Although this article seems to target men as the source of the problem, the gals have their share of this too. Sometimes it just looks different than the men.

 

Preston Ni M.S.B.A.

Communication Success

10 Signs of a Passive-Aggressive Relationship

How to spot a passive-aggressive relationship

Posted Aug 02, 2015

Source: Shutterstock

The NYU Medical Center defines a passive-aggressive individual as someone who “may appear to comply or act appropriately, but actually behaves negatively and passively resists.” A passive-aggressive relationship can occur in romantic partnership, family, social circles, or at the workplace.

Passive-aggressive actions can range from the relatively mild, such as making excuses for not following through, to the very serious, such as sabotaging someone’s well-being and success.

Most chronically passive-aggressive individuals have four common characteristics: They’re unreasonable to deal with, they’re uncomfortable to experience, they rarely express their hostility directly, and they repeat their subterfuge behavior over time.

Here are ten common traits passive-aggressive people exhibit in relationships, with excerpts from my book (click on title): “How to Successfully Handle Passive-Aggressive People(link is external)“. Most pathological passive-aggressives manifest a least several of the following behaviors on a regular basis, while remaining largely unaware (or unconcerned with) how their actions impact others. There are overlaps in some of the categories below.

1. Disguised Verbal Hostility

Examples: Negative gossip. Negative orientation. Habitual criticism of ideas, conditions, and expectations. Addressing an adult like a child. Invalidation of others’ experiences and feelings.

Possible Intention(s): Putting others down to feel dominant and superior. Causing others to feel inadequate and insecure to relieve one’s own sense of deficiency. Seeking a false sense of importance by being persistently critical. Consciously or unconsciously spreading one’s own unhappiness (misery loves company). Competing for power and control in relationship.

2. Disguised Hostile Humor

Examples: Sarcasm. Veiled hostile joking — often followed by “just kidding.” Repetitive teasing. Subtle “digs” at one’s appearance, gender, socio-cultural background, credentials, behavior, decisions, social relations, etc.

Possible Intention(s): Express hidden anger, disapproval, or rejection towards an individual. Distain towards an individual for what she or he represents. Using humor as a weapon in an attempt to marginalize another’s humanity, dignity and credibility.

3. Disguised Relational Hostility

Examples: The silent treatment. The invisible treatment. Social exclusion. Neglect. Sullen resentment. Indirectly hurting something or someone of importance to the targeted person.

article continues after advertisement

Possible Intention(s): Express anger or resentment. Punishment. Purposely creating negative and disconcerting environment. Putting the targeted recipient off balance. Attempting to create insecurity.

4.  Disguised Psychological Manipulation

Examples: Lying. Excuse making. Two faced. Backstabbing. Deliberate button pushing. Negative or discomforting surprises. Blaming the victim for causing their own victimization. Deformation of the truth. Mixed messages to keep recipient off balance. Strategic disclosure or withholding of key information. Exaggeration. Understatement. One-sided bias of issue.

Possible Intention(s): Deception and Intrigue. Avoidance of responsibility. Manipulate facts of the issue. Distort perception for easier persuasion and control. Misdirection to take focus off of the real issue.

5. Guilt-Baiting

Examples: Unreasonable blaming. Targeting recipient’s soft spot. Holding another responsible for the passive-aggressive’s happiness and success. Holding another responsible for the passive-aggressive’s unhappiness and failures.

Possible Intention(s): Targeting the recipient’s emotional weaknesses and vulnerability. Manipulate and coerce the recipient into ceding unreasonable requests and demands.

6. Stalling

article continues after advertisement

Examples: Procrastination. Forgetting. Stonewalling. Withholding resources or information. Unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. Excuse making. Broken agreements. Lack of follow through.

Possible Intention(s): Avoiding responsibility, duty, and obligations. Maintaining power and control by imposing many hoops to jump through. Passive competitiveness making life more difficult for others. Purposely blocking others’ success. Jealousy of others’ success.

7.  Resistance

Examples: Stubbornness. Rigidity. Inefficiency, complication, incompletion, or ruination of task.

Possible Intentions(s): Power struggle. Passive combativeness. “Victory” is gained from the frustrated efforts and negative emotions of the recipient.

8. Underhanded Sabotage

Examples: Purposely undermine tasks, projects, activities, deadlines or agreements. Causing harm or loss materially. Overspending. Wrecking positive chemistry interpersonally, socially or professionally. Deliberate disclosure of harmful information. Deliberate obstruction of communication and endeavors.

Possible Intention(s): Covertly express anger, hostility, and resentment towards an individual, group, or organization. Channeling unspoken gripe or unresolved past issues. Personal, social, or professional jealously. Subtly administering punishment or revenge.

9. Self-Punishment (“I’ll show YOU”)

Examples: Quitting. Deliberate failure. Addiction. Self-harm.

Possible Intention(s): Hurting another by hurting oneself. Aiming to frustrate, frighten, or pain someone. Appeal to sympathy. Drama. Wanting and needing attention. A cry for help on deeper issues (might require strong intervention).

10. Victimhood

Examples: Exaggerated or imagined personal issues. Exaggerated or imagined health issues. Dependency. Co-dependency. Deliberate frailty to elicit sympathy and favor.  Playing weak, powerless, or martyr.

Possible Intention(s): Designed to exploit the recipient’s good will, guilty conscience, sense of duty and obligation, or protective and nurturing instinct.

See Preston Ni for other articles on passive-aggressive behavior.

Preston Ni M.S.B.A.

Communication Success

10 Signs of a Passive-Aggressive Relationship

How to spot a passive-aggressive relationship

Posted Aug 02, 2015

Source: Shutterstock

The NYU Medical Center defines a passive-aggressive individual as someone who “may appear to comply or act appropriately, but actually behaves negatively and passively resists.” A passive-aggressive relationship can occur in romantic partnership, family, social circles, or at the workplace.

Passive-aggressive actions can range from the relatively mild, such as making excuses for not following through, to the very serious, such as sabotaging someone’s well-being and success.

Most chronically passive-aggressive individuals have four common characteristics: They’re unreasonable to deal with, they’re uncomfortable to experience, they rarely express their hostility directly, and they repeat their subterfuge behavior over time.

Here are ten common traits passive-aggressive people exhibit in relationships, with excerpts from my book (click on title): “How to Successfully Handle Passive-Aggressive People(link is external)“. Most pathological passive-aggressives manifest a least several of the following behaviors on a regular basis, while remaining largely unaware (or unconcerned with) how their actions impact others. There are overlaps in some of the categories below.

1. Disguised Verbal Hostility

Examples: Negative gossip. Negative orientation. Habitual criticism of ideas, conditions, and expectations. Addressing an adult like a child. Invalidation of others’ experiences and feelings.

Possible Intention(s): Putting others down to feel dominant and superior. Causing others to feel inadequate and insecure to relieve one’s own sense of deficiency. Seeking a false sense of importance by being persistently critical. Consciously or unconsciously spreading one’s own unhappiness (misery loves company). Competing for power and control in relationship.

2. Disguised Hostile Humor

Examples: Sarcasm. Veiled hostile joking — often followed by “just kidding.” Repetitive teasing. Subtle “digs” at one’s appearance, gender, socio-cultural background, credentials, behavior, decisions, social relations, etc.

Possible Intention(s): Express hidden anger, disapproval, or rejection towards an individual. Distain towards an individual for what she or he represents. Using humor as a weapon in an attempt to marginalize another’s humanity, dignity and credibility.

