The Friday outrage centered around this deeply misguided Good Housekeeping article where the author explains why it is okay that she is a terrible wife and that she puts her children and everything else above her husband on her priority list. Anne gives the piece the fisking it deserves.
And yet I am somewhat sympathetic to her plight.
“For most of the last 10 years, I’ve been the breadwinner. I worked
long hours commuting into Manhattan full-time. Now, John has a job, but I
still commute, and also work from home trying to keep us ahead of the
bills.”
Breadwinner and mother. It's challenging and exhausting. There are so many demands made on you, your body, and your time and there isn't enough of you to go around. You are completely used up, not in a
sweet, fulfilling kind of way, but in a chewed-up and spit out kind of
way.
I recognize the temptation to view your spouse as an adult who just has to deal while you tend to the more urgent demands in life. It's hard to carve out time for your marriage when you don't have a strong, philosophical understanding that your marriage must be your top priority. It's hard even when you do have that understanding.
When your time at home is extremely limited, your children don't care that you are tired or have been working all day or that their father also needs your attention. They want your attention. Now. They need it and have a right to it.
“John’s a great dad, but I play a singular role in each of my kid’s lives.”
It could be that the author is one of those women who demands to be in complete control over her children's lives and leaves nothing to her husband's judgement. He must not pick out the toddler's clothes because He. Won't. Do. It. Right. We all know people like this, so it could be. Or it could be that children want their mother's attention more than any of us quite remember or imagine.
My children spend the majority of their time with my husband. He changes diapers and gives baths and rocks babies and drives them to activities and does all the standard parenting that goes with 'at home' parenting. And yet I am the one to whom they want to pour out their problems. When I come home from work, it is I who gets to hear about the problems of the day. Problems that they never breathe in his direction, even though he asks about their day. It's isn't because he won't listen, but because I am their mother. They surround me, fight over me, and cling to me. I am astounded by how much children desire their mother. And, honestly, I am astounded that I am astounded. What could be more natural? And yet the culture has beaten this knowledge out of us.
It's easy to want to sleep after the children go to bed, especially when you know one of them will be waking in the night soon enough. My husband isn't the only one who sometimes gets overlooked. There are other things that get pushed down the priority list too, like my own hobbies and personal exercise. When you only have three to four hours a night to do EVERYTHING, a lot just isn't going to happen even if it is important.
Our oldest is nine so we still haven't exited the demanding stages of early childhood. Of course, parents of older children and teenagers say it doesn't ever get any easier, it only changes. (Oh, I don't know. I say if you get to sleep all night, it has to be easier than being woken up twice a night, every night.) But I understand the temptation to say I am done for today. I can see where you might slide into a habitual doneness if you didn't actively decide to avoid it.
If you happen to have a worldview that puts having a career! and micro-managing your children as the most important activities in your life, which is pretty common these days, I can see why you would put your spouse at the bottom of the priority list. If you must work and commute eleven hours a day and be the class room mother and plan blowout birthday parties and have your children involved in seventeen different enrichment activities and sleep and eat with your remaining time, what's left? You are completely expended. You have nothing left to give your spouse. I can understand why she can't see her way out of the problem.
Now unlike the author, I don’t think this situation is okay and I don’t think it
is sustainable. Something has to give. I am already not a micromanaging parent and yet, most of the time, I feel stretched to my limit. For me, my status as breadwinner is preventing me from leading the life that we want to live and prevents me from putting first the people who need to be first. They might be first in my intentions, but my time is a different matter. We are
fighting hard to change our lives so I can put my priorities in the
proper order. The order *we* want them in.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
The Story of my HOA
Continuing about my house, let me tell you about the neighborhood. The place I live is a large neighborhood just outside of the city limits. It is former farmland and was purchased by a general contractor in the early 90s and he developed it over time.
The central feature in the subdivision is a lake. The lake is contained by a man-made dam which has to be inspected and maintained. Inspections and maintenance cost money. How to pay for this? The developer decided to create an HOA and grant the HOA ownership and responsibility for the dam. Since most of the lakefront property was going to be used as housing lots, it was probably decided that creating an HOA to maintain a lake that only a handful of residents would be able to access would not fly very far so one of the lakefront lots was designated as a park for the neighborhood. From the park, all homeowners should have access to the park and have an area for recreation and gatherings. It sounds like a pretty good plan.
Reality didn't quite work out that way.
What actually happened was the developer decided the HOA was his personal favor granting machine. He decided, as he built and developed houses, he would selectively exempt buyers from the HOA. Amazingly many of the homeowners around the lake were exempted from membership in the HOA. Also his friends and family earned exemption. But the suckers who were strangers and lived away from the lake? They totally were required to join the HOA to pay for the lake. Looking at a coded map of the neighborhood which shows which homes are required members and which are not shows how completely random and non-random the membership is.
