Not as tuneful as Springsteen, just more accurate.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 5 comments link this postShe nailed it:
Okay, Simon. Please let me explain something. You are right when you sense that I am "pulling back," but I'd like to take a minute to explain. See, Simon, a woman's heart is a lot like a garden. There are, in the garden, public areas. This is where almost anyone can traverse (read: decent colleagues, the kind checker at the grocery store, the rare person on the subway who gives up his or her seat, neighbors who want to borrow a tool, parents of friends, little kids in the park, etc.). Then there is the center of her garden. It's a special place, reserved ultimately for the person who wants to commit to "husband her garden permanently," so to speak. (I know you're into etymology, Simon. I guess you know that the word husband actually is an agricultural term.)
Anyhow, the tricky part, of course, is that there's this in-between place, somewhere between the inner sanctum and the outer ring, and that's where this gets all confusing. Basically, Simon, the folks I let into this more fluid in-between part are some key family members, longtime girlfriends, a few guys I consider brothers, my boss who I know cares for me, and guys who are interested in exploring the idea of entering into that inner sanctum. The problem, Simon, is that once a guy whom I like—and Simon, I have felt chemistry between us—decides he's not particularly interested in long-term inner sanctum husbandry, I can't let him wander all around the middle ground anymore. If I do, then he inevitably crosses lines he doesn't know he's crossing, and I inevitably try to pull him into the center. He can't figure out why I’m all upset (because, after all, he was honest about his lack of intentions), and I keep hoping I'm going to change him. That, Simon, is a recipe for disaster.
I couldn't have explained it better. And I didn't, when the time came, unfortunately.
I wish I'd read this about four months ago.
Labels: relationships
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 11/30/2007 09:43:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
5 Comments:
Yes. That is a beautiful, and accurate description. And a decent guy should be able to understand.
If the situation were reversed, the guy would be faced with the dilemma, "Does she really want me to leave her alone, or is she playing Hard To Get and trying to get me to pursue?"
By 
Keith Schooley, at
1/12/07 18:50
To be honest, I think I've talked this all to death, and, after reading Connally's description and immediately understanding, in two paragraphs, that she has said all I was trying to say on the matter, coming back around full circle after all my talking and explaining and having to deal with the "yeah buts"...I'd almost, if I were such a blogger, delete my other posts and say: this is it. This is what I wanted to say.
I recently -- upon remembering the past posts and what you said about it being so tough for guys to know what to do or, as you say here, wondering what she's doing -- very gently but clearly told a guy that I found him interesting, that I did not him to leave me alone, and that it would be OK if he were to contact me. To be honest, I could see this person was interested in me earlier, and people were making comments along the lines of "uh, I'm pretty sure he likes you." The whole high-schoolness of it was annoying, so, taking a page from the "See it from the poor guy's viewpoint" book, I made it clear and easy and took out any risk for the guy.
Surely, I thought, after all the things I had written and then had you respond back with detailing the difficulties of the guy's point of view and such, mildly getting after my desire to be pursued, this would leave no doubt in the guy's mind and make it easier (which is what I gathered is the hurdle, that difficulty).
Absolutely no response at all.
So, I would say, full circle, throw out all of the conversation and thoughtful dissection and say, rather tired of it all, that Connally is exactly right.
We can chalk it up to a guy's shyness, difficulty understanding women, it not being fair for a woman to want to be pursued -- all of that -- but it comes right down to Connally's point, and, at this point, I would actually say point blank that comment over on one of your very good blog posts on the subject in which a commenter said:
"I think some men would prefer to get to know a woman anonymously (I know that sounds like an oxymoron), get all the facts, see if it's worthwhile and then take the plunge. So "seeing what develops" is a safe way for men to get to know a woman to help decide if it is worth pursuing the relationship."
That is disgusting, stupid, and awful. So much concern for safety, at the expense of another person. As if some guy got to decide that it was just fine to trample around and do research before deciding to pull out, not realizing it is invasive research. That it's OK to see if a woman is "worth pursuing" by being a Simon in Connally's analogy, not realizing that when they get to the point where they will see all the worthwhile things they hope to see, they are already treading on ground that is going to leave the woman hurt, and that lingering about to "see what develops" (i.e. see if she's worth it) is going to hurt her more. If that's the truth, what that commenter said, I am going to say, forget the whole thing. If I were a feminist, after reading such a thing, I would say something erudite like "men suck."
I don't think that.
My dad doesn't suck.
Neither does my brother Jerry.
My nephews are pretty decent, also.
Women aren't something to research and then buy. We're also not Gorgons or Medusa or all that mystical and difficult. We are just people. So, at this point, I'm pretty well tired of all of the pussy-footing around and the caveats and the "yeah-buts" and the Clinton-esque efforts of trying to imagine every other person's point of view except my own when coming to conclusions.
I would delete my old posts and replace them with Connally's; I would. She simply put it all in the best possible nutshell I could imagine; I immediately identify with her description.
(I do not mean to sound so irate. I'm not, actually. I just find this all very stupid and annoying at this point, and am very much interested in an older version of Julie, one from about four years ago, who didn't give a rat's a** if she was alone or not. She was a much happier, tougher, person. I miss her quite a bit. She's my new goal. My life, my decisions, my conclusions. No waiting around for other person to decide if I'm worth the effort as they "research" me. I already know I'm worth the effort and that's enough for me.)
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
1/12/07 19:33
I knew I should have quit after the first paragraph. Sorry.
For what it's worth, if you hadn't talked it all to death, you and I probably wouldn't have become friends. That's something.
And also for what it's worth, anything I ever had to say about "seeing what develops" I always envisioned as a mutual thing--both people, in the process of getting to know one another, moving from acquaintances to friends to something more to figuring out if this is really the person you're ready to be "forsaking all others" for for life. It's a big deal; no one should take it lightly.
I'll shut up now. I should probably have quit after the first paragraph of this one, too.
By Keith Schooley, at
1/12/07 21:46
Ah...I suck.
Nah, you don't have to apologize. Really. I appreciate your friendship and your calm and reasonable voice in the midst of all my melodramatics.
I'm very melodramatic.
Although sometimes "melodrama" is just a way to shrug off something that hurts...
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
1/12/07 22:00
You don't suck, and lots of men do.
I think you think my feelings were hurt. They weren't. My comment just came off that way.
Fair enough?
To get back to the original post, I really did think it was eloquent and a great way to describe it.
By Keith Schooley, at
1/12/07 22:12