3. Disguised Relational Hostility

Examples: The silent treatment. The invisible treatment. Social exclusion. Neglect. Sullen resentment. Indirectly hurting something or someone of importance to the targeted person.

article continues after advertisement

Possible Intention(s): Express anger or resentment. Punishment. Purposely creating negative and disconcerting environment. Putting the targeted recipient off balance. Attempting to create insecurity.

4.  Disguised Psychological Manipulation

Examples: Lying. Excuse making. Two faced. Backstabbing. Deliberate button pushing. Negative or discomforting surprises. Blaming the victim for causing their own victimization. Deformation of the truth. Mixed messages to keep recipient off balance. Strategic disclosure or withholding of key information. Exaggeration. Understatement. One-sided bias of issue.

Possible Intention(s): Deception and Intrigue. Avoidance of responsibility. Manipulate facts of the issue. Distort perception for easier persuasion and control. Misdirection to take focus off of the real issue.

5. Guilt-Baiting

Examples: Unreasonable blaming. Targeting recipient’s soft spot. Holding another responsible for the passive-aggressive’s happiness and success. Holding another responsible for the passive-aggressive’s unhappiness and failures.

Possible Intention(s): Targeting the recipient’s emotional weaknesses and vulnerability. Manipulate and coerce the recipient into ceding unreasonable requests and demands.

6. Stalling

article continues after advertisement

Examples: Procrastination. Forgetting. Stonewalling. Withholding resources or information. Unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. Excuse making. Broken agreements. Lack of follow through.

Possible Intention(s): Avoiding responsibility, duty, and obligations. Maintaining power and control by imposing many hoops to jump through. Passive competitiveness making life more difficult for others. Purposely blocking others’ success. Jealousy of others’ success.

7.  Resistance

Examples: Stubbornness. Rigidity. Inefficiency, complication, incompletion, or ruination of task.

Possible Intentions(s): Power struggle. Passive combativeness. “Victory” is gained from the frustrated efforts and negative emotions of the recipient.

8. Underhanded Sabotage

Examples: Purposely undermine tasks, projects, activities, deadlines or agreements. Causing harm or loss materially. Overspending. Wrecking positive chemistry interpersonally, socially or professionally. Deliberate disclosure of harmful information. Deliberate obstruction of communication and endeavors.

Possible Intention(s): Covertly express anger, hostility, and resentment towards an individual, group, or organization. Channeling unspoken gripe or unresolved past issues. Personal, social, or professional jealously. Subtly administering punishment or revenge.

9. Self-Punishment (“I’ll show YOU”)

Examples: Quitting. Deliberate failure. Addiction. Self-harm.

Possible Intention(s): Hurting another by hurting oneself. Aiming to frustrate, frighten, or pain someone. Appeal to sympathy. Drama. Wanting and needing attention. A cry for help on deeper issues (might require strong intervention).

10. Victimhood

Examples: Exaggerated or imagined personal issues. Exaggerated or imagined health issues. Dependency. Co-dependency. Deliberate frailty to elicit sympathy and favor.  Playing weak, powerless, or martyr.

Possible Intention(s): Designed to exploit the recipient’s good will, guilty conscience, sense of duty and obligation, or protective and nurturing instinct.

See Preston Ni for other articles on passive-aggressive behavior.

 

Following will be some articles concerning the dilemma of the modern male. Personally, I am seeing huge swings between the passive male, the passive-aggressive male and the violent male in our society. Is it just me? Are other people seeing this ‘all or nothing’ approach to maleness in our current society? More women are taking lead roles in business and education. Is this such a good thing? How do people like working in female- dominated jobs?

Brett | May 9, 2011 (The Art of Manliness)

Last updated: November 26, 2017

A Man’s Life, On Manhood

The Cure for the Modern Male Malaise: The 5 Switches of Manliness

 

A few weeks ago, I caught the premiere of the Discovery’s Channel’s “Human Planet,” a television show about the ways people have adapted to survive in Earth’s most extreme environments. Perhaps a better name for the program would have been “Man Planet,” as the show primarily chronicled the incredible feats of men around the world–men the tentacles of civilization have barely grazed. There were men mining sulfur from an active volcano; men diving dozens of feet and holding their breath for five minutes at a time to spear fish on the ocean floor; men initiating their sons into manhood by teaching them how to train eagles to hunt.  Even seemingly pedestrian tasks like taking your kids to school were fraught with danger; a father escorted his children on a 60 mile journey through the Himalayas, watching for potential avalanches and walking over a frozen river that could have cracked open at any moment.

I was immediately taken in by the show’s spectacular cinematography. But it was the image of these men straining and sweating, risking life and limb to provide for and feed their families that really caught my attention.

And by the end of the show, a bunch of things I’ve been thinking about for awhile had coalesced together.

What’s Plaguing Modern Men?

There has been a copious amounts of hand wringing lately about the state of modern men, about the fact that men appear to be falling behind in life and seem unmotivated and listless.

Why all this concern? The statistics are familiar to anyone who has read this genre of articles:

• Women are more likely than men to graduate from high school.
• Only 44% of undergraduates at community and four year colleges are men.
• Female college students have higher grade point averages than men and are more likely to graduate within four years.
• According to the US Census, “Among young adults 25 to 29, 35 percent of women and 27 percent of men possessed a bachelor’s degree or more in 2009. This gap has grown considerably in the last decade: it was only 3 percentage points in 1999 (30 percent for women, 27 percent for men).”
• Women are 60% more likely than men to earn a bachelor’s degree by the time they are 23.
• According to the US Census, for the first time in history, more women than men are earning advanced degrees. “In the 25-29 age group, 9 percent of women and 6 percent of men held either a master’s, professional (such as law or medical) or doctoral degree.” Nearly six out of ten adults holding advanced degrees between the ages of 25 and 29 are women.
• Men lost 3/4 of the 8 million jobs that disappeared during the recession.
• For the first time in history, there are now more women in the workforce than men.
• 1/3 of men ages 22-34 still live at home with their parents. An increase of 100% in the last 20 years. According to the census, among young adults ages 18-24, 56 percent of men and 48 percent of women still live at home with their parents.

Plenty of theories have been offered as to what is behind these statistics. Some say the economy is to blame, as traditionally male industries have been moved off shore or gone extinct. Another reason given is that corporate culture and bureaucracy have sucked the soul out of men and taken away their manly autonomy. Others say it’s our consumer culture and the rise of particularly time-sucking hobbies like video games. And some say the root of the problem is feminism, the changing dynamic of male/female relationships, and the “cheapness of sex.”

But I would argue that there isn’t just one thing that you can point at and decisively say, “That one. That one was the man killer.” Instead, the source of the modern male’s lack of motivation is a conglomeration of all these factors. In short, the “problem”  is modern life in general.

To me the modern world is the best possible world to live in, without a doubt. The advancements we’ve made in technology and culture have made life safer, freer, and longer than ever before.

At the same time, no matter how unmitigated a good is, there are always unintended consequences that we have to grapple with. And the unintended consequence of modern life is that men feel lost and adrift.

The Wild Man Navigates Life in the 21rst Century

“Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the wild outside. We live in the civilization they created, but within us the wilderness still lingers. What they dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream.” -T.K. Whipple

And so we have a mismatch, where for men in the developed world the inner elements of masculinity remain unchanged, while the outer landscape in which those elements exist has been dramatically altered. Instead of spending most of our time outside each day, we spend the majority of it inside.  Instead of hunting down our dinner, we buy our meat pre-cut, in Styrofoam containers. Instead of being looked to as leaders of the tribe, we see ourselves lampooned in the media as bumbling and inept.

