Susan's Musings

One Can't Be Undone

Earlier this month one more article extolling smaller families hit the newsstands – it was titled, “One and Done.” It claimed that the notion of the only child being spoiled and maladjusted was unsubstantiated; just a deeply held myth. While conceding possible societal and individual costs if one child families became prevalent, the author argued that in tough economic times, limiting family size offered great benefits.

Only relatively recently has family size became a choice so easily decided by humans. Not surprisingly, religious families tend to have more children as they view God as a third partner in family planning. As China has discovered in the aftermath of its one child policy, people are often myopic in seeing the long-term consequences of actions.

I am re-running a piece I wrote about a year and a half ago after reading reports of couples reacting to the economic downturn by choosing not  to have more children. Like so many decisions in life, there is only a small window in which to rethink fertility options.

 

A FALSE ECONOMY?

There has been a wave of newspaper articles examining how people are cutting back expenses in light of lost jobs and economic uncertainty. Not surprisingly, most Americans are eating out less often, buying only necessities and postponing vacations and remodels. But among the budget busters, what really got me thinking was reading of those who were considering not having a second or third child because they are worried of depriving their existing child(ren).

 

As someone who didn’t think of checking into respective jaw sizes before marriage and thus ended up with seven children needing orthodontia, and who spent enough on diapers to feed a village, I know how expensive raising a family can be. And that is without feeling compelled to cover the costs of the latest (expensive) shoe or clothing fad, must-have gadget, or even college tuition. But on the other hand, I well know that just the basics can add up to quite a bundle and I am not immune from feeling badly when a perfectly reasonable request needs to be turned down because money only stretches so far.

 

One of the advantages of getting somewhat older is being able to see a larger picture. I know that young couples beginning their families measure the value of things like art, sport and music lessons; private schooling and summer camp. But, of course, it is terribly easy when we are raising children to forget that childhood and young adulthood will most likely make up a short part of our children’s lives. We too easily forget that we aren’t really raising children; we are actually taking care of children in order to raise adults. Does a man or women contemplating conception think of the yet unborn baby at forty or fifty?

 

Well, usually not. After all, young parents are often far from forty themselves. And projecting ahead like that would start getting into terribly uncomfortable territory, such as picturing aging, perhaps illness and dying. But the truth is that deciding to limit the size of a family is making a decision for the life of that future adult. Will he or she possibly have the entire burden of aging parents to him or herself? When his or her parents are gone will there be no one who can share old memories? Will his or her children miss having a support network of aunts, uncles and cousins? Are friends, no matter how close, the same as blood relatives?

 

Prosperity comes and goes. My grandparents, struggling to feed five children during the Depression, weren’t determining whether they afford karate lessons or not. They were helpless as they sent those children to bed hungry. But all five children grew and thrived. And the older they got, the closer they got to each other. Together, they dealt with the deaths of their parents and shared good and bad times with each other. Through the years siblings became an increasingly precious treasure.

 

My husband and I are now seeing the benefits our own seven children enjoy from having each other. Were there fights and tears and less individual attention when they were younger? Did we decide against music lessons because we couldn’t let one or two children’s interests dictate the family schedule? Certainly. But as badly as we sometimes felt when they were young, we now see them becoming trusted sounding boards for one another as they face major life decisions, we watch them take care of each other when flu or morning sickness strikes, and we get huge comfort from knowing that while we might be kept in the dark about certain antics “Big (and little) brother and sister” are watching.

 

Bringing a child into the world always means taking a leap of faith. We have no way of knowing what lies in wait for any individual or family. In thinking of the future, there is a razor thin line that divides being responsible and realistic from being short sighted and falsely imagining that we are in control. I don’t envy those who need to make decisions that will impact decades to come while the immediate horizon looks scary. But I do hope that young couples take a moment to reassess whether thirty years down the road what they consider to be indispensable or critical might end up being of less value than a brother or sister. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jonah Tart

Certain phrases such as, “Where’s the beef?” leap into the national language. Other phrases glide into the shared language of smaller groups. When my children were younger, we read many books aloud. This lasted way beyond the years when the children became fluent readers. I have fond memories of taking turns reading Thomas Hardy’s  The Mayor of Casterbridge with my then sixteen year old son.

