Tonight Mike got into his rare-yet-regular fits where he's sort of snapping at everyone and my tension levels go through the roof listening to it from another room. I always first try to ignore it, and then finally make a comment that he ignores, but that stops him from continuing. That is the pattern.
Tonight I went another step and went to where he was and said, "Don't ignore me or give me the silent treatment when I talk!" I went on to say I'd given a perfectly reasonable suggestion. He countered with his usual mood-related (that is, he's not usually of this opinion, but he gets in moods like this) fit about how everything is too overwhelming and impossible. So I said he had three choices:
1. He could leave this family
2. He could learn to handle it
3. He could learn to take a night off when he needed it, which was infrequently, rather than plowing through it with anger and snappishness and making everyone miserable.
I felt so much better after spelling it out. It's not like it happens often, but I do want to bring a total halt to the reactions he learned from his father, which are to totally tune out when he's hearing something he'd either prefer not to hear or doesn't have an answer for, in order, I've assumed, to communicate superiority to the whole situation. I do so dislike his father, and also I HATE being ignored and do I really have to boil a rabbit to get it to stop? I think not.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Old Crush
I had a dream last night about the boy I had a crush on from age 12 when I met him in youth group, until age 16 when I got my first real boyfriend and Crush Boy had gone off to college. He was a very good choice as a high-school crush, because he was kind to me and didn't take advantage of my feelings, which in true Constance form I unwisely confessed to him via NOTE, as if all the Blatant Mooning wasn't totally obvious to everyone.
I don't think it's too revealing to say his name is Jim. And when I did NaNoWriMo a few years ago (when pregnant with my youngest and looking for distraction from the 'round-the-clock nausea), I wrote a book about a woman who had an affair with the high school crush who finally liked her back, and then found herself pregnant with a baby who might be her husband's or might be her high school crush's.
Jim is the only guy I would consider an actual danger to my marriage: that is, I was so attracted to him back then, and he seems like SO MUCH my type even now (he's similar in personality to Mike), I don't think it would be safe to have any contact with him now. It's possible that if I did actually meet him it would totally defuse the attraction (this has certainly happened with other, less-significant crushes), but I think of it as not worth the risk with Jim, just in case.
I'm Facebook friends with his sister so I see his picture from time to time, and pictures of his nice wife and two children: three more reasons it would not be a good idea, just in case.
I don't think it's too revealing to say his name is Jim. And when I did NaNoWriMo a few years ago (when pregnant with my youngest and looking for distraction from the 'round-the-clock nausea), I wrote a book about a woman who had an affair with the high school crush who finally liked her back, and then found herself pregnant with a baby who might be her husband's or might be her high school crush's.
Jim is the only guy I would consider an actual danger to my marriage: that is, I was so attracted to him back then, and he seems like SO MUCH my type even now (he's similar in personality to Mike), I don't think it would be safe to have any contact with him now. It's possible that if I did actually meet him it would totally defuse the attraction (this has certainly happened with other, less-significant crushes), but I think of it as not worth the risk with Jim, just in case.
I'm Facebook friends with his sister so I see his picture from time to time, and pictures of his nice wife and two children: three more reasons it would not be a good idea, just in case.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Refill
The last time I saw my psychiatrist, which was in early summer, she told me to make an appointment for 2 months later. Which I tried to do, but the receptionist said she didn't see any appointments past 3:00 all summer, and I always have a 4:30 appointment, so I assumed this was a summer scheduling thing. I called the refill line as needed but planned to wait until fall to make an appointment.
When I called the refill line this most recent time, a receptionist called me back and left a message to tell me the doctor said I need to make an appointment. It took me over a week to steel myself to call, and when I did, the receptionist said the doctor had no appointments past 3:00. I said I wasn't sure if I should leave a message or switch to one of the other doctors in the practice, and then I said actually I should just switch doctors, because of course the doctor isn't going to change her whole schedule for one patient. But the receptionist talked me into leaving a message, because she said OTHERWISE I WOULD NEED TO START ALL OVER AT THE INTAKE LINE, AS A NEW PATIENT.
I have several issues with this.
1. If I were to switch doctors within my primary care provider's office, my file would just go with me: I wouldn't need to start over as a brand-new, never-seen patient. I stopped seeing one of the doctors when he said getting my tubes tied would be the mature decision, and all they needed to do was write a new primary on the folder: they didn't need to ask me all over again about my allergies and insurance. Why would this be different with psychiatrists in the same practice?
