In article <0_Cdne0Ip7aoTBnVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
>
>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.
Many of the defnitions I see harken to *surrender*, and even if a few
definitions are to be found along the lines of "cease" I think you're
emphasizing denotation and ducking what the connotation is to that.
>
>>> *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 ;-)
Assuming you understood that I meant "*agree* to disagree" ;-)
>
>> 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.
Not really.
>
>>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 ;-)
And, as I see it, it's the resistance to driving thing that stuck in a
craw.
Banty
|