 

One book we enjoyed as a family was a memoir written by a man recalling his late 1800’s childhood. (I don’t remember the title but if anyone does, please let me know.) He and his siblings were raised in Maine by their grandfather, and our favorite chapter concerned a day when the grandfather was away from home. The children decided to bake tarts, and to add a note of suspense and excitement, they doctored one tart with all sorts of less than tasty flavorings. Once baked, each child would pick a tart and they would bite into them at the same time. Most of the faces would be wreathed in smiles – and one child would grimace and race for a glass of water. The lone, unfortunate tart was known as the “Jonah,” named for the prophet who brought storm conditions to the ship he boarded.  

 

As the tarts finished baking and anticipation grew, the children heard a knock at the door. There stood an elderly man who introduced himself as their grandfather’s friend, who had been away for many years. After explaining the grandfather’s absence, they invited him in and offered a drink. Just then, the tarts were ready and the guest exclaimed, “Oh, it has been so long since I’ve smelled such wonderful pies!”

 

The children were trapped. Good manners demanded that they invite their guest to join them. What was meant as a fun game was turning into a potential nightmare. You can imagine the tension as they sat around the table and passed the tray! As each family member bit into a tart so did their guest, and as fortune would have it, he turned red and started coughing as the Jonah effect took hold. 

 

Once all was calm, the children explained what had happened and braced for a stern lecture. To their great relief, the guest burst out laughing and as he headed out, asked them to tell their grandfather that Mr. Hannibal Hamlin sent regards.

 

That night, the children greeted their grandfather with the message of his friend’s visit, omitting the details which might earn them a punishment. On subsequent visits, Mr. Hamlin shared their reticence.

 

Just how momentous the day had been was something the children did not understood until years later. Hannibal Hamlin had indeed been away from home for years, serving as Abraham Lincoln’s vice-president during his first term of office. He was returning from that position, having relinquished the title to Andrew Johnson, who shortly thereafter became president following Lincoln’s assassination.

 

I thought of this story and how the phrase, “the Jonah” became part of our family shorthand, in the aftermath of publicizing our Holy Hebrew! webinar. The announcement was dogged by technical glitches as our Thought Tool email bounce rate soared due to server issues, our links went to the wrong or blank pages, and numerous emails vanished into the stratosphere. I only hope that the class’s Jonah status ends long before the webinar actually starts, and we recover with as much grace as Vice-president Hamlin.  If you are interested in finding out more, it is with not quite as much trepidation as the children had, but neither with equanimity, that I provide this link for you to explore.  Holy Hebrew! http://www.rabbidaniellapin.com/holyhebrew.php 

With Charity for All? Not Exactly

 

Economists and politicians can debate whether extending unemployment benefits is a needed crutch in hard times or whether doing so discourages too many people from searching wholeheartedly for work. Society, though, might gain from a different approach.

It is an approach that I believe the author of the words, “with malice toward none; with charity for all,” might have appreciated.   In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln hopes that the nation will care for the widows and orphans of those men who died in battle. But in other writings he emphasizes that charity (which in itself is quite a different word than today’s usage of entitlement or benefits) is not an automatic good.

In December, 1848, Lincoln wrote his father a letter saying that he was “cheerfully” sending him a requested $20. But there was another letter written to his stepbrother on exactly the same sheet of paper!  In that one, he refused his stepbrother’s application for money, suggesting that a “defect in (his stepbrother’s) conduct” would make the loan a waste of money.   

By necessity, government makes broad-spectrum decisions. It divides people into categories and then makes rules affecting large numbers.  It can only look at bodies, not at souls. Government can never know that two people will react differently to exactly the same stimulus.

Leaving aside those who deliberately abuse the system and even those who take taxpayer money without any compunction or regret, each person who is out of work or who has fallen on hard times is a complex individual. The great flaw in the government forcing one citizen to transfer money to another is that the coerced action negates the humanity of both.

By inserting itself into human interactions, the government removes the potential of charity, which is an action that is unique to humans, not to institutions. It takes away the possibility that Abraham Lincoln had, of ending his letters to both his father and stepbrother with the word ‘affectionately,’ opting to do what he felt would bring greatest benefit to both men. Perhaps most harmfully, by inserting itself as the primary resource, government shatters relationships and human interactions, impoverishing us all.

 

 

Split Opinion

Well. You certainly had a lot to say!  When I wrote about 16 year old Abby Sunderland’s solo boat trip, I didn’t realize how passionately many of you felt on the subject – and how your opinions would fall on both sides of the issue. Assuming that Abby’s parents were loving and conscientious, I suggested that they made a responsible decision in letting her attempt her, eventually aborted, around the world trip.