The primal elements of masculinity sit within us like a well-trained regiment of soldiers that is ready and itching to fight, but sits waiting restlessly, and endlessly, in reserve. Core aspects of the male psyche lie dormant, and men find themselves as square pegs trying to fit into a round hole. Having butted up against this mismatch over and over again, men are feeling angry and restless, losing their motivation, and giving up.

Modern Man: Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place

There are many more pundits who like to describe the problem with men today than actually propose a solution. And when a solution is proffered, it typically takes the form of “Get over it men. Your sun has set. Move on. It’s a woman’s world now.” And what this typically translates to is this: become more like women. Get in touch with your feelings, become more nurturing, and train to join the thriving, and traditionally female-dominated careers like nursing. The square peg is told to smooth off his sharp corners.

And so here we arrive at the crux of the problem. The solution offered to men by some–become more like women and leave behind traditional manliness–is not attractive to most guys. And the idea of going to live in a cave or an abandoned bus to live off the land isn’t a viable or desirable option either for most.  And thus men find themselves at what seems like a rock and a hard place. Feeling like there is no way forward, they sit down and surrender, and simply content themselves with drifting along.

Now some say that the drifting male isn’t really a problem at all. That men are obsolete and there isn’t a role for them to play in the modern world anyway. To which I say, bullocks!

It’s great that women finally have the freedom and opportunities to be their best, but society needs to have bothsexes striving to reach their fullest potential.

Men at their best will be needed in every time and in every place. Our unique attributes are no longer always called upon for hunting dinner and doing battle. But we still need men to become leaders of families, honorable statesmen, innovators and entrepreneurs, teachers and mentors, and worthy brothers, husbands, and citizens

There’s still a role for men to play in the world. We simply need to find a way to get motivated and going again. To get back on the horse.

Flipping the Switches of Manliness

The solution for the modern male malaise lies at the heart of the idea behind the Art of Manliness itself: to move forward by looking back.

The solution means moving beyond the all-or-nothing proposition we sometimes feel we are stuck with. Men feel like they cannot fully embrace the old ways nor move into the new ways, and so they decide to do nothing at all. But it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition. You don’t have to become a sensitive ponytail guy OR a Neanderthal.

And the thing I’ve discovered is that you can activate your Wild Man by doing things far short of running down a herd of antelope for your dinner. You can take the parts of masculinity that have been an integral part of manliness for thousands of years and make sure some semblance of them are operating in your life. Not to the extent that they were manifested in the lives of primitive man, but active nonetheless.  Sometimes we don’t move forward in our life because we think the solution to our problem must be complicated and arduous to be effective. But the switches of manliness can be turned on in surprisingly small and simple ways.

What are the switches of manliness?

• Legacy
• Providing
• Physicality
• Nature
• Challenge

.

 

Just a Little Social Jaunt.

“You can pick up one at the Salvation Army. I heard they had them for sale.” Deborah stared forward as she drove.

Vondra turned the metal stick around in her hands. A long, thin metal pole, plastic bits circled the pole at intervals. These were used as extenders to make the pole longer for a taller hiker.

She stared at the dull red surface. This hiking pole was old and beat up; it had seen some wear.

“Well, they also have them at Big Five and REI. But, the ones at REI are really expensive.” Deborah nodded knowingly at her friend in the next seat over.

“Yeah,” said Sue. “About $75.00 for a set. That’s how much I paid. But, I’ve had them for years and years!” She bobbed her blonde head enthusiastically.

In the backseat, Vondra placed the metal stick down on the plush grey upholstery of Deborah’s vehicle. Sorry, her CRV, as had been pointed out to her. Deborah had loaned her the stick for the day.

Deborah and Sue babbled on in the front seats. Vondra stared out at the rolling countryside they were passing on this old country road. It was green and all, but really a whole lot of nothing out here. Palm trees, brush grass, some old oaks here and there. Her co-passenger, Frank, stared silently out his window.

She knew she was going to have to get one of these walking sticks if she was to keep on hiking. But, she sure as hell wasn’t paying any $75! You’ve got to be kidding, she thought to herself.

“Here we are!” Deborah announced and turned into the narrow asphalt drive. They zipped past the little guard shack.

“I think we have to pay $5.00 in one of those envelopes.” Sue was anxious. Deborah waved a manicured hand dismissively.

“Pish. I don’t think they even check.”

Deborah pulled the CRV into a parking space and they got out. Frank got out and disappeared and then reappeared waving a little paper slip in the air.

“Here’s the ticket. I saw a park officer down the way, I think they are checking today.” He handed it to Deborah.

She snatched it without comment and stuck it into a corner of her dash. “Got everything?” she asked the collective group. They all grabbed for last minute items and walked over to the leader.

Slim Jim was holding court with a clipboard and marking off names. They each announced themselves and he dutifully checked off on the sheet.

Doty with her big fluffy dog showed up and she joined Deborah and Sue. The women immediately began whispering in low voices.

Slim Jim was done with the roll call and waved his walking stick forward indicating it was time to hike.

 

The weather was pleasant. A spring day; breezy, sunny but no rain.  Light fluffy clouds moved lazily across a blue sky.

“It won’t be a very long trail today, about 2-3 miles is all,” Slim was announcing, “and fairly flat so that should be pretty easy for everyone.” Nods all around. “We will be going as far as the fish farms and then turning around and coming back.”

Slim always walked with walking sticks due to his bad knees. Vondra knew she could depend on this being an easy hike. She followed his lead as he good-naturedly chatted to members of the group and lectured about the terrain.

“…and the water is high right now since they are letting more out of the dam.”

“Why is that, Jim?”

“The snow pack is melting upstream in the mountains and starting to run downhill.”

In the far distance, the snow-capped Sierra Mountains could be seen. Today people hiked with sticks, long pants and boots. Windbreakers protected against chilly spring breezes.  Most hikers wore hats against potential sun and water bottles hung around bellies and backs. The group could be considered from generally middle-aged to those in the softly declining ‘golden years.’

“And then the bathroom,” Jody was going on, “going to redo it in all tile and then maybe think about doing the kitchen. Good ol’ Mom, leaving me everything like that. Really makes retirement so much easier.”

Deborah nodded. “I know what you mean. I am thinking about redoing mine too, but I am busy with the trailer right now.”

“How’s that going?”

“It’s good. It’s over by the coast, you knew that.” Deborah glanced at Sue. Sue nodded. “So, I call them whenever I plan to go over. Then one of the guys gets out a forklift, pulls it out and sets it up. It is so easy.” She dabbed a Kleenex at some sweat beading on her makeup.

“Wow,” Doty added, skipping to keep up. “What a great a deal. What made you decide to do it?”

“Love the coast, always have,” Deborah replied as they trudged through tall grasses.

“I thought it was difficult to get financing on trailers,” Vondra put in, pulling up the rear. “Especially second homes.”

“Oh, I paid cash for it,” Deborah laughed. It sounded like a tinkling bell. “Of course,” she smiled and glanced sideways at her friend Sue.

“Oh, of course,” Vondra added with a lowered voice.

The women continued to chat as the group moved farther toward the river.

“Well, I have a new mobile home, did I tell you, Deborah?” Doty asked.

“No, tell us.”

“Well, it just went through. I am so excited. It’s by the beach too and I got such a great deal!’

“Wow,” Deborah nodded.

“The great thing,” Doty gushed, “is I can rent it out during the summer because it is such a popular beach. Probably $1200 a week!” She giggled. “I just can’t live on Social Security, it’s just not enough, you know?”