Each new section of the subdivision was developed under a separate covenant filing. In one part of the neighborhood, the fences have to be chain link and in another the fences have to be wooden. In one part, goats and chickens are allowed, in others they are disallowed. Different rules for different houses built at different times. Why did he decide to make up new rules all the time? I cannot say, but it is a mess to manage. That is going to have to be rectified over time.
It is my understanding that since the subdivision was still in development, the developer was not obligated to create an HOA board until a certain percentage of the lots were built. The neighborhood was completely at his mercy until he decided it wasn't. It is also my understanding that way back in the beginning, he collected HOA dues.
The park, which was to justify the entire neighborhood maintaining a lake which legally belonged to the lakefront homeowners, never really came to be. An narrow asphalt road was laid down, a basketball net erected, and a tiny wooden gazebo installed. The grass was almost never mowed. Since no attempt was made to maintain even these small improvements, the "park" soon fell into disrepair and no one except an undesirable population from mostly outside the neighborhood even attempted to use it.
Eventually he stopped collecting dues, stopping acting like an HOA existed, and, I guess, maintained the dam on his own dime.
When we moved into our house in 2007, there was no mention of an HOA. It wasn't on the real estate forms. It wasn't on the title insurance. It wasn't anywhere. We lived in ignorance for months until a neighbor mentioned the HOA in passing one day. I was positive I had never seen anything about an HOA. She said not to worry because the dues were never collected. I scoured our documents once again and confirmed that an HOA had never been disclosed to us and I put it out of my mind.
Then in June 2010, when I was nine months pregnant with Sam, we received a notice in the mail. The developer was relinquishing his control of the HOA, there was to be a membership meeting in July to vote on a board, and we owed a certain sum in yearly dues. I was livid and I wasn't alone.
The meetings that followed featured yelling. A lot of yelling. It seems that we were not alone in being completely uninformed about the existence of the HOA. Many were adamant that not only were they not current members, they were never going to be members. At those first meetings, a board was elected. Well, elected is a strong word. A few people volunteered and that was the end of it.
After I emerged from my postpartum haze, I researched the state law concerning HOAs and discovered that it did not matter if it was disclosed or not. If our property was listed as a member property--and it was--we were automatically members and had to pay dues. The only recourse was for us to sue the title company for non-disclosure and even then damages are limited to the dues. So, so not worth it. As much as I was annoyed, we accepted that we really and truly were members. We write our yearly check and try to stay out of the neighborhood drama.
It seems that many will never come to this acceptance. Many still don't pay their dues to this day and have multiple liens on their property. Every HOA meeting descends into insults and yelling.
So we had a new board. That meant the control of the neighborhood was finally in the hands of the homeowners, right? Not quite.
The first immediate problem with the HOA was the dues. The homeowner's dues had not been collected in nearly a decade and the by-laws required a quorum vote by all the membership to raise the dues more than 10%. That was never going to happen. So we had dues that were ten years behind inflation--which I was personally glad for--and a decade's worth of neighborhood neglect to fix.
The second problem was the people who volunteered to be on the board. They understood what they were about and what was at stake. There was a reason they immediately jumped on the train. Most of them lived near the lake. One of them actually owned the property which contained the dam. While it was generally accepted, although not completely undisputed, that the HOA had to maintain the dam, there was disagreement about what maintenance meant. The board member who owned the dam wanted his property mowed weekly during the growing season. The other board members agreed and so it came to be. Then as time went on, more and more vacant lots were deemed necessary for the HOA to mow. And, lo and behold, most of those vacant lots were next door to properties owned by board members. Other vacant lots weren't so high on the priority list.
The third problem was all the associated legal wranglings. The developer refused to turn over the park land to the HOA. The HOA members were refusing to pay dues. So the board was simulateously suing the developer over land and paying a lawyer big bucks to explain over and over that yes, you really can't decide you aren't an HOA member just because you don't want to be and yes, the HOA has to maintain the dam because that is what the founding documents require. And they were paying legal fees to issue liens.
The vast majority of the dues were being eaten by legal fees, paying for the yearly dam inspection, and the rest of it was spent mowing grass on or near board member properties.
After about a year, the board decided they were tired of it because they got yelled at a lot, and they single-handedly hired a management company. Hiring the company quadrupled the HOA dues. Now *that* was an ugly meeting. Of course, they had no standing to quadruple the dues and it was never going to pass a vote, so the management company left just as quickly as they came.
This was the state of affairs for some time.
After the management company debacle, there wasn't much movement with the HOA until it became apparent the board members weren't that interested in holding another election for their replacement.
They would not hold an election until a quorum was established which is fine enough, but they wouldn't resign at the end of their terms and they would not make any extra effort to creatively establish quorum aside from being physically present at the yearly meeting. If quorum wasn't established at the meeting, they just decided they would stay in office for another year. This was a source of discontent.