2. In fact, even if I moved to a different STATE, my file would accompany me to an entirely new practice of general practitioners and I wouldn't need to start over as a brand-new, never-seen-by-any-doctor-ever patient. Why would this be different with psychiatrists IN THE SAME PRACTICE?
But anyway, I left a message. The receptionist said at least my psychiatrist could call in a refill for me.
And my psychiatrist called me this evening, and had to leave a message because I DO NOT ANSWER THE PHONE. AS she and I have discussed MULTIPLE TIMES, since ONE OF THE THINGS I'M BEING TREATED FOR is phone phobia.
I don't know exactly what my point is. I guess I have several:
1. Doctors should be available when their patients are available. Yes, I do mean evenings and weekends, and I am not at all sorry that super-educated people can't work 9-5 as they'd prefer. EVERYONE would prefer to work 9-5 on weekdays only, but in the service industry that's not possible.
2. If they're going to choose to NOT be available when their patients are available, they shouldn't withhold refills of maintenance medication based on their patients' willingness/ability to change their lives around to somehow make appointments, especially if this availability has been discussed in a session and solved by the psychiatrist who is the one who suggested coming at the late-in-the-day time slot. I can see why they wouldn't want to (slash-shouldn't) CHANGE medication without an appointment, but if a patient wants to CONTINUE the SAME agreed-upon medication, I see no reason to insist ona co-pay an appointment.
3. A psychiatrist who is treating a patient for phone phobia SHOULD NOT CALL ON THE PHONE AND EXPECT TO HAVE THAT CALL RETURNED. It took ALL my Phone Oomph (plus two shots of vodka) to call at all; I don't have anything left to receive/return a call. And talking to a DOCTOR on the phone?? That's cranking it up to eleven.
And now I don't know what to do. The psychiatrist has left it in my court AGAIN. I have TWICE been thwarted in my attempts to make an appointment with her. I think it's pretty clear I need a new doctor, one who can see me at the SUPER-LATE, SUPER-UNREASONABLE hour of 4:20 in the afternoon, but that's going to require (1) another phone call and (2) apparently starting all over at the very beginning, as if I don't already have a diagnosis and a prescription.
And you know what makes the LEAST sense? Setting up all these HURDLES for people who need mental-health care.
When I called the refill line this most recent time, a receptionist called me back and left a message to tell me the doctor said I need to make an appointment. It took me over a week to steel myself to call, and when I did, the receptionist said the doctor had no appointments past 3:00. I said I wasn't sure if I should leave a message or switch to one of the other doctors in the practice, and then I said actually I should just switch doctors, because of course the doctor isn't going to change her whole schedule for one patient. But the receptionist talked me into leaving a message, because she said OTHERWISE I WOULD NEED TO START ALL OVER AT THE INTAKE LINE, AS A NEW PATIENT.
I have several issues with this.
1. If I were to switch doctors within my primary care provider's office, my file would just go with me: I wouldn't need to start over as a brand-new, never-seen patient. I stopped seeing one of the doctors when he said getting my tubes tied would be the mature decision, and all they needed to do was write a new primary on the folder: they didn't need to ask me all over again about my allergies and insurance. Why would this be different with psychiatrists in the same practice?
2. In fact, even if I moved to a different STATE, my file would accompany me to an entirely new practice of general practitioners and I wouldn't need to start over as a brand-new, never-seen-by-any-doctor-ever patient. Why would this be different with psychiatrists IN THE SAME PRACTICE?
But anyway, I left a message. The receptionist said at least my psychiatrist could call in a refill for me.
And my psychiatrist called me this evening, and had to leave a message because I DO NOT ANSWER THE PHONE. AS she and I have discussed MULTIPLE TIMES, since ONE OF THE THINGS I'M BEING TREATED FOR is phone phobia.
I don't know exactly what my point is. I guess I have several:
1. Doctors should be available when their patients are available. Yes, I do mean evenings and weekends, and I am not at all sorry that super-educated people can't work 9-5 as they'd prefer. EVERYONE would prefer to work 9-5 on weekdays only, but in the service industry that's not possible.