“Oh, don’t I know it.” Deborah replied. “If it hadn’t been for the alimony all these years, I don’t know what I would have done.”

“Isn’t being retired great?” Doty asked.

“It so is,” Deborah replied.

“Here are the falls,” Jim gestured with his walking stick. The group paused and made collective appreciative noises. The falls were a small but busy affair, gushing and bubbling cheerfully as they poured down stream.

“Up there will be the fish farm and we will turn around there.” Jim waved them on.

“How is the boyfriend?” Deborah asked Doty.

“He’s just great. I will be seeing him in a few weeks. Going back there to buy another car. This one is getting some miles on it.”

“The taxes and everything are less back there, are they?” Deborah asked.

“Oh, yes. I save a bundle registering out of state.”

“Good for you,” Deborah added. “So, who watches the mobile home when you are away?”

“There is an on-site maintenance guy and he takes care of everything. It’s great.”

“How about the dogs when you are gone?”

“Oh, the roommate does that. She takes care of them and the house. She and her boyfriend rent one room and she takes care of everything for me when I’m gone.”

“That is so convenient.”

“Yes, I know. It really works out well for them.”

“That is so nice. . .”

Vondra walked a bit faster and left the two women behind. She came up behind two of the guys in the group who were a bit farther ahead.

“… triple bi-pass it was. I don’t do too much anymore except these hikes.”

“Well, it’s good you can still get out. My wife can’t hike at all anymore. Knees bother her.”

“Yeah, but that’s the worst thing, staying at home. She needs to get out.”

The other man nodded, “I know, she just won’t.” They both sighed.

“What can you do?” Triple bi-pass was saying. His companion shrugged.

The group was approaching the fish farm. They straggled up to the fence surrounding the property.

“The park system,” Jim announced when he finally huffed up, “is building this new facility. They will have salmon in place by summer.” The group murmured again. They all stared at a bunch of construction equipment and piles of sand seen through the fencing.

“It will be great for the local fishermen.” Collective nods.

They all turned around and started back.

Vondra attempted conversation with triple-bi pass.

“So, do you fish?”

“No, never liked that much. Used to ride motorcycles but can’t do that anymore. Too much stress on the old ticker.” He smiled a grim smile and patted his chest.

“Ah,” Vondra responded. “Well, this hiking is nice.”

“Yeah, it’s about all I can manage anymore,” triple-pass, Frank responded.

“You ride bikes?” he asked.

Vondra shook her head. “No, never got into that, actually.”

Frank shrugged and trudged on.

 

Eventually, the group rambled back to the parking lot. They began pulling bottles of juice and water out of trunks and bags of various snack food. Vondra waited at the CRV and Deborah and Sue finally came into view. Deborah hit the fob on her key and the locks popped open. Vondra opened the door and dropped her bag on the floor. She pulled out apple chips and started munching on them.

Jim hove into view and people began to gather and chat up about the next hike.

Soon it was time to go and Vondra, Sue, Deborah and Frank got into the CRV to leave. Deborah started up and was moving out of the parking lot and hitting buttons on her cell phone which was attached to a gadget on the dash.

“And I just got this. Isn’t it great? Holds my phone upright so I can see it all the time.” She was chirping as the vehicle moved forward.

“Deborah. . .” Vondra said.

“See it’s this little button here….”

“Deborah, Deborah!” Vondra shouted as the 4×4 truck was swerving into their lane without stopping. Deborah jerked the wheel to the right. The vehicles passed each other side to side.

“Oh, silly, I knew he was going to turn!” Deborah waved her hand in the air. Vondra unclutched her hands from the front seat where she was sitting.

She never even saw him, she grimaced to herself.

They were on the road back to the meet-up site to get their cars.

Vondra dug through her backpack and grabbed her wallet.

“Is five dollars enough for gas, Deborah?”

“Sure,” Deborah glanced her way. “If that’s what you can afford.”

“If it needs to be more….”

“No, no,” Deborah laughed. “That’s fine, really.” She snatched the fiver and plunked it into the console. The other passengers started pulling out money too. She took their offerings without comment.

 

Back at the car park, they all got out and started to their separate cars.

“Great hike!”

“Good weather!”

“Can’t wait to go again.”

People started waving at each other and getting into cars.

Vondra got into her little used sedan. She threw the boots in the back and put on a pair of flip-flops.

She started the engine and waved at the others leaving.

“Okay,” she said to the little blue car with gritted teeth, “time to go get a pair of those damned hiking sticks. Shit!” She started the car and headed off.

cew/18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 30, 2017

Ronnie Ann Ryan

Blog Understanding Men 

Interested in a man and looking for answers on, “When will he ask me out on a second date?”  Read on to find out what you need to know about understanding midlife single men.

When Will He Ask Me Out Again? That’s the Big Question

You met a guy online and your first date was great! You had a good time and you know he did too. He texted you after telling you so. You’ve been texting for a few days which is fun. He’s witty and has a good sense of humor too.

But as the days tick by, you start to wonder when will he ask me out on a second date? It’s completely natural to be curious about this and even a bit anxious. Especially when you had such a good time. You really can’t wait to see him again.

You wish there was a way to make the phone ring. But there isn’t. You think about texting him to see if he’s still interested. Maybe that’s what you should do. But then you’re not sure and the last thing you want to do is ruin your chances.

Wondering when he will ask me out and waiting around stinks!

How Long Should It Take to Get a Second Date?

Not surprisingly, the length of time between a first and second date varies by the man and the situation. However, the amount of time it does takes is telling.

The best case scenario is when a man asks you for a second date while you are still on the first one. That’s always a good omen! If he waits just a few days, like two to three, that’s also a positive sign. In fact, anytime within the first week is optimal. If he wants to see you again quickly, that means you are on his mind,.When the gap between first and second date is longer, like two or three weeks, that might indicate a number of things that aren’t so positive:

• He’s too busy to date
• He’s not really ready to date
• He’s not serious about finding love
• He’s dating a lot of women and you’re not high on the list
• He’s not that into you

Yes, sometimes a man has to travel for work or has a lot on his plate. But these situations do not bode well for a blossoming relationship. When a man takes weeks to ask for a second date, of course you can go. But do not get attached or stop dating other men for him. While it’s true anything is possible, I wouldn’t bet on a guy who is slow to request that second date.

How to Know When to Move On

When you’re objective about what is happening in your dating life, then you can face facts. Not being asked for a second date within a week indicates he might not be the right man. The sooner you realize this and accept it, the less you’ll feel confused, hurt, disappointed or rejected by him. The less time you’ll spend analyzing everything you said and did and feeling badly about yourself. The faster you can move on to find the right man

There are plenty of men out there. Don’t set your hopes on a man you’ve just men. Stay objective as long as possible. Date several men at once – just for the first few dates. Most will disappear any way because they aren’t right for you and they know it.

Signs He’s Really Interested

See, the right man for you will WANT to get to know you. He’ll be EXCITED to spend time with you and will do what it takes to make that time. he’ll stay in touch ever couple of days. He’ll text AND call. He’ll ask in advance even if he’s going out of town so he knows he can see you when he gets back. His consistency is a true signal of his intent.

And that is exactly what you want. A man who knows what he wants and when he meets you, he knows you’re the one to pursue. Which is exactly what he does. The right man for you doesn’t leave you feeling confused or wondering ‘when will he ask me out’.

 

Daily Beast

ALL THE SINGLE LADIES

If you’re a single, college-educated woman in Manhattan, the cards of love are stacked in favor of you remaining single.