A lady in the neighborhood decided getting the old board out of power and a new board elected was going to be her special project. While I generally agreed with her objections, her methods lacked a lot to be desired. Her major point of attack was to argue about what a quorum is. She fundamentally did not understand why quorums existed or how to calculate one.
The by-laws stated that quorum was established by the presence of 50% plus one households of eligible voting households in the HOA. Only households with dues paid up-to-date were eligible.
It blew her mind that with every new household that came to grips with the idea that yes, they had to be members of the HOA and pay dues and then *actually* paid their dues, the number required to meet quorum would change. She desperately wanted quorum to mean the majority of those who show up.
Now I have to give her credit because she hounded and harassed the board into finding creative ways to meet quorum. They were so tired of her, they finally agreed to proxy ballots and canvassing the neighborhood, and doing all the things they should have been doing all along. In the process we got a nice argument over whether ballots returned blank or marked abstention should counted towards quorum requirement. Obviously yes, but that would have been too easy.
Eventually the old board was removed and a new one elected. The cranky lady immediately turned her sights on the new board and demanded that her understanding of the word quorum be put to a vote. And so it was. Or something. We got a ballot in the mail, but we haven't had the yearly meeting yet. And she is back to arguing that we don't have to maintain the dam (except we do). I expect the next meeting to feature more yelling as well. Have mercy as I get to listen to people argue over the meaning of clearly defined words.
But the unnecessary mowing ceased, the HOA quickly gained title to the park, the cleanup has begun, and things are all around on a better track. Many still don't pay dues, but what are you going to do?
That's the HOA here.
***
You know, in retrospect, June 2010 was a pretty rough month. I was nine months pregnant. I was passed over for promotion for the second year in a row. I had a horrible respiratory illness where I was prescribed precautionary antibiotics because they didn't want an infection so close to delivery. All the other people in the household were sick too. And the HOA got dumped in our lap.
The central feature in the subdivision is a lake. The lake is contained by a man-made dam which has to be inspected and maintained. Inspections and maintenance cost money. How to pay for this? The developer decided to create an HOA and grant the HOA ownership and responsibility for the dam. Since most of the lakefront property was going to be used as housing lots, it was probably decided that creating an HOA to maintain a lake that only a handful of residents would be able to access would not fly very far so one of the lakefront lots was designated as a park for the neighborhood. From the park, all homeowners should have access to the park and have an area for recreation and gatherings. It sounds like a pretty good plan.
Reality didn't quite work out that way.
What actually happened was the developer decided the HOA was his personal favor granting machine. He decided, as he built and developed houses, he would selectively exempt buyers from the HOA. Amazingly many of the homeowners around the lake were exempted from membership in the HOA. Also his friends and family earned exemption. But the suckers who were strangers and lived away from the lake? They totally were required to join the HOA to pay for the lake. Looking at a coded map of the neighborhood which shows which homes are required members and which are not shows how completely random and non-random the membership is.
Each new section of the subdivision was developed under a separate covenant filing. In one part of the neighborhood, the fences have to be chain link and in another the fences have to be wooden. In one part, goats and chickens are allowed, in others they are disallowed. Different rules for different houses built at different times. Why did he decide to make up new rules all the time? I cannot say, but it is a mess to manage. That is going to have to be rectified over time.
It is my understanding that since the subdivision was still in development, the developer was not obligated to create an HOA board until a certain percentage of the lots were built. The neighborhood was completely at his mercy until he decided it wasn't. It is also my understanding that way back in the beginning, he collected HOA dues.
The park, which was to justify the entire neighborhood maintaining a lake which legally belonged to the lakefront homeowners, never really came to be. An narrow asphalt road was laid down, a basketball net erected, and a tiny wooden gazebo installed. The grass was almost never mowed. Since no attempt was made to maintain even these small improvements, the "park" soon fell into disrepair and no one except an undesirable population from mostly outside the neighborhood even attempted to use it.
Eventually he stopped collecting dues, stopping acting like an HOA existed, and, I guess, maintained the dam on his own dime.
When we moved into our house in 2007, there was no mention of an HOA. It wasn't on the real estate forms. It wasn't on the title insurance. It wasn't anywhere. We lived in ignorance for months until a neighbor mentioned the HOA in passing one day. I was positive I had never seen anything about an HOA. She said not to worry because the dues were never collected. I scoured our documents once again and confirmed that an HOA had never been disclosed to us and I put it out of my mind.
Then in June 2010, when I was nine months pregnant with Sam, we received a notice in the mail. The developer was relinquishing his control of the HOA, there was to be a membership meeting in July to vote on a board, and we owed a certain sum in yearly dues. I was livid and I wasn't alone.
