then tell her to walk barefoot. Limit set, kid happy, parents happy.)

One last note on setting limits: set your limits so that you still have enough patience or tolerance to deal with any setbacks the wind may blow in your direction.

3. Listen to yourself, listen to your kid.

Setting limits is a tricky business and you will discover that it is a process that keeps changing and evolving over time. Some limits will be discarded naturally whereas some may stick around and some will have to be changed.

A child’s growth rate is much faster than that of the parent’s, which presents an interesting challenge for the parent. Our job as a parent is to be one step ahead of the game if we don’t want to find ourselves in situations where we feel like we want to smack our kid.

The key to successfully managing our ever-changing interaction with our kid is to listen. Listen to our own inner child AND listen to our kids. Understand where everybody is coming from and come up with a win-win solution. This requires mindful thinking, patience, understanding, honesty, and good communication skills. Like I said, it is no small feat!

4. Preserve the dignity of every household member.

It is important to preserve the dignity of each and every household member when we are setting limits and protecting our boundaries. Even though children may seem ‘childish’ and behave as if they don’t understand any of the stuff that is happening, it is important we show them the respect that they deserve as human beings. And as parents, we are not to be our children’s slaves, but their guides and beacons in life. Make sure that you set your limits in a way that does not take away your dignity. This way your children will always respect you for being who you are.

Honolulu

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Mother considered that a moment, then got up, went to her wardrobe chest, and opened the bottom drawer. She rooted about inside, finally pulling out a carefully folded wrapping cloth. Sitting again, she unfolded it: it was a beautiful patchwork cloth with a green border enclosing a checkerboard of dozens of little rectangles and squares—red, yellow, gold, green, brown, blue, and black.

“You see these?” She pointed out a half dozen of the black rectangles, scattered randomly across the checkerboard. “I added these on the day my mother died, many years ago, because that was my mood that day. There is no pattern to where I placed them, as there is no sense to be made of death. One’s eye may not go to them first, but next to them the blues look bluer, the reds richer, the golds more brilliant. Without them the cloth is pretty, but without character or contrast.”

“Yes,” I said quietly. “I see.”

excerpt from Honolulu (2009) by Alan Brennert

When I read this, I felt the truth of these words reverberate deep in my bones.

Lately, I have been thinking about all the happiness wishes that we generously bestow upon each other on birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, etc. When I was pregnant, I wished for a happy, healthy baby with 10 fingers and 10 toes who would grow up with both parents in wealth and prosperity—and so did my friends and everybody else in my family. Who wishes it to be otherwise?

However, things are not always rosy in life.

There is nothing wrong with making a ‘good’ wish, but when it does not materialize… What does it mean? Did I not make a wish from the bottom of my heart? Or do I not deserve to be granted my wish? Or does God play dice with our lives?

When something ‘bad’ happens, then what? Am I being punished? Or were there not enough ‘good’ wishes made for me? Or was it my fault?

When I was agonizing over the unfortunate events that befell me, a friend of mine recommended a book to me: When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold S. Kushner. I was happy that somebody finally had an answer for me! And yes, I presume to be a ‘good’ person :-) Anyways, to cut a long story short, the book did not answer all of my questions. Since then, I have been grappling with this question and looking at other people’s lives…

And then, of course, there is all this new age stuff that talks about ‘Positive Thinking’ or the ‘Law of Attraction’. So in a way, I must have attracted all those unfortunate events because of my ‘faulty’, ‘negative’ thought patterns… Okay, I confess, maybe partly so :-)

But then, can someone explain to me all those innocent babies born into poverty or physical disability? Did their negative and faulty thoughts in the womb (or before the womb–if you believe in reincarnation) materialize when they were born???

In Alan Brennert’s book, when her mother explained to Jin (who was named ‘Regret’ at birth, because she was not a boy) why she put the black rectangles on the patchwork cloth, something hit home with me. That was it! This was a beautiful and poignant answer to my question. So, thank you Alan for putting it so eloquently!

Honolulu is the story of a Korean picture bride in the early 1900s. It is a story of oppressions: oppression of Korean women by their husbands and families, oppression of Koreans by the Japanese, oppression of immigrants and local Hawaiians by the White ‘masters’—called the “Big Five”.

Despite the dismal aspects of an oppressed life, Alan does a wonderful job of weaving a story of perseverance, endurance and hope.