EMILY SHIRE

09.07.15 12:15 AM ET

You feel like you’re in romantic purgatory.

It’s real. It’s not a hazy paranoia.

And it’s not a matter of being too fat or too loud, too timid or too aggressive, too slutty or too frigid. If you’re a single, college-educated woman in Manhattan, the cards of love are stacked in favor of you remaining single—but it has nothing to do with texting a guy too soon or (not) sleeping with someone on a third date.

As financial reporter and author of Date-Onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game, Jon Birger puts it, “It’s not that He’s Just not That Into You. It’s that There Aren’t Enough of Him.”

In his book, Birger eloquently explains, in terms that even the non-statistically-literate can comprehend, that the gender ratios of college graduating classes in the past few decades reveal that there really aren’t enough single guys. The “man deficit” is real for the graduate set. The current college class breakdown of women to men is 57:43, which means that there will be about one-third more women than men with college degrees when graduation arrives.

If we assume these women will want to marry college-educated men—a desire that Birger convincingly argues should and will change—there’s simply not enough men to make all those trips down the aisle a reality.

Recent debates about dating and sex have been seriously lacking in data. We’ve argued about hookup culture and whether it brought the death of monogamy and marriage, and about whether feminism and sexual liberation—giving women control over their reproductive health and sexual expression, while freeing them from the confines of a virgin ideal—could be considered the cause. But we’ve never really looked hard at the demographics—which may provide a far better, more concrete answer.

 

Birger points to a relatively overlooked book, Too Many Women?:The Sex Ratio Question, which was written by professors Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord, and published in 1983. Guttentag and Secord noticed there was an over-supply of young, single women when the Women’s Liberation movement and the sexual revolution blossomed. Further research showed that societies tended to skew away from monogamy when men were in scarce supply.

“The sexual revolution and the hookup culture… are both rooted in a statistical over-supply of women,” writes Birger. This conclusion that people should lay off of feminism as the culprit for hook-up culture is not the focus of Date-Onomics, but a rewarding one for anyone tired of hand-wringing about whether feminism “hurts” women.

Not for nothing are there 39 percent more women ages 22 to 29 with college degrees in Manhattan than men in the same bracket, with a gap of 100,000 between female and male college degree holders under the age of 35 in the entire city.

Top of Form

E

Bottom of Form

The gap’s impact on dating for straight, single women is exacerbated, Birger explains, because men with college degrees are consciously or subconsciously aware that they are in scarce supply. They take advantage of their rarefied status by holding off settling down and enjoying the market of riches—and Birger’s book includes colorful anecdotes. One woman recalls a boyfriend who felt entitled to grope her friend right in front of her because he thought he deserved a threesome. When I speak with Birger, he assures me they weren’t all as bad as Hendriks.

These men have the problem—or, really, the luxury—of the “paradox of choice.” It’s harder to commit to just one lady because they believe another woman will always be a little better.

But despite these stark numbers and sobering (yet familiar) stories, the joy of reading Date-Onomics comes, in part, from the fact there is something so satisfying in knowing you’re a bit fucked, but it’s not your fault. His data provides concrete, liberating evidence that we should stop over-analyzing the nonsense minutiae of modern dating.

“The idea that waiting an extra 12 hours makes the difference between being with Mr. Right forever and not, I mean it just doesn’t make sense, right? It’s not a strategic problem, it’s a demographic problem.”

In fact, the dating advice that is offered up in Date-Onomics runs refreshingly against the courtship narratives that are most restrictive for women.

For example, even in 2015, women are still often expected to “play hard to get” and “let men take the lead.” Women who don’t demurely wait to be fawned over are often branded as “desperate” or “pathetic.”

Birger counters these women are not, in fact, desperate. They’re married because they took fate into their own hands—which is all the more needed when the numbers are so against you.

In seven of the couples, the woman pursued the men.

“It’s decisive women who, maybe, odds-wise are more likely to get the guy,” Birger tells me. That’s because “guys don’t like to be rejected. They would rather not take their chance than put themselves out there and get rejected.”

There were moments when Date-Onomics is initially disheartening—especially if you’re a 25-year-old woman who takes comfort fantasizing the perfect guy is out there and you just haven’t found him yet.

“For a college-educated woman who puts an extremely high-priority on getting married to a college-educated man, she may be better off strategically—though not necessarily romantically—getting married young to Mr. Perfectly Acceptable rather than holding out to 40 for Mr. Right,” Birger writes. My initial response to this was panic. But, as occurred so many times reading Date-Onomics, I ultimately felt liberated, fear replaced by the realization that driving yourself crazy to find some mystical “best”—and, in turn, to attract that mystical “best”—was a waste. It’s a passage I proceeded to share with nearly every friend on Gchat.

When I ask Birger how he began exploring the “man deficit” when he’s been out of the dating world for decades, he says his female colleagues and friends were his motivators.

When a work friend in her late thirties mentioned that she and her boyfriend, a man in his mid-forties, broke up because he wasn’t ready to settle down, her visible sadness left Birger feeling frustrated enough to investigate what he had long pondered: Why were his amazing female friends and colleagues single after years of dating and seeking marriage?

“I had this initial reaction of exasperation,” he said. “I just know all these women who have so much going for them and their self-confidence has been shot by being in cities, like New York City. It’s terrible women are making these strides, and this minority of men who are college-educated are benefitting from something over which they have no control.”

“As a financial writer, I see that there are all sorts of examples of market inefficiencies that people can exploit only because the people participating in them are the only ones who know about them,” Birger tells me. “Ones they’re exposed, people’s behavior changes.”

In Date-Onomics, he cites how baseball changed after Michael Lewis’s Moneyball exposed Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane’s strategy of picking up hitters with high on-base percentages because they were undervalued. Only a few years after the book’s publication, the “cost of acquiring such hitters via the free agent market soared.”

Birger does have a few suggestions for improving one’s odds as a college-educated woman looking to marry.

One is simply “Go West, young woman.” Move yourself into man-heavy tech enclaves, like Silicon Valley. California, Colorado, and Washington tend to be states with gender ratios friendlier to women. In Santa Clara County among the 20-29 age group, there are 38 percent more single men than women and 48 percent more single men than women in the 30-39 group, The county tends to have fewer divorces, too—another upshot of men being scarce.

Besides, it’s a relatively superficial response to the larger root of the college gender gap, a problem that affects so much more than dating: Boys are lagging behind in higher education. “More boys need to go to college. That’s the long-term solution,” Birger says.

“I am certainly not suggesting we do it at the expense of girls. I just think there’s a boy problem we need to address. There shouldn’t be 35 percent more women than men in college.”

“Forget about dating. It’s really about the economy,” he says. In Date-Onomics, Birger cities a study conducted by Columbia Business School professor Shang-Jin Wei and economist Xiabao Zhang showing that “20 percent of China’s GDP growth from 2000 through 2005 was attributable to the oversupply of men.” With women in China in short supply, the eligible bachelorettes made it clear that they prioritized guys with cash—which in turn, may have fueled the economy.

At the same time, men and women should both be less resistant to what Birger refers to as “mixed-collar marriages,” i.e, doctors, lawyers, and bankers marrying people without college degrees who work in blue-collar professions.

By confining themselves to degree-holders, Birger argues that women are “limiting their options and giving those college grad men too much leverage.”

It’s one of the strongest directives to come from a man who is hesitant to peddle too much specific advice when it comes to finding “the one.” As he often does during our interview, Birger places heavy caveats on his counsel, noting he’s not a dating coach or matchmaker.

“I’m not a dating professional,” he says. “Who wants to take dating advice from a financial writer?”