The meetings that followed featured yelling. A lot of yelling. It seems that we were not alone in being completely uninformed about the existence of the HOA. Many were adamant that not only were they not current members, they were never going to be members. At those first meetings, a board was elected. Well, elected is a strong word. A few people volunteered and that was the end of it.
After I emerged from my postpartum haze, I researched the state law concerning HOAs and discovered that it did not matter if it was disclosed or not. If our property was listed as a member property--and it was--we were automatically members and had to pay dues. The only recourse was for us to sue the title company for non-disclosure and even then damages are limited to the dues. So, so not worth it. As much as I was annoyed, we accepted that we really and truly were members. We write our yearly check and try to stay out of the neighborhood drama.
It seems that many will never come to this acceptance. Many still don't pay their dues to this day and have multiple liens on their property. Every HOA meeting descends into insults and yelling.
So we had a new board. That meant the control of the neighborhood was finally in the hands of the homeowners, right? Not quite.
The first immediate problem with the HOA was the dues. The homeowner's dues had not been collected in nearly a decade and the by-laws required a quorum vote by all the membership to raise the dues more than 10%. That was never going to happen. So we had dues that were ten years behind inflation--which I was personally glad for--and a decade's worth of neighborhood neglect to fix.
The second problem was the people who volunteered to be on the board. They understood what they were about and what was at stake. There was a reason they immediately jumped on the train. Most of them lived near the lake. One of them actually owned the property which contained the dam. While it was generally accepted, although not completely undisputed, that the HOA had to maintain the dam, there was disagreement about what maintenance meant. The board member who owned the dam wanted his property mowed weekly during the growing season. The other board members agreed and so it came to be. Then as time went on, more and more vacant lots were deemed necessary for the HOA to mow. And, lo and behold, most of those vacant lots were next door to properties owned by board members. Other vacant lots weren't so high on the priority list.
The third problem was all the associated legal wranglings. The developer refused to turn over the park land to the HOA. The HOA members were refusing to pay dues. So the board was simulateously suing the developer over land and paying a lawyer big bucks to explain over and over that yes, you really can't decide you aren't an HOA member just because you don't want to be and yes, the HOA has to maintain the dam because that is what the founding documents require. And they were paying legal fees to issue liens.
The vast majority of the dues were being eaten by legal fees, paying for the yearly dam inspection, and the rest of it was spent mowing grass on or near board member properties.
After about a year, the board decided they were tired of it because they got yelled at a lot, and they single-handedly hired a management company. Hiring the company quadrupled the HOA dues. Now *that* was an ugly meeting. Of course, they had no standing to quadruple the dues and it was never going to pass a vote, so the management company left just as quickly as they came.
This was the state of affairs for some time.
After the management company debacle, there wasn't much movement with the HOA until it became apparent the board members weren't that interested in holding another election for their replacement.
They would not hold an election until a quorum was established which is fine enough, but they wouldn't resign at the end of their terms and they would not make any extra effort to creatively establish quorum aside from being physically present at the yearly meeting. If quorum wasn't established at the meeting, they just decided they would stay in office for another year. This was a source of discontent.
A lady in the neighborhood decided getting the old board out of power and a new board elected was going to be her special project. While I generally agreed with her objections, her methods lacked a lot to be desired. Her major point of attack was to argue about what a quorum is. She fundamentally did not understand why quorums existed or how to calculate one.
The by-laws stated that quorum was established by the presence of 50% plus one households of eligible voting households in the HOA. Only households with dues paid up-to-date were eligible.
It blew her mind that with every new household that came to grips with the idea that yes, they had to be members of the HOA and pay dues and then *actually* paid their dues, the number required to meet quorum would change. She desperately wanted quorum to mean the majority of those who show up.
Now I have to give her credit because she hounded and harassed the board into finding creative ways to meet quorum. They were so tired of her, they finally agreed to proxy ballots and canvassing the neighborhood, and doing all the things they should have been doing all along. In the process we got a nice argument over whether ballots returned blank or marked abstention should counted towards quorum requirement. Obviously yes, but that would have been too easy.
Eventually the old board was removed and a new one elected. The cranky lady immediately turned her sights on the new board and demanded that her understanding of the word quorum be put to a vote. And so it was. Or something. We got a ballot in the mail, but we haven't had the yearly meeting yet. And she is back to arguing that we don't have to maintain the dam (except we do). I expect the next meeting to feature more yelling as well. Have mercy as I get to listen to people argue over the meaning of clearly defined words.
But the unnecessary mowing ceased, the HOA quickly gained title to the park, the cleanup has begun, and things are all around on a better track. Many still don't pay dues, but what are you going to do?
That's the HOA here.
***
You know, in retrospect, June 2010 was a pretty rough month. I was nine months pregnant. I was passed over for promotion for the second year in a row. I had a horrible respiratory illness where I was prescribed precautionary antibiotics because they didn't want an infection so close to delivery. All the other people in the household were sick too. And the HOA got dumped in our lap.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Random Observations
This is not an announcement. I just was reading an FB thread that made me think about it.