2. If they're going to choose to NOT be available when their patients are available, they shouldn't withhold refills of maintenance medication based on their patients' willingness/ability to change their lives around to somehow make appointments, especially if this availability has been discussed in a session and solved by the psychiatrist who is the one who suggested coming at the late-in-the-day time slot. I can see why they wouldn't want to (slash-shouldn't) CHANGE medication without an appointment, but if a patient wants to CONTINUE the SAME agreed-upon medication, I see no reason to insist on
3. A psychiatrist who is treating a patient for phone phobia SHOULD NOT CALL ON THE PHONE AND EXPECT TO HAVE THAT CALL RETURNED. It took ALL my Phone Oomph (plus two shots of vodka) to call at all; I don't have anything left to receive/return a call. And talking to a DOCTOR on the phone?? That's cranking it up to eleven.
And now I don't know what to do. The psychiatrist has left it in my court AGAIN. I have TWICE been thwarted in my attempts to make an appointment with her. I think it's pretty clear I need a new doctor, one who can see me at the SUPER-LATE, SUPER-UNREASONABLE hour of 4:20 in the afternoon, but that's going to require (1) another phone call and (2) apparently starting all over at the very beginning, as if I don't already have a diagnosis and a prescription.
And you know what makes the LEAST sense? Setting up all these HURDLES for people who need mental-health care.
Monday, September 13, 2010
This is Why I Don't Tell You These Things
There are many things people can say in an argument that are infuriating, and one of them is "This is why I don't tell you these things."
Current example, for illustration: Mike's mother died nearly a year ago, as you may remember, and she died without a will so everything's been tied up (though I hear it takes awhile no matter what). Mike's sister Beth is living in her mother's house, as she was when her mother died. And today I mentioned that Mike should probably plan on another trip there to help his sister get the house ready for sale after everything's settled with the estate, and he said actually, she wasn't going to be moving anytime soon. Because the market is poor. So she figures she'll just stay there.
I had some thoughts on this subject. One is: Is this going to turn into a situation where she just...stays there? forever? and Mike never gets his half? Another is: Same as the first thought.
And what Mike said first is that no, we'd eventually get our half, even if it was ages from now. He wanted to compare it to stocks forgotten in a file drawer. But see---I don't see it that way. I see it as, if we get $XX,000 and we get it NOW, we can use it to make a huge payment on our house, or renovate the 1960s kitchen, or help send a child to college. But if we get that money after his sister has been living in the house rent-free for twenty years, it's NOT THE SAME. And I think there's a really strong possibility she'd just live the rest of her life there and it wouldn't be settled at all, ever. I feel like this is the kind of thing that needs to be handled right away, either by selling the house and splitting it, or by her buying our share of the house from us---or else it's going to get harder and harder to handle.
And I want to point out that I am SUPER-AWARE that this is primarily between Mike and Beth, and that is why I was very, very careful to speak extremely mildly and not lecture or nag or boss, and to think carefully before each thing I said, and to say very few things. And that's when Mike said, "This is why I don't tell you these things."
I think he means for that to sound like, "You can't handle information without reacting irrationally"---and therefore bring the argument away from the subject and into a frustration/anger thing about whether he can/cannot tell me things. And yet what I think it actually means, based on seeing the way he's interacted with his family over the years, is "If I tell you, you'll know I'm totally letting them do whatever they want in order to avoid confrontation of any kind, as per usual."
Current example, for illustration: Mike's mother died nearly a year ago, as you may remember, and she died without a will so everything's been tied up (though I hear it takes awhile no matter what). Mike's sister Beth is living in her mother's house, as she was when her mother died. And today I mentioned that Mike should probably plan on another trip there to help his sister get the house ready for sale after everything's settled with the estate, and he said actually, she wasn't going to be moving anytime soon. Because the market is poor. So she figures she'll just stay there.
I had some thoughts on this subject. One is: Is this going to turn into a situation where she just...stays there? forever? and Mike never gets his half? Another is: Same as the first thought.