 

Some of you agreed and appreciated my arguments. Others, both landlubbers and sailors, vehemently disagreed. Clearly, the topic resonated with parents, and since many readers whom I highly respect thought I was way off in my analysis, I decided to give it a second look. However, I ended up in the same place.

 

Let me be clear. I am delighted that none of my children wanted to attempt such a trip. But then, solo sailing is neither part of our family culture nor were our children trained for such a voyage. On the other hand, there was a period in his teens that my son did consider assembling a crew and heading off for Australia. It would have been pretty hard to crush his plans considering that my husband and I took three children under the age of three sailing from Los Angeles to Honolulu.

 

 Let me be clear about this. Growing up in Brooklyn, NY, the closest I came to an ocean voyage was the Staten Island Ferry. But making a Pacific crossing was a lifetime aspiration of my husband’s and one that he was competent to achieve. While I joke that I can’t believe my mother or mother-in-law let us go, realistically we were probably in more danger each time we strapped our children into their car seats and went to the park. Crossing the Pacific may be less common than driving, but the chance of a random disaster for a well prepped boat, isn’t actually that great.  My husband spent years honing his sailing skills. I spent fewer but substantial time becoming familiar with our boat, we planned the specific voyage for over a year and we brought along other experienced sailors (who did double duty as baby watchers).

 

A number of sixteen year olds, including Robin Lee Graham whose adventure was documented by National Geographic magazine and more recently Abby’s brother have successfully solo navigated around the world. Obviously, it isn’t something lightly undertaken, but I still don’t see it as an automatically reckless activity. Statistically, there may well be more risk in a sixteen year old driving in many localities.

 

My close friend, Diane Medved (Searching for Bright Light) wrote the following:

 

I disagree with you, though on your support of Abby Sunderland’s solo journey.  It was dangerous beyond just “testing herself.”  I remember the movie Bofinger where the very stupid actor is asked to run across the freeway, which he did.  Wanting to do something extraordinary is fine, but I do think the word “prudence” has some relevance.  I don’t want my kids to take risks with their lives.  So I tell them to wear their seatbelts in the car, even if they feel fettered.

Sorry, but I don’t accept the analogy. Running across a freeway is all risk and no reward. It is a no-hard-work required way to flirt with danger for the sake of flirting with danger. Sailing solo around the world is more in league with mountain climbing or stowing away on Ernest Shackleton’s Antarctic exploration as nineteen year old Percy Blackborow did.

I have no desire to attempt such a thing and am relieved if my children have no such desire, but those who do often turn out to be the ones who push our societies forward and serve as leaders when we face dangerous times.

I wear a seat belt and would take driving privileges away from my children if they didn’t wear their belts. At the same time I do believe that our society is overly obsessed with trying to remove any chance of physical harm at the cost of focusing too much on that and too little on spiritual dangers, including the crushing of a child’s spirit. In addition, some people feel the need for excitement and physical challenge more strongly than others. I believe that if you don’t give those with that craving a wholesome outlet for that God-given sensation, they will act out that need in unhealthy ways.

So, with appreciation to those of you who let me know your attitudes on the subject – and I do especially appreciate when you “talk” to me through the comment box at www.susan@rabbidaniellapin.com so that others can join the dialogue as well – I stick with my thumbs up for Abby and her parents.

:

 

 

Time for Literacy Tests

 

An air of confusion hangs over Alvin Greene’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary. The candidate for the U.S. Senate seemingly came out of nowhere to receive 59% of the vote. Allegations of dirty tricks have been made, but so far none have been substantiated.

 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many did indeed vote for him based on criteria which surely would make our founding fathers cringe. Some of those interviewed admitted that they knew nothing of Mr. Greene, his opponent or how either man stands on issues. It was enough that his name was first on the ballot and appealed to them. 

 

Truthfully, the farce presented by this election may be more blatant than in others, but the core problem is in no way unique to this particular race or state. Over the past decades Americans have been urged to vote for all sorts of individuals based on their gender, race or well-known family name. Even in Supreme Court nominations, all sorts of demographic issues trump ability.  I venture that even the majority of those who consider themselves well-informed base their knowledge on television commercials and marketing material rather than actually analyzing a candidate’s past actions and words.