Well, I certainly do—and maybe so should others.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

          HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

By RICHARD D. LYONS

Published: October 30, 1984

THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation’s mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.

But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?

A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.

Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950’s and 1960’s said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.

‘They’ve Gone Far, Too Far’

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ”They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ”Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn’t have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn’t ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.”

Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ”The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.” He said the policies ”were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.”

The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50’s and 60’s had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.

And these leaders were prodded into action by a series of scientific studies in the 1950’s purporting to show that mental illness was far more prevalent than had previously been believed.

Finally, there was a growing economic and political liability faced by state legislators. Enormous amounts of tax revenues were being used to support the state mental hospitals, and the institutions themselves were increasingly thought of as ”snake pits” or facilities that few people wanted.

One of the most influential groups in bringing about the new national policy was the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, an independent body set up by Congress in 1955. One of its two surviving members, Dr. M. Brewster Smith, a University of California psychologist who served as vice president, said the commission took the direction it did because of ”the sort of overselling that happens in almost every interchange between science and government.”

”Extravagant claims were made for the benefits of shifting from state hospitals to community clinics,” Dr. Smith said. ”The professional community made mistakes and was overly optimistic, but the political community wanted to save money.”

‘Tranquilizers Became Panacea’

Charles Schlaifer, a New York advertising executive who served as secretary-treasurer of the group, said he was now disgusted with the advice presented by leading psychiatrists of that day. ”Tranquilizers became the panacea for the mentally ill,” he said. ”The state programs were buying them by the carload, sending the drugged patients back to the community and the psychiatrists never tried to stop this. Local mental health centers were going to be the greatest thing going, but no one wanted to think it through.”

Dr. Bertram S. Brown, a psychiatrist and Federal official who was instrumental in shaping the community center legislation in 1963, agreed that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were to some extent misled by the mental health community and Government bureaucrats.

”The bureaucrat-psychiatrists realized that there was political and financial overpromise,” he said.

Dr. Brown, then an executive of the National Institute of Mental Health and now president of Hahnemann University in Philadelphia, stated candidly in an interview: ”Yes, the doctors were overpromising for the politicians. The doctors did not believe that community care would cure schizophrenia, and we did allow ourselves to be somewhat misrepresented.”

”They ended up with everything but the kitchen sink without the issue of long-term funding being settled,” he said. ”That was the overpromising.”

Dr. Brown said he and the other architects of the community centers legislation believed that while there was a risk of homelessness, that it would not happen if Federal, state, local and private financial support ”was sufficient” to do the job.

Resources Vanished Quickly

The legislation sought to create a nationwide network of locally based mental health centers which, rather than large state hospitals, would be the main source of treatment. The center concept was aided by Federal funds for four and a half years, after which it was hoped that the states and local governments would assume responsibility.

”We knew that there were not enough resources in the community to do the whole job, so that some people would be in the streets facing society head on and questions would be raised about the necessity to send them back to the state hospitals,” Dr. Brown said.

But, he continued, ”It happened much faster than we foresaw.” The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials.

Dr. Brown insists, as do others who were involved in the Congressional legislation to establish community mental health centers, that politicians and health experts were carrying out a public mandate to abolish the abominable conditions of insane asylums. He and others note – and their critics do not disagree – that their motives were not venal and that they were acting humanely.

In restrospect it does seem clear that questions were not asked that might have been asked. In the thousands of pages of testimony before Congressional committees in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, little doubt was expressed about the wisdom of deinstitutionalization. And the development of tranquilizing drugs was regarded as an unqualified ”godsend,” as one of the nation’s leading psychiatrists, Dr. Francis J. Braceland, described it when he testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1963.

Dr. Braceland, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association who is a retired professor of psychiatry at Yale University, still maintains, however, that under the circumstances the widespread prescription of drugs for the mentally ill was and is a wise policy.

”We had no alternative to the use of drugs for schizophrenia and depression,” Dr. Braceland said. ”Before the introduction of drugs like Thorazine we never had drugs that worked. These are wonderful drugs and they kept a lot of people out of the hospitals.”

Testimony to Congress

His point is borne out repeatedly by references in Congressional testimony, such as the following exchange at a House subcommittee hearing between Representative Leo W. O’Brien, Democrat of upstate New York, and Dr. Henry N. Pratt, director of New York Hospital in Manhattan, who appeared on behalf of the American Hospital Association.

Mr. O’Brien: ”Do you know offhand how much New York appropriates annually for its mental hospitals?”

Dr. Pratt: ”It is the vast sum of $400 million to $500 million.”

Mr. O’Brien: ”So you see that, through a real attempt to handle this problem at the community level, the possibility that this dead weight of $400 million to $500 million a year around the necks of the New York State taxpayers might be reduced considerably in the next 15 or 20 years?

Dr. Pratt: ”I do, indeed. Yes, sir.”

He then told the subcommittee that ”striking proof of the advantages of local short-term intensive care of the mentally ill was brought out” in a Missouri study.

Dr. Pratt’s testimony and the Missouri study were repeatedly cited in subsequent Congressional debates on the community centers bill by such politicians as Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota and Representative Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama.

The Missouri study, which compared a group of 412 patients in two intensive treatment centers with patients admitted to five mental hospitals, showed that the average stays for patients in the large hospitals were 237 days longer than for similarly diagnosed patients at the treatment centers.

But Dr. George A. Ulett of St. Louis, the psychiatrist who directed the study as head of Missouri’s Division of Mental Diseases, now says the numbers cited, though correct, were misinterpreted. ”We did have dramatic numbers, but the initial success of the community centers in Missouri hinged on the large numbers of psychiatrists and support personnel who staffed the centers at that time,” Dr. Ulett said.

MORE ARTICLES TO FOLLOW ABOUT HOW THE SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS BEEN PROVEN UNABLE TO CARE FOR OR CONTROL THE MENTALLY ILL.

Christmas – 1965

It was Christmas and cold. Gusty winds blew dry leaves around dusty streets, while grey clouds threatened overhead.  Neighbors had all gotten their Christmas lights up on the edges of roofs. Decorated trees could be seen proudly displayed in front windows.

Ads for every conceivable gift imaginable shouted from television sets, the stores were lit up and decorated. Downtown had the lights up and glitter banners. Everyone was running around madly, getting ready for the Big Day.

In 1965 girls were getting bolder and wearing eye-popping colors on dresses, lipstick and nail polish. Hair styles were Big! with a lot! of hairspray and the woman’s movement was just getting up on wobbly legs.

Seventeen Magazine and the new self-involved women’s magazines were just starting to replace the traditional Woman’s Day and Family Circles that I had been brought up with.

Christmas Eve, my father did the traditional thing which was to get the three of us kids into the car and make a run to the new Mall. We eagerly stuffed our funds into wallets and bags and jumped in the car.

Once at the Mall, my father deposited us and gave us a two-hour window of time. Therefter, we were to meet him at the coffee shop. Released, we ran screaming and yelling through the Mall picking up and discarding junk. The clock was ticking, so decisions had to be made, and things bought. That done, we snuggled our secret purchases close to the chest and hurried back to my dad. We then jumped in the car and went home to furiously wrap.

 

The next morning Christmas dawned, and my brothers and I got up and ran for the tree. After forty minutes of excited ripping and tearing, the floor was covered in brightly colored debris.

We all took a breath and sat back inspecting our stuff.

“Where’s my present?” My mother asked.

Looking wildly around, I started searching in the paper. Panicked, I began to rummage desperately but could find nothing. I looked at my mother, stricken.