The most productive days of my life are probably the ten days between confirming a pregnancy and the onset of a year of incapacitation. All the things that have been nagging at me get done immediately in a frenzy of desperate activity as I wait for the other shoe to drop. It all comes to a sudden stop on that dreadful morning when I finally wake up with a queasy stomach.
The most productive days of my life are probably the ten days between confirming a pregnancy and the onset of a year of incapacitation. All the things that have been nagging at me get done immediately in a frenzy of desperate activity as I wait for the other shoe to drop. It all comes to a sudden stop on that dreadful morning when I finally wake up with a queasy stomach.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Music I Actually Like
Since I have been cranky about the church music, I thought I would make amends and tell you what I actually like to hear at church. Again this list will be pieces I really hear in my current parish. I am totally running down the index, so it will be in alphabetical order.
1. All Creatures of Our God and King
2. Alleluia! Sing to Jesus
3. Be Thou My Vision.
4. Crown Him with Many Crowns.
5. Faith of Our Fathers.
6. For All the Saints.
7. Go Make of All Disciples.
8. Hail, Holy Queen.
8. Holy, Holy, Holy. (the hymn not the Mass part)
9. On Jordan’s Bank.
10. Panis Angelicus. <--- I can count how few times, but it did happen.
11. Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow.
12. The Church’s One Foundation.
13. The King of Love My Shepherd Is.
14. ’Tis Good, Lord, to Be Here.
15. What Wondrous Love Is This.
16. We Walk by Faith. <-- See, I am not totally immune.
17. Ye Sons and Daughters.
There is one more that literally has two verses that you just sing over and over, but it is eluding me at the moment. I like that one too. If you have a guess, tell me.
But my very favorite of all time is Alleluia Chant Mode vi. I can't describe how happy it makes me to sing it.
What are your favorites?
1. All Creatures of Our God and King
2. Alleluia! Sing to Jesus
3. Be Thou My Vision.
4. Crown Him with Many Crowns.
5. Faith of Our Fathers.
6. For All the Saints.
7. Go Make of All Disciples.
8. Hail, Holy Queen.
8. Holy, Holy, Holy. (the hymn not the Mass part)
9. On Jordan’s Bank.
10. Panis Angelicus. <--- I can count how few times, but it did happen.
11. Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow.
12. The Church’s One Foundation.
13. The King of Love My Shepherd Is.
14. ’Tis Good, Lord, to Be Here.
15. What Wondrous Love Is This.
16. We Walk by Faith. <-- See, I am not totally immune.
17. Ye Sons and Daughters.
There is one more that literally has two verses that you just sing over and over, but it is eluding me at the moment. I like that one too. If you have a guess, tell me.
But my very favorite of all time is Alleluia Chant Mode vi. I can't describe how happy it makes me to sing it.
What are your favorites?
Monday, March 23, 2015
Songs That Make Me Weep...
...because I never want to hear them again. With apologies to those of you who like these songs. We can still be friends. :)
In my agitation over the musical situation at my parish, I ran across this piece which offers the sage advice that if you can't sing the music you want to hear at your parish, you are not yet part of the solution. The first step is to teach yourself first. That's advice I can actually use and fit into my current life's schedule.
So in the meantime, here are church pieces that if I never hear them again, it might be too soon. I am only including songs heard at my current parish. There are more from my childhood parish, but I'd rather not be reminded.
1. On Eagle's Wings. The melody starts on the tritone, the devil's own interval, for crying out loud.
2. Hosea. Fresh from Mass this weekend
3. Gather Us In. What is this song about?
4. City of God. I can't help but think of Starship every time.
5. Lord of the Dance. This one horrifies me.
6. Here I Am, Lord. The changing viewpoints where we totally put words in God's mouth.
7. Be Not Afraid. I just don't like it.
8. All Are Welcome. Again, what is this song about?
9. Eye Has Not Seen. Flashbacks from childhood.
10. Hail Mary, Gentle Woman. It just goes on and on.
11. Let There Be Peace On Earth. What are we, a bunch of hippies?
12. Sing A New Song Unto the Lord. I just don't like it.
13. They Will Know We Are Christians. Because we are the greatest ever.
14. One Bread, One Body. Not because it is so terrible, but because it is so overused.
15. Mass of Creation. Also so, so overused.
That's my top 15. I am sure I have forgotten some. Tell me where I am wrong or add to it, if you like.
In my agitation over the musical situation at my parish, I ran across this piece which offers the sage advice that if you can't sing the music you want to hear at your parish, you are not yet part of the solution. The first step is to teach yourself first. That's advice I can actually use and fit into my current life's schedule.