 

Literacy tests received a bad name and were outlawed in this country because they were too often used as a means to achieve a racist or anti-immigrant result. But is there anything truly wrong with asking those who vote to reveal some knowledge of the vote they are casting? Jay Leno gets a lot of laughs with “man on the street” interviews that show how appallingly ignorant people are. During the last presidential election he showed clips of people explaining why Sarah Palin was a good running mate for Barack Obama, being unable to identify a picture or name of any of the Supreme Court Justices and having no idea whether Iran was part of the United States or not. (Full disclosure: I don’t actually remember the specific clips I saw, but my examples are perfectly plausible).

 

But considering how abhorrent the idea of an election literacy or knowledge test would be to most Americans, perhaps we could start by implementing what I think would be a less controversial idea. Other than those it targets, could anyone be opposed to having our legislators take a basic exam on any legislation for which they are casting a vote? It would be perfectly reasonable to say that a failing grade should mean not being allowed to vote – and no grading on the curve. For one thing, legislation running thousands of pages would cease to be offered if you just might get a question on an obscure paragraph from page 1,316. Secondly, we might have a clue that a law is poorly written if half the legislators answer one way and half the other way on questions such as: “According to this piece of legislation XYZ will be illegal. Circle Yes or No.” 

 

This idea could be expanded to require all candidates for public office to take a basic economics exam. And I think the public would very much enjoy if the first session of Congress each term featured a televised quiz show starring our representatives answering questions pertinent to our Constitution and history.

 

Alvin Greene’s nomination disturbs South Carolina Democrats. But their pain could be the nation’s gain if it highlights how increasingly ignorant the American electorate is and spurs us to reclaim voting as a privilege rather than a right.

 

 

 

The Child Equation

 

Reading an article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Case for More Kids,” gave me the impression its real headline should have been, “Having Kids Isn’t as Bad as You Might Think, but It’s Still Pretty Bad.” A sunny, optimistic view of family it was not.

Maybe I am overly sensitive but phrases such as, “every additional child makes parents just 1.3 percentage point less likely to be ‘very happy’,” and “child No. 1 does almost all the damage” didn’t leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

The piece would leave most readers wondering why in the world anyone has any children.  It did not have this effect on me.  My children have brought immeasurable joy to my life (despite occasional periods where I need to remind myself of the long term picture).   I was further inoculated from the article’s baleful proposition because I had spent the previous Sunday with parents who delight in their families.

That day, my husband and I both had the privilege of speaking at the second annual National Orthodox Jewish Homeschooling Conference in Baltimore, MD. This event brought together mothers and fathers from around the country who are a part of a growing group of religious Jewish homeschooling families.   My husband spoke about stepping outside convention by removing our daughter from the school we had ourselves founded.   For my part, I tried to give newer homeschoolers reassurance that down the road their children would be well-balanced and happy members of the larger community.

But we received more from the conference than we gave. Firstly, I delighted in meeting women whom I have known as members of an online support group, but never before had the opportunity to greet face to face.  Getting to know them was such fun.  Over the years, we have shared questions, suggestions, difficulties and triumphs and it was a thrill to actually talk in person. 

But more importantly, the day was an opportunity to be surrounded by folks who are passionate about parenting.  While this passion for parenting isn’t exclusive to homeschoolers, it is overwhelmingly present in the homeschooling community.  Rather than adding up the financial cost of having children as the author of Saturday’s newspaper article did, these parents count the blessings. Rather than seeing children as an emotional drain, these parents view their kids as a source of emotional pleasure. Most importantly, rather than asking, “What’s in it for me,” these parents see children as a gift from God to be treasured. 

There was a great deal of practical homeschooling advice offered over the course of the conference, which is no longer relevant to my daily life.  Nevertheless, the day provided an injection of fun and optimism along with a reminder that there are still young parents who view having children through a bright lens rather than with a jaundiced eye.

 

Outrage!

 

.

 

“…it seems everybody is eager to pounce on my story now that something bad has happened.”

 

We spent a fair amount of time in the car last week, which included listening to more radio news than usual. At the time, newscasters were fixated on Abby Sunderland, the 16 year old sailor quoted above. She had encountered a violent but not uncommon Indian Ocean storm. Her sloop had been dismasted and her emergency beacons had been activated, but it was still unclear exactly what else had happened.

 

As I listened to the broadcasters purporting to be concerned for her safety, they sounded to me more like lions in a Roman arena, lusting for blood. I had the distinct impression that they would be disappointed if she was unharmed.  They seemed enraged by her parents’ confidence (based on actual knowledge of sailing, emergency equipment and Abby’s capabilities) that she was weather beaten but okay. In ominous tones the broadcasters announced that “experts” were raising questions about Abby’s parents’ culpability for encouraging and allowing their young daughter to set out.

