[Miscellany]

I gave away my wedding song to a girl I work with.  She is getting married in a week and I'm not invited to the wedding.  She's not my friend, just simply a colleague. The fact that I even *had* a wedding song is laughable but goes back to what I said about hope I guess.

I have to admit that I hesitated a little before handing it over.  There was a part of me that clutched to to the song like a symbol of every possibility that ever existed to me and even as I told her I could feel my grip tighten on it and heart clench around it, trying to hold it close.  Somehow though, it had to be done, I don't even know why.  By handing it over was I wiping my hands clean of a part of my past that I had treated like a crutch or was it about letting go of dreams and giving up? I still don't know what the answer to that is but all I do know is that before I had enough time to weigh up the pros and cons of being so forthcoming it was already out there.

There was a moment before I told her the song that I knew she would love it.  I could see her in my mind's eye, smiling up at her groom and I knew that this, and I'm thinking of my last post here, would be my little inconsequential nothing that I would impart to her that would turn into something in her world.  Everybody comes into your life for a reason folk.  I believe that.  Even in the blog world.

The only thing is, is that it's not just a little inconsequential nothing is it?  Maybe it is... I don't know.  Maybe all things are for letting go.  I have to trust that this was always hers to begin with and not mine to hold on to.  I'll get mine one day too... whatever "mine" ends up being, I truly don't know what form that will take - bag lady, crazy cat lady, authoress, teacher extraordinaire, housewife, bon vivant...another song.  I trust that it whatever it is "it" will be the right thing for me.

I have to, don't I?

Let's Stay Together - Al Green

Labels: about me, change, giving away, Lloyd Dobler moment, marriage, mine, music, smug marrieds, wedding, yours

posted by M at 5:34 am 9 comments

My friend B lives in a old Jade coloured farmhouse in a large-ish town in Northern Victoria. It's a grand old home sporting a patched tin roof with a sharp rusted peak and an imposing chimney rising up from the back. The dry patch of front garden is carefully framed by fragrant flowers in various blushes of red and littered with brightly coloured children's play things. She's standing on her front porch, right hip jutted, holding the baby expertly in one arm and waving with the other as we pull up into her gravelly driveway. Her own smile is mirrored on the face of the pixie-faced 4 year old clinging to her side (inside a 2 year old awaits, sans pants but singing rather loudly).

It's been a while. A lot has changed.

B is as comfortable in her role as mother now as she was holding a cocktail glass and a flirty smile back in the day. She calmly sails across the cluttered rooms gathering this and that, chatting away happily and creating order where there once was chaos. Pants are put on, presents are opened, children are placated...tea is offered. Hubby comes in and gathers the jellybean shaped child from her arms and rocks him from screaming to sleeping within 40 seconds - all the while asking how the drive was. This is a couple in control.

B takes us on the tour of the labyrinth-like house. Across the scratchy but beautiful old floorboards and into the study which is more like a library, with floor to ceiling books decorating all walls except one - reserved for the well loved upright piano. I look closer - the piano is labelled, the desk is labelled..the door, window, etc - all labelled unapologetically with brightly coloured pieces of paper. Obviously we have a young reader in the household. B and hubby are showing her teaching roots. Immediately I love the house and somehow this small act of inclusion of the children makes me love it more. The house belongs to everybody.

Brother and sister begin fighting over the crayons and all of us adults offer an easy solution that involves sharing. You might as well give up now says #2 with a laugh looking at the children You're surrounded by teachers. The eldest gives us a quizzical look and we all laugh. The terrifying truth has been told. B and hubby look at each other and smile.

They are in absolute bliss.

The old farmhouse reminded me a little of this video. Really a gorgeous song - almost a lullaby. For those not familiar with Badu, she is worth getting to know.

On and On - Erykah Badu

Labels: house, houses, kids, marriage, musings

posted by M at 10:29 pm 7 comments

What is it, 1 in every 3 (or was it 2) marriages end in divorce now? That's a lot of divorce lawyers who are making a mint eh? Not to mention everyone who gets paid because people are making money via change of address, change of name, change or everything forms. Lucrative.