So in the meantime, here are church pieces that if I never hear them again, it might be too soon. I am only including songs heard at my current parish. There are more from my childhood parish, but I'd rather not be reminded.
1. On Eagle's Wings. The melody starts on the tritone, the devil's own interval, for crying out loud.
2. Hosea. Fresh from Mass this weekend
3. Gather Us In. What is this song about?
4. City of God. I can't help but think of Starship every time.
5. Lord of the Dance. This one horrifies me.
6. Here I Am, Lord. The changing viewpoints where we totally put words in God's mouth.
7. Be Not Afraid. I just don't like it.
8. All Are Welcome. Again, what is this song about?
9. Eye Has Not Seen. Flashbacks from childhood.
10. Hail Mary, Gentle Woman. It just goes on and on.
11. Let There Be Peace On Earth. What are we, a bunch of hippies?
12. Sing A New Song Unto the Lord. I just don't like it.
13. They Will Know We Are Christians. Because we are the greatest ever.
14. One Bread, One Body. Not because it is so terrible, but because it is so overused.
15. Mass of Creation. Also so, so overused.
That's my top 15. I am sure I have forgotten some. Tell me where I am wrong or add to it, if you like.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Things That Annoy Me #4
You get a two-fer of annoyance and they are both Facebook related since I am spending copious time there today.
There is an odd habit that some people have where they explain a problem they have, ask for help and advice, and then proceed to shoot down every suggestion as impossible.
The other day I saw on a group page where someone said their family's spending was out of control and they wanted advice about budgeting. Every single suggestion was declined.
"Track your spending" We buy stuff at too many different places.
"Cut nonessential spending" Most of our expenses are required.
"Buy Budgeting software" I don't have time to input data.
"Use envelopes" I don't like carrying cash.
"Have budget meetings with your husband." He doesn't think we have a money problem.
Since keeping my money records up-to-date is the housekeeping task I prioritize over anything else, these exchanges caught my attention. Now, I don't think everyone needs to be as fastidious as I am about it. I wish I could relax a bit, but my spreadsheets make me so happy.
But it is practice more than the specific topic that I'm pointing out. I ask questions on a regular basis, but I really want suggestions. If you don't really want help, why ask for help? If you just want to whine, whine. But this ritual of whining in the form of advice seeking annoys me.
***
The other thing that bugs me is when people delete threads and posts over minor disagreements. I know that the online world can get ugly and that when things go astray, the delete button is a legitimate option. I certainly understand needing to take drastic action when the discourse descends into a lunchroom food fight. I am not talking about that.
I am talking about when someone posts a link to an article and gets any response that is anything less than, "This is so awesome! Love it! I am so inspired!" For some reason any ambivalent, "I am not sure I agree with this." type of response demands the delete button. This annoys me because it seems so fake. Why must everyone be in lock step agreement all the time? Is there no room for respectful discussion where there are points of disagreement?
On some pages, the answer is that there is no room at all. If we all smile all the time, that means we are all happy, I guess.
There is an odd habit that some people have where they explain a problem they have, ask for help and advice, and then proceed to shoot down every suggestion as impossible.
The other day I saw on a group page where someone said their family's spending was out of control and they wanted advice about budgeting. Every single suggestion was declined.
"Track your spending" We buy stuff at too many different places.
"Cut nonessential spending" Most of our expenses are required.
"Buy Budgeting software" I don't have time to input data.
"Use envelopes" I don't like carrying cash.
"Have budget meetings with your husband." He doesn't think we have a money problem.
Since keeping my money records up-to-date is the housekeeping task I prioritize over anything else, these exchanges caught my attention. Now, I don't think everyone needs to be as fastidious as I am about it. I wish I could relax a bit, but my spreadsheets make me so happy.
But it is practice more than the specific topic that I'm pointing out. I ask questions on a regular basis, but I really want suggestions. If you don't really want help, why ask for help? If you just want to whine, whine. But this ritual of whining in the form of advice seeking annoys me.
***
The other thing that bugs me is when people delete threads and posts over minor disagreements. I know that the online world can get ugly and that when things go astray, the delete button is a legitimate option. I certainly understand needing to take drastic action when the discourse descends into a lunchroom food fight. I am not talking about that.
I am talking about when someone posts a link to an article and gets any response that is anything less than, "This is so awesome! Love it! I am so inspired!" For some reason any ambivalent, "I am not sure I agree with this." type of response demands the delete button. This annoys me because it seems so fake. Why must everyone be in lock step agreement all the time? Is there no room for respectful discussion where there are points of disagreement?
On some pages, the answer is that there is no room at all. If we all smile all the time, that means we are all happy, I guess.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Music Ministry
A few weeks ago, I was part of a conversation where we discussed the "hymns" on which we would like to drop the ban hammer at church. Since I have been gathered in one too many times recently, I am struggling with what my status should be in regards to the music at Mass.