 

I don’t know Abby or her family, but I do know something about sailing, about 16 year olds, about having a dream and pursuing it. I do wonder how many of those attacking the Sunderlands are being inconsistent and possibly hypocritical.

 

I doubt that those pundits who are appalled at Abby’s voyage are equally outraged with the parents of child actors for placing their offspring in danger. Considering the sad litany of damaged former child stars, it would seem to be a reasonable query for child safety proponents. How many of these “experts” are in favor of 16 year old girls getting abortions with or without parental consent? What is it about this particular case –assuming that the outrage is real and not generated solely by the opportunity of being widely interviewed and quoted by the media – that is provoking such indignation?

 

Could it be that Abby’s adventure is so traditional? There is something wholesome about a 16 year old testing her abilities by going to sea, There is something old-fashioned about a young girl throwing her heart and soul into an adventure and then not looking to blame anyone when things go wrong. There is something traditional about a family sharing a passion for sailing and recognizing when their daughter has the necessary skills by looking at the child rather than at an age chart.

 

A few years ago, around midnight, my husband and I, armed with binoculars, crouched in bushes on the shore of a bay. We were attempting to visually ascertain whether our thirteen son and his even younger crew had securely anchored their boat on the first night of their summer sailing outing. We couldn’t see in the dark and I slept uneasily that night. But the three boys returned home after their voyage more confident, more mature and more capable of growing up healthily because we supported them as they tested themselves.

 

For that venture, our son recruited his cousin and a friend. When the friend’s father questioned whether the boys had enough expertise to head out alone, my husband quoted from a favorite childhood book of his, Swallows and Amazons.  In that British classic, four siblings seek their parents’ permission to have a sailing holiday in the English Lake District. Their father, abroad serving in the Navy, telegrams his wife these words: “Better drowned than duffers; if not duffers won’t drown.” 

 

We don’t actually agree with the first part of that sentence and we are fully aware that life has dangers that no amount of preparation or planning can eliminate. But it is has become a family motto for us nonetheless.  We take seriously the responsibility to equip our children with the tools they need to become independent and strong, whether in sailing or any other aspect of life. At a certain point, we need to cast off the lines and let them set sail. We will answer to God as to how well we have done our job, not to the “experts.”

 

 

Building a 'Little House on the Prairie' Home in a 'Gossip Girl' World

 

Have you ever seen the TV show, Gossip Girl? Well, I haven’t, which means that I went out on a limb a bit by mentioning it in the title of a presentation I am giving in a few weeks, “Building a Little House on the Prairie Home in a Gossip Girl World.” I thought it was a safe bet that the two shows present contrasting views of family life and fortunately my college-aged neighbor confirmed this fact.

 

I have no desire to live back in the 1800’s. Among other things, I am immeasurably fond of indoor plumbing. But I don’t accept that technological advances must go hand in hand with the loss of strong families and values. After all, the world of Ma and Pa Ingalls was technologically advanced compared to a hundred years earlier and while technology has (with a few exceptions) pretty much marched on throughout history, adherence to standards and morals seems to wax and wane.

 

Most parents in what I think of as the Gossip Girl world have little of substance to convey to their children. The idea of their passing on sage wisdom and life guidance as the Ingalls or more recently the Cleavers or even the Munsters did, is ludicrous. When you aren’t sure yourself whether being honest, self-reliant and faithful is laudable, it becomes difficult to transmit that message.

 

What if you do have strong principles and beliefs which you wish to share with your children, but the educational, entertainment, political and general society around clash with you on every point? Barring moving to the middle of the prairie with a few oxen, what can one do? That is what I hope to explore in a few weeks and I am highly interested to hear your insights and suggestions on the topic. Do use the comment box below to let me know your thoughts. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

A Modest Proposal

Modest: Observing conventional proprieties in behavior, speech and dress

 

So says my Webster dictionary. But what in the world does it mean? In today’s world exactly what are the conventional proprieties? I believe a hat is necessary if you are a lady invited to join Queen Elizabeth for a garden party at Buckingham Palace, but few of us make that list. We are more likely to spend time at the supermarket and office than at royal teas. And while we may know that going to a corporate job interview in a mini skirt and a low-cut blouse will keep us unemployed, we probably associate that fact with presenting a business-like appearance rather than an old-fashioned word like modesty.