“I didn’t get anything?” Her face began to fold into a sob.

My father got up and went to fix himself an early whiskey and soda.

She got up and went back into her bedroom.

“I thought you got her something!” I said viciously to my older brother.

“I thought you did, you idiot!” He hissed back at me.

“Don’t look at me!” the younger one waved his hands in front of himself.

“Aw, shit,” I said to the crumpled paper.

My mother emerged from the back with clothes on. Saying nothing, she went out the front door. Two hours later she returned. She was holding two bottles of new nail polish given to her by a neighbor. One was the new bright pink everyone was crazy about and another in white.

“Someone got me something for Christmas,” she waved the bottles at me and went back to her room again. I was making breakfast and kept my head down. It was a very quiet house that day.

 

The following Christmas season, my mother engaged in very few of her usual, pre-holiday preparations. I’m not sure we even had a tree. Surprisingly, there were no threats, tears, recriminations, nothing, just a sort of deadly purpose.

Instead, she announced two weeks before the event that she would be getting on a plane and going ‘home’ for Christmas. Home was the small Southern where she had been born and raised and where her mother and sisters still lived.

My dad took her to the airport and she was gone. We didn’t hear a word from her until she got back. She was to continue this new ‘tradition’ for about five more years. Our household was remarkably quiet during these times. The tradition only changed when my oldest brother, then in the Air Force, got stationed overseas.  She started a new tradition of visiting him and his family. Seeing her in old photo albums, these looked to be happy trips.

 

Christmas 1985

1985, the Woman’s Movement was in full roar and the sexual revolution had definitely landed. I had a ‘professional’ job, meaning that it had been done by a man previous years. I was flying high with a salary, company car and expense account. Also, yes, can you believe, respect for myself, what I did and respect from others. Alright!

Christmas time, we met at my mother’s new house she had purchased herself. My parents had divorced some years previously. Mother was making her own way in the business world and doing fairly well. The place was a nice ranch in a small town and she had an entire room fixed up for her favorite hobby, sewing.

By this time, Dad was out of the picture except for an occasional dinner, and the two oldest brothers were married and gone. That left me and the youngest brother to do the Christmas thing.

We gathered around the tree and fireplace in the cozy living room and opened presents on Christmas Eve. I had a large box from mom to unwrap. I got the paper off it and pulled the top off to reveal more tissue paper underneath and some darkly glowing fabric. Slowly I pulled out what was a deep, blood red, velvet jacket. It took me a few moments to realize what it was.

“Mom, wasn’t this the jacket you were working on. . .?”

“Yes, yes, it is. You saw it before. But it never fit me right and was too big. So, I made the sleeves into ¾ length and they are so fashionable now. It’s just your size.”

I tried it on once and felt like I was wearing a Hugh Hefner velvet dinner jacket. I could not imagine a single place I could wear such a thing. I folded it back up and plastered a smile on my face.

“Thanks so much, Mom, but it’s really not my style.”

She started prattling on and on about how expensive the fabric was, etc. etc.          I wouldn’t back down, no way I was taking that thing home and then pretend to wear it.

“Maybe you could sell it.”

More babbling on and on. I went and got myself a coke and soon after, found some excuse to leave the festivities early.

That early winter, I waited to see if my mother, sensing my extremely displeasure with the gift, would get me something else. She never did. Apparently, she felt that she had done her duty and Christmas was over.

In the years following, I began to tell my mother and my brother, in broad hints, what I would like to get for Christmas. In looking through old pictures recently, I saw myself with a new vacuum cleaner and a happy face. It was exactly what I wanted.

Mom and Dad are both gone now, and that brother has disappeared from the face of polite company. I am still in touch with my other two brothers, but they have large families and those families come first, especially at Christmas.

 

 Christmas – 2015

On Christmas Day I got a voice mail message from my daughter.

“Mom,” she said in her usual breathless fashion, “I’m at Dad’s and my phone has run out of power. I’m calling on his phone. I’ll try to call you when I get home.”

Later, I called my daughter. She answered. “Yeah, hi. Um, I’m just going out. Talk to you later. Love ya!”

I sat in my living room and stared at my little artificial tree. Decorated with pretty glass bobbles, red and gold snowflakes, there was a beige tea towel tucked around the base to somewhat resemble snow. Yellow snow I thought with a laugh.

Under the tree there was not one single gift. Not even a little one. This marked the first Christmas when I didn’t get a single gift from anyone. Not one.

“Funny,” I remarked to the cat, “how much things change and then stay the same.

His response was to start licking his paw. I sighed and went to get boxes to take down the tree.

 

 

 

 

Cew 2/18

 

 

Whole Language describes a literacy philosophy which emphasizes that children should focus on meaning and strategy instruction. It is often contrasted with phonics-based methods of teaching reading and writing which emphasize instruction for decoding and spelling.

After its introduction by Kenneth Goodman (1963), the Whole Language approach to reading rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major educational paradigm until the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period, educators were highly skeptical of whole language claims. What followed were the “Reading Wars” of the 1980s and 1990s between advocates of phonics and those of Whole Language methodology. Congress commissioned reading expert Marilyn Jager Adams (1994) to write a definitive book on the topic. She determined that phonics was important but suggested that some elements of the whole language approach were helpful.

However, once we get past all the press releases to understand Ken Goodman and the significance of his approach, it is essential to understand where he started, career wise and where his ideas originated from. As a young teacher, Goodman was in a large inner-city school district dealing with poor, low-income students with significantly poor academic skills. His first research had to do with student mis-cues when they were reading and how many mistakes students made per passage, (Goodman, 1967).

Chomsky and Goodman

The whole language approach to phonics grew out of Noam Chomsky’s ideas about language acquisition. In 1967, Ken Goodman had an idea about reading, which he considered similar to Chomsky’s, and he wrote a widely cited article calling reading a “psycholinguistic guessing game”, (Goodman, 1967).

Goodman thought that there are four “cueing systems” for reading, four things that readers have to guess what word comes next:

1. graphophonemic: the shapes of the letters, and the sounds that they evoke.
2. semantic: what word one would expect to occur based on the meaning of the sentence so far.
3. syntactic: what part of speech or word would make sense based on the grammar of the language.
4. pragmatic: what is the function of the text.

Graphophonemic cues are related to the sounds we hear, the alphabet, and the conventions of spelling, punctuation and print. Students who are emerging readers often use these cues. Proficient readers and writers draw on their prior experiences with text and the other cueing systems. Ken Goodman writes that, “The cue systems are used simultaneously and interdependently. …an initial consonant may be all that is needed to identify an element and make possible the prediction of an ensuing sequence or the confirmation of prior predictions,” (Goodman, 1982). He continues with, “Reading requires not so much skills as strategies that make it possible to select the most productive cues.”

The semantic cuing system is the one in which meaning is constructed. “So focused is reading on making sense that the visual input, the perceptions we form, and the syntactic patterns we assign are all directed by our meaning construction,” (Goodman, 1996). The key component of the semantic system is context. A reader must be able to attach meaning to words and have some prior knowledge to use as a context for understanding the word. They must be able to relate the newly learned word to prior knowledge through personal associations with text and the structure of text.(Goodman, K. 1982).

The syntactic system, according to Goodman and Watson, (Goodman, Y. 2005). includes the interrelation of words and sentences within connected text.

The pragmatic system is also involved in the construction of meaning while reading. This brings into play the socio-cultural knowledge of the reader. Yetta Goodman and Dorothy Watson state that, “Language has different meaning depending on the reason for use, the circumstances in which the language is used, and the ideas writers and readers have about the contextual relations with the language users. Language cannot exist outside a sociocultural context, which includes the prior knowledge of the language user,” (Goodman, Y. 2005).