I grew up in a parish where I was absolutely appalled by the music. It was so bad and performed so poorly. I fell into the awful habit of snickering and smirking throughout Mass as we listened to warmed over hippy music on guitar sung by people who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. My mother and I had many arguments over the music. My mother would object to my ill-concealed disgust. As I once again rolled my eyes at the assault on my ears, she would remind me that we didn't come to Mass for the music. This is true enough as far as it goes. She was right that, in my youth and immaturity, I was letting a superficiality trump true worship at Mass. In fact that superficiality obliterated most of my connection to the Church for years. I was wrong.
But I was not wrong about the music. It was bad. And I was not wrong that it was an affront for it to be sung so poorly. In my ignorance, I had no idea while growing up that the Church had a long history of chant which had been suppressed. I also had no idea the liturgy has been so recently and drastically altered. The only information I knew was that Mass used to be in Latin and now it wasn't. I assumed that was the only thing that changed. The art music settings of the Mass confused me. How could we say our parts with all that music playing? Total cultural disconnect. Here is what I did know: 1) Traditional hymns existed. 2) We did not sing them at church.
My current parish does not have the same degree of musical problems as my childhood parish. There is a mix of traditional hymns along with the newer dreck. The regular cantor at our early Mass is a gifted singer even if she might sometimes get carried away with a blues/gospel bent. The piano player is also quite good even though his first Communion meditation was Eric Clapton's Tears In Heaven. Seriously. I wish I were kidding. But that was a one-off event. I am sure someone spoke to him about it. The rest of the choir does a decent job harmonizing--something that was completely absent in my childhood--and following the lead of the cantor.
These things are well and good. The problem with the music in my parish is the depth of involvement by the parishioners at large. Our parish claims over six hundred families, but if you add up all the people involved with the music across the four Sunday Masses offered, you probably have around ten people. Definitely fewer than twenty. I am aggravated by the apathy.
When the above mentioned cantor and piano player are absent, the choir struggles mightily. There is no back-up piano player. The back-up cantor, bless his heart, tries hard, but his voice is terribly unpleasant. I am not sure he actually reads music. I don't know it for certain, but it is my educated guess from watching him through the years. I admire his attempts, but it makes me wonder why someone who so obviously cannot sing volunteers to do it week after week. When he is cantoring, the selected hymns are sure to be dreck. I guess he likes it or is more comfortable with it. I don't know.
The choir regularly asks and sometimes begs for additional members to volunteer, but no one ever seems to step forward. Not even me.
Even though I am a trained musician, I am not a singer. I can carry a tune and read notes and rhythms well enough, but my voice is thin and does not carry. My range is limited where fourth line D is the highest note I would ever feel comfortable performing in public even after thoroughly warming up. I am not at all a piano player. I would be comfortable singing in the choir, but I have no desire to cantor. More than that though, I have no desire to sing dreck. I struggle enough to refrain from rolling my eyes when the hymn board announces numbers from a certain range in the hymnal. There are a couple of frequent choices where the forefront thought in my head is, "What, exactly, is this song about?" I exchange knowing glances with Dave.
I sometimes feel guilty about my lack of involvement. There are probably not that many people with music degrees sitting in congregation. Me. My sister. My husband. None of us are in the choir. But then I think of the practical realities of my involvement and just don't think it is my time right now. The choir area is right up front next to the altar. There is no discreet way slip away when necessary. You can't just stop the action to say, "Excuse me, Father, don't mind me, the baby needs to nurse." Or worse to have to run for the bathroom to throw up while pregnant. No, this is not reasonable. I would have to take long hiatuses. Not to mention the time requirement of the rehearsal schedule. It is not strenuous, just one night a week, but I already feel overwhelmed and stretched most of the time. I don't see adding another weekly item to my plate.
I suppose an on-again, off-again membership in the choir would have been more helpful, but the truth is that I am not interested in joining unless I can move the music itself in a positive direction. To steer the selections away from the awfulness and towards more traditional pieces, and maybe some, gasp, chant. But I know this isn't possible without a long term commitment, especially given my age in relation to those currently in the choir.
So then I get irritated with my fellow parishioners. Why does no one step up? Is it because it's bad and nobody wants to sing bad music? Is it because nobody really cares? How can that be? I bristle at feeling like it shouldn't be my responsibility. At some level, though, it is my responsibility.
For now, my general contribution is to sing louder when I hear the backup cantor struggling with a rhythm he obviously can't read off the sheet music in order to give the people around me some guidance. Selective cantoring from the pew, perhaps? I do think it helps a little bit. But true confession: I never sing the dreck.
So what do you think? Should I buck up and join the choir? And which songs would you ban if it were up to you?