That’s what life is about, I guess: The good and the bad together. Just like night and day, just like laughter and tears, just like birth and death, just like yin yang. Both good people and bad people get their share of good things and bad things in life.

If there were no darkness, we would never appreciate light. But then, it is the presence of light that makes darkness a ‘bad’ thing. Imagine if we all lived in the dark and never knew sunlight… Because we would not know otherwise, we would continue to live in darkness without seeking light. Now that I think about it, maybe that’s what happens with people who are depressed. Having been there and done that, I know how difficult it is to get out of that big, black hole. “What’s the point?” I used to ask myself, because I could not see any light.

Yet that is what life is about—with all its ups and downs. There is definitely thunder and rain sometimes, but also sunshine afterwards… And, I must say, even sunshine gets hot and boring if it lasts too long :-)

About this Emotional Life: Happiness/Intimacy

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

A friend of mine recommended this link at you-tube:

This Emotional Life: Happiness/Intimacy

Here is the text of what Elizabeth Gilbert says in the video for those of you who do not want to watch it.

“Schopenhauer a pessimistic philosopher had a theory of human relationships that was about porcupines and he used that as the metaphor. What he said was that in love and in relationship—whether that be with our families or spouses or friends—we are all of us on this earth because we are so uncomfortable with our emotions. We are, all of us, like porcupines who are out on a cold winter’s night. They get cold and they need to huddle together for warmth. They crave connection and they crave warmth, so they come together and then they prick each other (laugh!) because they have these horrible spines. And it’s painful and so in order to avoid the pain, they retreat and then they get cold, so they come together and then they get spined (laugh!), so they retreat. And they get cold, and they come together. And this dance of intimacy is what defines our relationships with everybody that we encounter. There is this need to be close that’s followed by this need to be separated in order to protect ourselves from the inevitable hurt that happens when you get too close. And Schopenhauer didn’t have much of a remedy for that. He didn’t think that that was ever really going to end. He sort of saw that as innate to our human nature. What he suggested was that that those who have learned how to generate their own warmth were able to keep the safest distance from the other porcupines (laugh!), which didn’t necessarily mean living a life of isolation. It just meant not impelling yourself on other people so that you could have that critical little space in which to be a little bit self-contained to create your own warmth, your own sense of your own humanity so that you could be close without being stabbed. The path to that is closest secret to happiness as anything I have ever learned.”

This piece of insight (also known as Hedgehog’s Dilemma) delivered by Elizabeth Gilbert has many people nodding their heads in approval. It’s not exactly a new insight. Like she points out in the beginning, it was originally Schopenhauer who first put the idea on the table.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy is famous for its pessimism and he was known for his sour temperament and selfishness among people. So it’s no wonder that a bitter, pessimistic guy comes up with a story like this…  Elizabeth quotes him and says that we are all uncomfortable with our emotions. If a guy like Schopenhauer was uncomfortable with his emotions, does that make all of us?

And then people buy the idea that we are uncomfortable with our emotions???

To be honest, when I first listened to her, it all made sense. But then I could not take it off of my mind. I kept mulling over it. Something was just not right! I went back and listened to her and I could not put my finger on it. But something was definitely not right. Here it goes…

She laughs really hard three times when she is delivering this little speech: 1) when she first talks about porcupines pricking each other, 2) when she talks about porcupines ‘spining’ each other for the second time, 3) when she talks about keeping the ‘safest distance from the other porcupines’.

What is so funny about porcupines/people hurting each other when they are actually trying to get close to each other? Why laugh every time she mentions being hurt? It just does not make sense. She is laughing at all of us who have had our share of hurtful relationships. How about her? Has she never been hurt? Or has she been hurt so badly that she has to make fun of it because if she doesn’t, she will start crying about it?

She is sending some serious mixed messages. Most of us don’t stop to think about what she has said. But the messages go somewhere into our subconscious and start to run their own little program in our intimate relationships:

  • Don’t get too close (to family members, to friends, etc.)—or else you will be pricked.
  • Don’t let anyone else get too close—or else they will ‘spine’ you.
  • Getting pricked is NOT nice, but if you do, then other people will laugh at you, because it’s so funny. Your pain will be somebody else’s pleasure.
  • Keep a safe distance from others (who are ‘supposed’ to be close to you) so that they won’t stab you.