 

In a poignant article in June’s Oprah Magazine, author Krista Bremer discusses how unsettling it was when, at the age of nine, her daughter, Aliya, chose to wear the headscarf common to Krista’s husband’s Moslem heritage. She had assumed that a bi-cultural marriage would bring interesting customs and exotic foods into her life. Never had she contemplated that her born and bred in America child would opt for going to school in Moslem attire.

 

The author only dips a toe into recognizing that associating with Islam has more far-reaching implication than choice of dress. Instead she focuses on her own teenage forays into the world of bikinis and her internal discomfort at that young age when she simultaneously enjoyed and felt disturbed by the attention that exposing her body brought her. Even while she is embarrassed by Aliya’s chosen dress she is drawn to admire the way her pre-teen is defining herself as more than just a physical body.

 

A number of years ago, a young Catholic girl in the Northwest wrote a letter to Nordstrom’s explaining that she and her friends were unable to shop in their teenage boutique because the styles were too immodest. Executives at the store responded by asking her to join their teenage fashion board and even hosting a “modest clothing” show. In my own community, observant Jewish women and girls accept that during certain shopping seasons there will be nothing that meets the standards we prefer to follow. And a Protestant friend complained to me that while she and her husband attempt to establish certain modesty guidelines for their daughter, it is difficult to do so when a youth leader at their church dresses in a manner that they forbid their daughter to emulate.

 

A modern world view may reject the notion of conventional proprieties and scorn ideas like female modesty as old-fashioned and patriarchal. I think the opposite is true. When a woman shows cleavage she might as well acknowledge that her chest will be the focus of men’s attention. If she wants them to concentrate on her brilliant mind, sparkling wit and developed spirit, she would do well to avoid that distraction. Nothing short of redesigning the human body will change that. We handicap our teenage girls terribly by pretending that how they dress is solely a matter of comfort and personal choice.

 

Krista Bremer’s discovery that developing one’s soul and inner being is easier when not exposing too much flesh is true. It is unfortunate that she never knew that modesty is embraced by many in the modern world; the idea is not limited or original to Islam. It was a great loss to women in our society when treating one’s body with respect and dignity ceased to be conventional propriety.

Just Like Me

Two women were having a loud conversation, one which everyone in the vicinity overheard. Their voices were passionate; their convictions firm. The political candidate under discussion was an arrogant, self-serving liar. How could anyone possibly support him? 

There was only one glitch. Both women were so eager to express their opinion that they hadn’t listened very well to the other. Each of them was sure that her friend was validating her own ideas. On the other hand, we eavesdroppers had caught the opening sentence of both diatribes which the conversationalists had missed. The women were supporting opposing candidates. Everything good each woman said about her own candidate and negative she said about the other one’s, was being turned around by her friend as proof that her intelligent, articulate companion shared her own point of view.  

Here is another instance of the same syndrome. A psychologist was giving on air marriage advice to prospective husbands. She spoke of how her husband buys her greeting cards once or twice a week, leaving them on her pillow or tucking them into her computer case. Sometimes the cards are funny, other times sentimental, but she treasures them as evidence of a loving spouse. Her marriage advice? Young grooms should learn from her husband and shower their own wives with cards.   We all tend to assume that others, particularly people who seem similar to us, think as we do. The radio psychologist missed expressing a valid and important point because her vision narrowed to only her own preferences. New husbands (and veteran ones) should recognize that most wives do cherish tokens of affection. But imagine a couple who are having trouble getting on the same financial page, where the wife is concerned that her husband spends money carelessly. His spending a few dollars on a greeting card is likely to be met with annoyance rather than gratitude. Even if money isn’t an issue, maybe one wife has a weakness for cashews or ice cream or flowers. She may tell herself that getting a card is nice, but since it is something she doesn’t particularly care about, the repeated action comes across as impersonal proof that her husband isn’t taking the time to really know her. 

 As for my political debaters, neither of them actually said anything of value to the other. Had a policy issue or debatable fact been introduced, they both would have quickly realized that they supported opposing sides. The ad hominem attacks on one man and empty praise for the other didn’t lead to further understanding or a broadening of vision.   As a disinterested party to both the political conversation and the radio show, I found these two incidents amusing. At the same time, they made me uncomfortable. I have an uneasy feeling that while it is easy to recognize that type of behavior in others, it is much harder for me to recognize it in myself.