Divorce and marriage happens to be in the headlines once again because of Ol' Greg Norman and his divorce to wife Laura. You remember Greg, right? He's that underachieving and over-hyped golfer. Laura..well, I've never heard of her before, but I'm sure she has her own story, as do we all. Anyway as the story goes, after 25 years of married life Greg filed for divorce and now they are battling it out in the courts. She wants half, he's offering a little less than 1/3. Quite frankly when we're talking about 300 million dollars then the cookies are so big that 1/3 is probably quite enough to keep someone well away from ever having to use food vouchers or buy home brand shampoo. Take it luv.

Oh, wait it turns out that old Greg couldn't keep it in his pants. Well, that's a different story. I have this theory that when infidelity is involved then nothing short of stabbing at the jugular will do. People can be reasonable up until that point and then it all goes to shit. And you know what? I may be one unpopular lady for saying this but fuck it: I reckon if you get married and then you cheat then you SHOULD be kicked where it hurts, and if that's the wallet then I totally applaud it.

But what if it's a run of the mill divorce? No cheating - just that it's over?

This is how I view marriage - you are team. Why get married if you're not going to be a team? You share a bed don't you? You share your children, don't you? You share your lives, don't you? You share in-jokes about the neighbours and take turns to walk the dog don't you? I don't see the point of getting married (and I totally INCLUDE defacto couples in marriage here) if you're not going to share. So while we're sharing so much, why is it when the marriage breaks down that all this sharing you were so willing to do beforehand goes out the window?

Yes, I think that infidelity, alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, crime etc etc make an ordinary situation extraordinary. But I'm not talking about that - just the 'we don't love each other anymore - it ain't working' divorces. Why is it so hard to share afterwards what you were so willing to share before? If you're a team you both reap the rewards and you both suffer the losses, I say.

But there are so two opinions that keep popping up about this:

Opinion 1) The husband and wife put in differently. He paid off the house while she raised the kids at home. Or she paid off the house while he raised the kids.

This is rubbish. Anyone who knows any stay at home mum/dad knows how hard it is to raise a family. As my friends are going through it now I'm seeing how crazy that kind of lifestyle is. It's the value we put on these things that count. Money talks sure, but a job doesn't count more than raising a family. I don't buy it. Besides, lucky are the few that are able to live this kind of lifestyle for longer than a year or two in this economic climate.

Also, and we're seeing something related happening right now in terms of opposition leader Kevin Rudd and his missus. Sometimes for one half of the couple to gain success the other suffers loss. Since you are a team you both take it on though. You both take on the success and you both take on the loss. The thing is, let's say that one half gives up their business for the other and years later they get a divorce. The one who gave up their business doesn't just pick up and keep going after the divorce. How can they? They GAVE UP their career for the other, it's going to take them a hell of a lot longer to get back on their feet than someone who has an established business in the pipeline that just continues on divorce or not. In the case of Greg Norman's wife - with such a rich and successful husband, what was she supposed to do exactly while her hubby was golfing it up? Get a job as a check out chick in a supermarket? I don't think so.

Bottom line: It's moot point. Both parents are working these days anyway and if not then it's been agreed mutually that one should stay home. Team decision. Team outcome - share half.

Opinion 2) She gets the kids. Why should I have to pay?

This is what I like to call the 'shit for brains' opinion. You both made the kids so until they're 18 you BOTH pay. I think sometimes it goes too far with people with more money than sense but I really don't think they are indicative of 'normal lifestyles' anyway. Keeping a wife in the lifestyle to which she is accustomed is a weird concept to me - and it conjures up images of 80 year old men who marry 18 year old women. I don't think it's real. What IS real though that you have kids and then one parent feels like they are paying too much and the other feels like the payments don't cover enough.

I actually think they're both right - really.

Kids are expensive but at the same time it's emotionally heartbreaking not to see them.

I don't know how exactly it can ever be worked out so that it's totally even, except that maybe the rules should be defined better.

