Banty wrote:
> In article <v96dnaVDpYcD4xnVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kammerer
> says...
>> Have you never seen that there is a difference between
>> capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?
>
> What's to be "capitulted" about? If a neighbor asked me to refrain from
my
> (assredly accidentally) setting up a border garden a little over their
property
> line, and I stopped, would that be a 'capitulation' on my part??
"Capitulate" means "cease to resist," so yes, stopping
doing what you were asked to stop doing is capitulating. Not
sure what the problem is there. We all capitulate at times,
but it's more pleasant (and easier to do) when someone leaves
a little room for face saving.
>> *NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
>> the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
>> would have done so at any time or under any cir***stances. That
>> was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
>> the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
>> clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
>> the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
>> authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
>> issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
>> particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
>> Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
>> the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
>> in the long term. There was an op****tunity to do that in the
>> conversation over this issue that was missed.
>
> We'll have to disagree to disagree.
Which is fine by me, not that you need my permission ;-)
> Sure, there's no doubt she'd like your
> solution better.
And it puts the parent in no worse a situation, with no
loss of authority. Sounds like a win-win to me.
> There's a natural consequences cost to one being generally, um,
persistent, with
> one's preferences regarding others. Do you recall my post about the
babysitting
> neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones
that
> were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.
>
> I still think a more defined emergency plan is highly prefereable on
*general*
> grounds. But if I were the DIL, I'd be much more comfortable with your
idea if
> I weren't so pressed on this by Grandma in the first place.
Well, considering that this happened over a rather short
period of time, I'm thinking that while there was certainly
tension on this front, we're not talking about a real high
degree of pressure. I think it was more a combination of stresses
and sensitivities on both parts that made both more likely to
see intent that wasn't really there. Hence my feeling that taking
the temperature down a notch by standing down where it didn't
result in boundary violations would be a good thing. But that's
just my philosophy in general--when dealing with folks I care about,
my general policy is to give as much as I can give without violating
boundaries or principles. Sort of like not arguing with a 4yo--
it's not like it matters if you win, even if it sticks in your
craw that she won't back down from some wacky position or other.
Reality doesn't change if you can force her to back down--she just
gets cranky ;-)
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