And what Mike said first is that no, we'd eventually get our half, even if it was ages from now. He wanted to compare it to stocks forgotten in a file drawer. But see---I don't see it that way. I see it as, if we get $XX,000 and we get it NOW, we can use it to make a huge payment on our house, or renovate the 1960s kitchen, or help send a child to college. But if we get that money after his sister has been living in the house rent-free for twenty years, it's NOT THE SAME. And I think there's a really strong possibility she'd just live the rest of her life there and it wouldn't be settled at all, ever. I feel like this is the kind of thing that needs to be handled right away, either by selling the house and splitting it, or by her buying our share of the house from us---or else it's going to get harder and harder to handle.
And I want to point out that I am SUPER-AWARE that this is primarily between Mike and Beth, and that is why I was very, very careful to speak extremely mildly and not lecture or nag or boss, and to think carefully before each thing I said, and to say very few things. And that's when Mike said, "This is why I don't tell you these things."
I think he means for that to sound like, "You can't handle information without reacting irrationally"---and therefore bring the argument away from the subject and into a frustration/anger thing about whether he can/cannot tell me things. And yet what I think it actually means, based on seeing the way he's interacted with his family over the years, is "If I tell you, you'll know I'm totally letting them do whatever they want in order to avoid confrontation of any kind, as per usual."
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Guest Constance #28
[This is a post by a "guest Constance": someone who doesn't want her own pink apartment but just wants to do a one-time post. If you'd like to do a guest-Constance post, email it to me: constancethefirst at gmail dot com.]
********
The day I got sent to the hospital to kick off my six weeks of bedrest, I actually cried in the doctor's office, something I have only done two other times, when told of miscarriages. I felt silly reacting so strongly to news that wasn't exactly catastrophic, but I had been holding out such hope that maybe this particular suckage would pass me by this pregnancy. Instead, it came two weeks earlier than with the other two babies, and has already involved two hospital trips, two catheterizations, two IVs, and general poking and swabbing at my nether regions by assorted total strangers.
My house is a disaster, my kids are clingy and insecure and acting weird from all the different caregivers coming and going, and the strangeness of having Mommy present but yet not really doing any kind of parenting. Laundry is all over the place, dishes are getting put away in the weirdest places, the kids are eating way too much junk food, and the yard looks atrocious.
My sister, who has been the main person staying with us while my husband is at work, is also pregnant, about twenty weeks, and has been told that she too, needs to stay off her feet and rest more! So I feel terrible anytime she's up doing something that's not strictly necessary around the house. And my husband seems to think that the only thing strictly necessary is making sure there are, at some point, clean dishes and a path through the floor. Oh, and he has done grocery shopping. Other than that, he seems utterly unconcerned with things like cleaning the bathtub (hasn't been done in a MONTH now,) mopping the floor, vacuuming up PILES of saltine crumbs off the carpet, and just generally keeping up with the mess so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire house before he decides it's time to clean up. (Which obviously means "tidy up," since actual deep cleaning has not happened yet, at least by him. Also, tidying, either by him or anyone else, means "piles of stuff on our dressers" since no one really knows where all the rando stuff goes but me.)
And the baths! Oh dear Lord with the baths. He seems to think we still live in the prairie days and that as long as a kid gets a bath once a week, he's done his job. It's the summer! They're outside! And my kids are SWEATY kind of kids. Call me a clean freak, but I think if there are visible grime smears on their face and body from their day at the playground, probably an actual bath is called for! But I must tiptoe carefully at this point about mentioning anything that I think ought to be done in regard to childcare, because, four weeks in, he's getting very prickly about being "nagged" when he's "doing his best." Sigh.
I'm not unaware that it sucks for him too, don't get me wrong. He goes to work, comes home, handles food and kids (and me) until bedtime, does the bedtime routine pretty much himself, and then (sometimes) tidies up the kitchen and den area. I know that's a long day, and that he's certainly due a little down time. BUT. There has been a lot of help around here, too. My sister has been doing the bulk of the laundry, dishes, and picking up, not to mention childcare, and people have been bringing us food. The nights when we don't have dinner brought in or have leftovers to eat up, he usually gets takeout or makes mac and cheese or a frozen pizza or something... so it's not like he's slaving over a hot stove every night.
Anyways... I don't know what my point even is. I guess it's just the same thing happening that happened the last time I was on bedrest too: by the end of it, we're both getting kind of resentful of each other and mentally weighing who has it worse. I am SO UNSPEAKABLY SICK of lying around- yes, literally LYING, I'm not even supposed to sit up all the way!- and so bored and so physically uncomfortable from the contractions and the baby's position, and I am craving more sympathy at this point than ever. But I am getting less and less sympathy the more this wears on, because guess who else is craving sympathy? And just as legitimately, I suppose. I've never been on the other end of this situation, so I'm sure I'd be feeling not exactly Florence Nightingale-ish after a month of tending to a bedridden, but not technically SICK, spouse, either.