If they live with both parents equally then each parent should share the cost of extras such as school fees, uniform, camps, parties, music lessons, child care etc. Stuff like clothes and food/electricity/internet connection etc should be taken care of by each parent individually because the child lives with each equally. Only payment should really be in the form of extras.

If the children live with one parent during the week and the other every other weekend. Then yes, the parent who sees them less should have to still put in for half of 5/7 days of food and electricity and that kind of stuff - the other parent puts in for half of the weekend's worth of the same. In the end much cancels out except for a few days which need to be shared in terms of money. Doing it alone during the week while you're trying to get off to work everyday and dealing with homework issues at night and the school time worries and discipline etc would be excruciatingly hard on your own compared to picking them up for a weekend and being seen as the fun parent. Then again, only seeing your kids on the weekend means forking out money to do fun stuff or dealing with having only such a short time with them and giving up your own weekends. That would be *so* hard too. I guess these situations will never be totally fair so we look to the bottom line - money. It's sad, but it's the state of things.

If children are granted full exclusive custody to one parent ... I don't really want to comment. I've only ever see this take place at the school and in cases like this it's because something really bad has happened and is messy all around. I don't know if this is always the case but I only ever hear the shit stuff. But the rule still applies. You made the kid, you pay for it - but I have to say in the cases I've seen the parent with full custody (and no it isn't always the mum! Believe me!) doesn't want anything to do with the Ex, including money.

Bottom line - it would be great if divorced parents were all still great friends and lived very close to each other so that the kids could even walk to their mum/dad's house without it being a hassle for pick up/drop off. They could REALLY share custody instead of doing it the hard way - but that's not going to happen for most people. Bottom line is..money and I really think that when it comes to money both parents should put in equally for the general raising of their children. If one divorced parent is rich then you'd think they'd actually WANT to do extra stuff for their children, but if not then I guess it always comes back to haunt them. Kids know exactly who is putting in and how much these days. They notice those things like 'why does Mum go for holidays to Vanuatu never sends me money for shoes?' They know who's being a deadbeat and losing the respect of your child is the worse price to pay IMO.

I guess my opinion is this. You get married and you're a team when you divorce you split as a team and share the wealth. If you have nothing, you share half of nothing. If you have everything you share that too. Whatever you brought to the partnership pre-marriage is not part of that deal, but everything post-wedding is.

Where do you stand on the divorce and money issue?

Labels: divorce, marriage, yes I include defactos in this

posted by M at 10:50 am 17 comments

* I happened to be early for a dinner with my friends the last night (I know, me - early? crazy!) and finding myself with nothing to do I resorted to cleaning out the inbox in my mobile phone. Of course I have one of those dinosaur phones that is about 5 years old, no colour, no photos a tiny inbox so that didn't take very long so I turned to the "notes" section on the old crappy Siemens and found this little gem:

Note to self: don't make eye contact with weird men.

For the life of me I can't remember the situation that necessitated me writing this little entry. I can decipher that I was probably out on the town, and/or being leered at by some guy that was making me feel uncomfortable. For fear of having to make eye contact with said weirdo again I probably pretended I was writing a text message when really I was writing a message to my future self to beware. It, being the season of weird messages out of the blue, I thought I'd pass that on. Maybe it will ring true for one of you (or all of you).

Do you ever write notes to yourself on your phone like that? Go check and let me know!

* #1 had her baby the other day. It's a boy and soooo tiny. Seeing the baby immediately made me feel clucky in a most ridiculous and irrational way but also a bit relieved I didn't have one at the same time. I guess once you have the bub that's IT, you're a parent for life.