Elizabeth talks about ‘the need to be close followed by the need to separate in order to protect ourselves from the inevitable hurt that follows from being too close.’ In all the psychology courses that I took, nowhere do I remember reading about these particular ‘needs’ having such a causal relationship. Porcupines also do not seem to possess such ‘needs’. Watch it, because there is nice brainwashing going on here backed by a totally fictional statement: The need to be close is followed by a need to separate–of course, followed by ‘inevitable’ hurt.

Especially her last sentence is full of conflicting messages: ‘Don’t impel yourself on other people, so you can have that critical little space …so that you can be close without being stabbed.’

  1. What the heck does this mean? I should not prick other people to have my own space? What about those people who prick ME and rob me of my own space? How do I keep those people at bay? And should I not prick back if I get pricked? Because if I don’t…sooner or later they will shish kebab me!
  2. Is she suggesting that being too close always warrants being stabbed? What does she mean by ‘being too close’? I feel as if she is trying to instill negative connotations to the concepts of intimacy and closeness: since when are intimacy and closeness regarded as ‘not so nice’? Or is her understanding of these concepts incomplete/biased/skewed?

And last but not the least, what problem does Elizabeth have with porcupines? She calls a porcupine’s spines ‘horrible’. But that’s what makes a porcupine a porcupine! The spines! It’s their trademark and the way they protect themselves in general. What’s so horrible about that? Are roses horrible, too, because they have thorns?

I also looked up porcupine behavior—just for the heck of it :-) Really interesting animals, but I could not find anything in reference to the ‘huddling-together-for-warmth-then-pricking’ behavior. All the searches pointed out to Schopenhauer’s story. Then I looked at hedgehogs, since this phenomenon is also known as the Hedgehog Dilemma. No mention of hedgehogs trying to cuddle for warmth and then pricking each other, either! I even looked up their mating behavior! Why? Well, because if these guys and gals really do ‘spine’ each other when they get ‘too close’, then they should be among the critically endangered species (or should have been wiped out from the face of the earth a long time ago together with the dinosaurs)! But they are not… In fact, hedgehogs seem to have a rather elaborate courting scheme!

Is there anyone out there who knows more about this ‘huddling-together-for-warmth-then-pricking’ behavior of hedgehogs/porcupines? If so, please enlighten me!

Where in the world did Schopenhauer get his idea from? Was he busy watching hedgehogs in Germany in the early 1800′s?

And if in fact these animals DO display such behavior, does that make it okay to apply the analogy to humans? “Porcupines are nocturnal herbivores. They eat plants, shrubs, leaves, and gnaw on animal bones to get salt.” Can we also use these facts as an analogy and compare it to humans? Oh, yes: they are herbivores, uuhmm… yeah, so must we also be??!!! :-)

Freud was also intrigued with porcupines. After his visit to America to observe a real porcupine, he was given a bronze model of a porcupine, which he kept on his table. What was special about this porcupine was the fact that it looked formidable—being metal and having spines. But if you actually dared to stroke it, you would see that the spines became musical strings! Thus the Porcupine Illusion! Just like this bronze porcupine, some people who look formidable and unapproachable from the outside can turn out to be very warm and friendly once we get to know them closely. If we take Elizabeth’s words to heart, we will never get close to these kind of people because of fear that they will ‘inevitably’ hurt us.

Thank goodness some scientists have had the guts to question Schopenhauer’s “porcupine” analogy to humans. The results show that chronically anxious people who are rejected by others are the ones who end up being more anti-social. On the other hand, other people tend to strive harder to get close to others in the face of rejection. Do you think the chronically anxious people have got it right and the others have got it wrong? Why would anyone in their right mind go seek intimacy once they have been rejected?

The reality is we are human beings and thus social creatures by nature. It is true that we all seek connection and warmth with each other. But it is NOT true that closeness leads to hurt and separation.

Before you take the Hedgehog Dilemma to heart, think about whether your relationships are based on mutual respect, honesty, openness and trust. If your relationship is lacking any one of these ingredients, then maybe you do need your spines. I hope you be happy by spining your chance at intimacy away!

Helpful links:

  1. Hedgehog’s Dilemma
  2. How do porcupines make love?
  3. The Porcupine Illusion