It just sucks. We haven't had any actual fights or anything, and everything is still being handled adequately, I suppose, even if not the way I'd do it or prefer it. We're just wearing thin, both of us, I can tell. And it's really hard not to fault-find when I have nothing to do but sit here and think!
********
The day I got sent to the hospital to kick off my six weeks of bedrest, I actually cried in the doctor's office, something I have only done two other times, when told of miscarriages. I felt silly reacting so strongly to news that wasn't exactly catastrophic, but I had been holding out such hope that maybe this particular suckage would pass me by this pregnancy. Instead, it came two weeks earlier than with the other two babies, and has already involved two hospital trips, two catheterizations, two IVs, and general poking and swabbing at my nether regions by assorted total strangers.
My house is a disaster, my kids are clingy and insecure and acting weird from all the different caregivers coming and going, and the strangeness of having Mommy present but yet not really doing any kind of parenting. Laundry is all over the place, dishes are getting put away in the weirdest places, the kids are eating way too much junk food, and the yard looks atrocious.
My sister, who has been the main person staying with us while my husband is at work, is also pregnant, about twenty weeks, and has been told that she too, needs to stay off her feet and rest more! So I feel terrible anytime she's up doing something that's not strictly necessary around the house. And my husband seems to think that the only thing strictly necessary is making sure there are, at some point, clean dishes and a path through the floor. Oh, and he has done grocery shopping. Other than that, he seems utterly unconcerned with things like cleaning the bathtub (hasn't been done in a MONTH now,) mopping the floor, vacuuming up PILES of saltine crumbs off the carpet, and just generally keeping up with the mess so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire house before he decides it's time to clean up. (Which obviously means "tidy up," since actual deep cleaning has not happened yet, at least by him. Also, tidying, either by him or anyone else, means "piles of stuff on our dressers" since no one really knows where all the rando stuff goes but me.)
And the baths! Oh dear Lord with the baths. He seems to think we still live in the prairie days and that as long as a kid gets a bath once a week, he's done his job. It's the summer! They're outside! And my kids are SWEATY kind of kids. Call me a clean freak, but I think if there are visible grime smears on their face and body from their day at the playground, probably an actual bath is called for! But I must tiptoe carefully at this point about mentioning anything that I think ought to be done in regard to childcare, because, four weeks in, he's getting very prickly about being "nagged" when he's "doing his best." Sigh.
I'm not unaware that it sucks for him too, don't get me wrong. He goes to work, comes home, handles food and kids (and me) until bedtime, does the bedtime routine pretty much himself, and then (sometimes) tidies up the kitchen and den area. I know that's a long day, and that he's certainly due a little down time. BUT. There has been a lot of help around here, too. My sister has been doing the bulk of the laundry, dishes, and picking up, not to mention childcare, and people have been bringing us food. The nights when we don't have dinner brought in or have leftovers to eat up, he usually gets takeout or makes mac and cheese or a frozen pizza or something... so it's not like he's slaving over a hot stove every night.
Anyways... I don't know what my point even is. I guess it's just the same thing happening that happened the last time I was on bedrest too: by the end of it, we're both getting kind of resentful of each other and mentally weighing who has it worse. I am SO UNSPEAKABLY SICK of lying around- yes, literally LYING, I'm not even supposed to sit up all the way!- and so bored and so physically uncomfortable from the contractions and the baby's position, and I am craving more sympathy at this point than ever. But I am getting less and less sympathy the more this wears on, because guess who else is craving sympathy? And just as legitimately, I suppose. I've never been on the other end of this situation, so I'm sure I'd be feeling not exactly Florence Nightingale-ish after a month of tending to a bedridden, but not technically SICK, spouse, either.
It just sucks. We haven't had any actual fights or anything, and everything is still being handled adequately, I suppose, even if not the way I'd do it or prefer it. We're just wearing thin, both of us, I can tell. And it's really hard not to fault-find when I have nothing to do but sit here and think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)