I grew up in a parish where I was absolutely appalled by the music. It was so bad and performed so poorly. I fell into the awful habit of snickering and smirking throughout Mass as we listened to warmed over hippy music on guitar sung by people who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. My mother and I had many arguments over the music. My mother would object to my ill-concealed disgust. As I once again rolled my eyes at the assault on my ears, she would remind me that we didn't come to Mass for the music. This is true enough as far as it goes. She was right that, in my youth and immaturity, I was letting a superficiality trump true worship at Mass. In fact that superficiality obliterated most of my connection to the Church for years. I was wrong.
But I was not wrong about the music. It was bad. And I was not wrong that it was an affront for it to be sung so poorly. In my ignorance, I had no idea while growing up that the Church had a long history of chant which had been suppressed. I also had no idea the liturgy has been so recently and drastically altered. The only information I knew was that Mass used to be in Latin and now it wasn't. I assumed that was the only thing that changed. The art music settings of the Mass confused me. How could we say our parts with all that music playing? Total cultural disconnect. Here is what I did know: 1) Traditional hymns existed. 2) We did not sing them at church.
My current parish does not have the same degree of musical problems as my childhood parish. There is a mix of traditional hymns along with the newer dreck. The regular cantor at our early Mass is a gifted singer even if she might sometimes get carried away with a blues/gospel bent. The piano player is also quite good even though his first Communion meditation was Eric Clapton's Tears In Heaven. Seriously. I wish I were kidding. But that was a one-off event. I am sure someone spoke to him about it. The rest of the choir does a decent job harmonizing--something that was completely absent in my childhood--and following the lead of the cantor.
These things are well and good. The problem with the music in my parish is the depth of involvement by the parishioners at large. Our parish claims over six hundred families, but if you add up all the people involved with the music across the four Sunday Masses offered, you probably have around ten people. Definitely fewer than twenty. I am aggravated by the apathy.
When the above mentioned cantor and piano player are absent, the choir struggles mightily. There is no back-up piano player. The back-up cantor, bless his heart, tries hard, but his voice is terribly unpleasant. I am not sure he actually reads music. I don't know it for certain, but it is my educated guess from watching him through the years. I admire his attempts, but it makes me wonder why someone who so obviously cannot sing volunteers to do it week after week. When he is cantoring, the selected hymns are sure to be dreck. I guess he likes it or is more comfortable with it. I don't know.
The choir regularly asks and sometimes begs for additional members to volunteer, but no one ever seems to step forward. Not even me.
Even though I am a trained musician, I am not a singer. I can carry a tune and read notes and rhythms well enough, but my voice is thin and does not carry. My range is limited where fourth line D is the highest note I would ever feel comfortable performing in public even after thoroughly warming up. I am not at all a piano player. I would be comfortable singing in the choir, but I have no desire to cantor. More than that though, I have no desire to sing dreck. I struggle enough to refrain from rolling my eyes when the hymn board announces numbers from a certain range in the hymnal. There are a couple of frequent choices where the forefront thought in my head is, "What, exactly, is this song about?" I exchange knowing glances with Dave.
I sometimes feel guilty about my lack of involvement. There are probably not that many people with music degrees sitting in congregation. Me. My sister. My husband. None of us are in the choir. But then I think of the practical realities of my involvement and just don't think it is my time right now. The choir area is right up front next to the altar. There is no discreet way slip away when necessary. You can't just stop the action to say, "Excuse me, Father, don't mind me, the baby needs to nurse." Or worse to have to run for the bathroom to throw up while pregnant. No, this is not reasonable. I would have to take long hiatuses. Not to mention the time requirement of the rehearsal schedule. It is not strenuous, just one night a week, but I already feel overwhelmed and stretched most of the time. I don't see adding another weekly item to my plate.
I suppose an on-again, off-again membership in the choir would have been more helpful, but the truth is that I am not interested in joining unless I can move the music itself in a positive direction. To steer the selections away from the awfulness and towards more traditional pieces, and maybe some, gasp, chant. But I know this isn't possible without a long term commitment, especially given my age in relation to those currently in the choir.
So then I get irritated with my fellow parishioners. Why does no one step up? Is it because it's bad and nobody wants to sing bad music? Is it because nobody really cares? How can that be? I bristle at feeling like it shouldn't be my responsibility. At some level, though, it is my responsibility.
For now, my general contribution is to sing louder when I hear the backup cantor struggling with a rhythm he obviously can't read off the sheet music in order to give the people around me some guidance. Selective cantoring from the pew, perhaps? I do think it helps a little bit. But true confession: I never sing the dreck.
So what do you think? Should I buck up and join the choir? And which songs would you ban if it were up to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This author is wrong, but I understand more than I would like. It's like peaking over into the dark side of what might have happened if we didn't deliberately choose another path. When I read what she has to say about her life, I feel scorn and outrage and wonder what her husband thinks about his public castration, but I mostly feel pity. Their children need their marriage more than her money.