I think my doctor sometimes wants to be me.
He's a good guy and we always have great conversations when I go in. That's only once or twice a year so it surprises me to realize that our aggregation of great conversations have attended many years of mutual aging. It seems like just a few months ago I was his healthiest forty nine year old. Now I'm his healthiest (I suppose) fifty two year old. Next thing you know we'll both be pushing sixty and STILL not met for a drink.
He admired my decision to move out of my marital home. Said it was a brave thing to do. I'm not so sure it was brave. Staying might have been braver. But he's heard me talk about the situation over the years. My visits have never needed to be heavy on the medical stuff, so we'd take the time to talk. He's gathered enough to know I had to do something. I like to think I already tried the other things I could have done. That's probably not true, but I like to think it. From his perspective, though, it seemed clear.
As it did to a number of my bloggy friends, come to think of it. Just enough information, and just enough distance, to see the picture clearly.
But there's another element. He might be a little envious. My capacity as a good listener sort of turned the tables last visit and he spent some time talking about his own situation. I gathered he doesn't like his wife much anymore. Actually, from what he was saying it sounded like the classic situation wherein one loves the other parent of one's children but dislikes the person. He sounded very frustrated with the sort of person his wife has turned out to be. Very intelligent, but kind of mean (my words), and not really interested in being a mother (his). However, they are from central Mexico and are very Catholic and very traditional, and separation or divorce is simply not an option. And he's fine with that, and will spend his life finding joy in what he can, particularly his kids.
Makes me feel kind of like a quitter. But then I remember that no one really came down from on high and told me it was my job to be unhappy so I could role-model misery to the next generation. I don't know what I'm now role-modeling, exactly, but misery isn't it.
Misery is a harsh word. As I've gotten to know people through talking about their struggles with marriage, I've come to realize mine was actually pretty good. Not miserable at all. I don't regret opening the new doors I've opened, but I'll never be able to justify it with convincing tales of horror and abuse, as some do. I don't need to be able to, either. Two people can change their circumstances and still love each other. I believe that because we -- or I -- have done that, and we still love each other. That's obvious every time we meet.
In fact, talking about that, or rather about the fact that I still just want her to be happy, I had to stifle an impulse to cry about it. No one cries at the doctor's office, right? And men don't cry at all. I know, everyone calls bullshit on that but in truth I still get messages in one form or another sometimes, including from women, that men shouldn't cry. I don't let these mixed messages get to me. But crying is embarrassing, so there.
Do I really think he wants to be me? No, of course not. My vague references to romantic entanglements, whether from Burning Man or elsewhere, probably aren't overwhelmingly compelling. But there's a vague element of longing in his comments sometimes, as in those of another friend of mine whose thirty-year marriage likewise has lost most of its quality. I know these longings, and they don't tell the whole story. These men still love their wives, and something more than ennui keeps them at home. Fear of poverty, for one thing.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's easy enough to imagine we might have done something else and it would have been better. My marriage had to end with things the way they were, but perhaps if I had been more proactive 10 years earlier, who knows. Anyway, we go on from here and try to muddle along, not fuck up too much more. As far as the doc, to each their own, but I am horrified at the number of couples staying together "for the kids" (and money) when they actively dislike each other. What a terrible thing to model. I am happy that was not the case with us.
Damn straight crying is embarrassing!
Shouldn't let that stop us, but... damn!
I was trained, btw, that crying is bad so I try like hell to repress it. And the strain of that makes it worse.
Many people persist in miserable unhealthy situations because they don't have the energy or imagination to see themselves any other way, or they are afraid of ending up even worse off, or they have weighed the hurt it will cause to others against the relief it will bring them, and decided sparing others is worth the self-sacrifice. Then there are those of us saddled with the Quitter Ethic that teaches us no matter how lousy things get, to bail is an admission of failure, weakness and moral turpitude, and basically means you didn't try hard enough to make things better. I'm of the mind that there is a point, whether it be a personal relationship or a work situation or whatever, when you have to choose a better healthier life for yourself and get the f--- out before it takes you down a whole other road to become someone you don't really want or need to be and will eventually not be of any use to anyone else either. Braver to stay in the bad? I don't think so. Maybe a different kind of bravery. Hard and takes a degree of will and discipline (or delusion and denial), but choosing to save yourself and live another day to do perhaps even better things is a huge leap of faith, and more courageous it seems to me. But that's me. I live by my own moral code! You done good, Don, and don' you forgit it.
Even if it's not a horrible situation, you're in, but is simply a partnership that has soured past the practical "use-by" date, I guess I'm not sure why we've evolved into a society where you are constrained or expected to maintain a grim death hold on the pairing until death. In the days when women were essentially sub-human property, I could see the moral obligatuon. Until women got to where they could hold their own as functional members of society, the moral obligation persisted, but these days, I don't buy that anyone is a "quitter" when seeking to end a contract that isn't working as needed and/or has exceeded its usefulness.
The fears of each partner should be accounted, and efforts made to ameliorate, but I see no need to maintain the bitter grip just for the sake of tradition or form.
I agree with everybody here--there are various circumstances . . . I think what is most tragic is when a young couple find themselves in a terrible marriage and instead of backing out, one of them attempts to do all the changing necessary to make it work, and winds up this sort of bitter, perverted caricature of a human.
Boy that sure sounded dramatic. But, main idea.
Post a Comment