 

Eventually, Goodman formulated a theory that students could learn to read, with comprehension, even with miscues, if they were able to rely on the context of the passage, in whole, to help them understand the meaning of what they were reading. In other words, a reader could link or frog-jump over words he did not know, and by referring to the context of the total passage, would be able to ‘understand’ the meaning of the unknown word. In the end, the reader could understand and comprehend the entire passage.

His Whole Language theory caught fire in the 60’s and 70’s and whole generations of school age children were taught to read with this theoretical approach. It was in the late ‘70’s (about) and early ‘80s and the 90’s that parents and educators became aware of the fact that students were graduating from high school, still unable to read.

What was happening? Back to the drawing board and back to conventional forms of instruction. Further research into the nature of reading and of learning has shown us clearly that young readers have to learn to decode words and language. And, today, teaching colleges are training teachers that the pre-K to 3^rd grade years are all about decoding and decoding skills. Students have to be able to break words apart, put them back together again, construct sentences and ultimately, construct meaning from what they read. Education appears to be back on track.

Alas, poor Ken. Hard times. However, all is not lost and there is light coming from that tunnel. The students Goodman originally worked with were poor readers from poor academic backgrounds. It is highly likely these students were never taught good decoding skills. Here is the important point. Instead of attempting to reverse the clock and go backwards to the 2^nd grade and reteach those skills, he simply skipped over all that decoding stuff and taught students’ techniques to read with their existing skills.

Other teachers at the same time were working with inner-city school kids and learning that if students were simply interested in what they were reading, they would read without being forced to do so, (Fader, 1955), (Krashen, 2012).

The Goodman approach can be resurrected and used today with older students when it is not possible to duplicate the K-3 learning experience. I am speaking of ESL and ELL learners, many of whom don’t come to this country until they are nearly adults.

As high school or especially as college students, ESL’s are required to read substantial amounts of material. This is a struggle for them. Time and time again, while working with ESL students, I have seen them glued to their dictionaries and carefully translating their English texts word by word or phrase by phrase. The length of time this translation process takes is, to putting it mildly, extensive.

So, what can we do to keep the ESL/ELL student even with their peers? Students can be taught the Kenneth Goodman approach to reading, wherein, they construct meaning from the text not by translating word by word but rather by understanding the piece they are reading in context with the whole text.

Currently, I teach my ESL students to keep a word journal and to write down words that they don’t know. However, they are not to stop and look words up in a dictionary unless they feel strongly they cannot understand the passage without help. Then, later, they can go back, look up the word, even write down a definition. Students can leaf through their notebook for a refresher or put the words on 3×5 cards and practice them.

ESL students, need to learn to live with some ambiguity. (This and this can also apply to older native speakers who are struggling with reading.) In their reading, they will not understand every word. They need to learn to read and comprehend to the best of their ability and, well enough to get the class assignment done. As most teachers will tell you, they would rather have a completed student assignment that is somewhat less than an A, than to have no assignment at all.

Unfortunately, students all too often give up and either quit coming to class as they feel too overwhelmed. Reading requirements are a big part of that overwhelm.

In conclusion: ESL students are overly dependent on dictionaries and translation devices to get them through their reading and assignments. The Kenneth Goodman Whole Language approach to reading can be utilized for these students, as well as low-achieving older native speakers. The Whole Language approach can help them get through their reading with sufficient understanding of the material to complete class work. Students can be trained to create word journals and to make a habit of recording words they don’t know, learn the words and thereby, expand their vocabularies.

Constant reading in English and expanding vocabularies combined with listening to spoken English with help these students to eventually become good readers, proficient writers and good communicators.

 

                References

 

Adams, M.M. (1994). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-51076-6.

Fader, D. (5/5/1955). Hooked on Books. Mass Market Paperbacks.

Goodman, K. (1963). A Communicative Theory of the Reading Curriculum. Elementary English, Vol 40:30, Mar. 1963, pp 290-298.

Goodman, K.S, (1967). Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game, Journal of The Reading Specialist, 6 (4), 126-135.

Goodman, Y. (2005). Reading Miscue Inventory. Katonah, NY: Robert C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Goodman, K. (1982). Language and Literacy. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan. ISBN 0-7100-0875-9.

Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading. NH: Heinemann. IBSN 0-435-07200-5.

Krashen, S. (5/5/2012). The Power of Reading, The University of Georgia College of Education, The COE Lecture Series. Retrieved from www.youtube.com. Retrieved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSW7gmvDLag&t=1236s

Whole Language, Wikipedia. Retrieved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language

2/2018 cew – copyright

 

 

 

Friday, I got the last of my 1099 wages statements from my employers for 2017.  I was able to add up all the money I had made in the year.

Halleluiah! I finally earned exactly the same amount I earned in 1992, twenty-six years ago. In 2008, I made the big plunge, left the corporate world forever and went back to school to become a teacher. It has been a bumpy road from time to time, but I will say I do enjoy what I do now much more than then.

So much for the vision of self-fulfillment. I am currently in the same size apartment I was in that year; two bed-room, one bath, car-port, pool-jacuzzi, pets okay. The only difference is that the amount of the rent has gone up 33% in the same period of time. I live in a moderate sized town in Central California; not Manhattan or San Francisco.

I estimate food prices are double what used to be since I am paying $600 to 900 per month for one person while I was paying $400 to $600 for two people.

In the same time period, electricity has increased from $6.57 per kilowatt hours in 1990 to $10.28 kilo hr. in 2016. The increase is 36%. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/.

The price of gasoline has gone up and come down; $1.30 per gallon in 1990 to $2.42 per gallon in 2016. Retrieved fromhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/.

Prices for Water And Sewerage Maintenance, 1990-2017 ($20)

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for water and sewerage maintenance were 254.46% higher in 2017 versus 1990.

http://www.in2013dollars.com/Water-and-sewerage-maintenance/price-inflation/1990.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Prices for Food, 2000-2017 ($20)

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for food were 48.95% higher in 2017 versus 2000. Retrieved from http://www.in2013dollars.com/Food/price-inflation.

 

Wow! You really have to look at the numbers to believe it. I keep wandering around saying “Why am I so broke? Why do I never have any money?” And, I am broke, and I do never have any money. The only break I get from the economy is since I have Medicare for medicals; the program reduces the amount of the bills and how much they pay. As a result, the doctors and hospitals reduce their fees. That’s it. Maybe some reduction in the costs of parks and museums. But, the big-ticket items: food, shelter and transportation – I’m in there with the rest of the rabble. I frequently ask myself, how do people live who have kids and make less money than I do? Basically, they do without is how.

Last thought; because I am in the senior group (sigh) I can easily remember a pack of cigarettes that cost 25 cents, gasoline that was 25 cents a gallon and going to the market and for $20, bringing back 5 bags of groceries. Easily enough to last a week. Today I can spend $20 and come out with two things, literally.

Bottom of Form

U.S. Inflation Rate, 1990-2017 ($100)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, the dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 2.35% per year. Prices in 2017 are 87.3% higher than prices in 1990.

Years with the largest changes in pricing: 1917 (28.65%), 1921 (-24.20%), and 1947 (21.43%). Okay, so maybe it is. But, an increase of 28.65% in inflation in one year. What the heck is going on? Two of the years listed above were war years.

Okay, I’m simple, I don’t get it. I just feel like saying, bring back the old days. Ah, me.

cew