An example of this hit home for me when I went out for coffee with a friend a couple of months ago. I hadn't seen her in two years and she basically told me that was the first time in three years she had been out without the baby. I couldn't believe it. Apparently her husband has basketball games, golf games and other things that take him out of the house whereas she doesn't. In order to go out she made sure that she had fed, bathed and put the babies in their pajamas before handing them over to her husband. I couldn't believe my ears - it sounded like the 1950s! Despite the fact that I am a social leper, I have never in my whole life been so happy not to have a husband/baby than I felt at that moment. I didn't even know what to say to her about it. I think I just commiserated and planted my head firmly inside the coffee cup and too a big gulp. I know she brought it on herself in a way, by not demanding that she get some time off from the kids but at the same time I realised that he could also be a bit more accommodating too by um, doing his parental duty and looking after the kids instead of being begged to babysit them like some nanny.

I know that #1 and her husband will be totally different in this regard but I know that when you have a baby and you're a woman it tends to go where you go. I don't know many men (any actually) who take their babies out for lunch when they go out with all their male friends. I don't know if it scares me because I'm single with no baby prospects and just trying to rationalise how great things are or it scares me because I'm immature and refuse to accept the status quo.

* Anyway, nothing to do with babies, but while out to dinner last night M told S and I about the issues she's been having with sex. In short she has a physiological condition that basically means she can't. That means that her husband married her knowing this (they've been together about 3 years). Yes, married her and told her that if it takes years of treatment to make it better so that the next 40 years will be blissful then there is not question that he will wait and be patient and do other enjoyable things together in the meanwhile. I'm trying to be as vague as possible here, so no, no more details. But suffice to say, it's not a case of her not wanting to - she has never been so devistated in her life. I don't know if this will end up being too much for them to handle, because yes sex is so important - but for now I heard her story and realised THAT'S what it means to really love someone - not really the foregoing sex bit - but understanding that the person you love is on the inside.

Labels: babies, marriage, messages from the mobile, miscellany, sex

posted by M at 4:33 pm 32 comments

The other day I had coffee with my beloved E and L. They were telling me about the 'night on the town' (operation get L a boyfriend) they had while I was sick in bed throwing up my ice-cream (damn you ice-cream, why don't you love me when I love you so much?). It's no big secret that despite the sick thing I've sort of had enough of nights on the town not because I'm over getting maggoted or daggy dancing or even singing along to unmentionable songs at farking 3am (kill me) - but just because I find the meat market depressing and if I'm going out I'd rather not be depressed thanks. Back at the coffee shop E and L were telling me about how they were descended upon by a big bunch of boys (table for two it was apparently) who all dragged chairs from far and wide for a chance to be with them. I never quite understand the mentality of "wow, there are two girls - let's get a group of 10 and go over and bombard them". Everyone knows it's a two man job - hero and wing man. Sure, girls all laugh about the wing man manoeuvre but hey, it works. I'm not sure what these particular guys were planning - maybe they were going to play marbles to see who won them or something. Who knows?

Anyway, E was especially amused by her guy - whom she termed the pants dropping wing man - and how he never even asked her if she had a boyfriend when indeed, she has a husband. It's like he didn't care if I was married or not! He never looked down at my ring and even after I asked him if he had a girlfriend he never asked me; he just kept on talking. What is with guys? Can I add that E just happens to have the world's biggest diamond engagement and married ring on her finger. You could use it to cut through a rope. It's also blinding - I'm talking looking into the sun, kind of blinding, you cannot not notice it! We mused about whether men look for rings on girls or whether it even matters to them if they're all ringed up and married - because in their minds all girls are fair game.

I asked her if her marriage ever came up at all during the night and E said that it never did. She mused something that still has me thinking - For the married person, when do we disclose? If I blurt it our as soon as he comes over I'll look like I have tickets on myself and he'll get defensive but if he doesn't ask it'll never come up. I don't want to offend someone by assuming they are trying to pick me up when they will obviously deny ever doing such a thing and in the end make me look stupid and then exclude me from the group. Do I have a moral obligation to disclose my marital status even if we're just talking or should they not assume I'm single and ask me?.

What do you think?

Guys do you care if your pick up is married or not? Are all girls fair game? Do you look for a ring?

Girls, do you?

Labels: friends, marriage, questions, wonderings

posted by M at 1:50 pm 51 comments