Dorm Life

People are always sorry when they ask about the kitchen — but I always feel better after being given the chance to complain about it!

Yesterday — after a friend made the mistake of asking and I spent five minutes complaining — she observed that it is like we are living in a dorm room. So true!

We make food choices based on how few dishes we can use, whether said food can be microwaved, we eat a lot of cereal, and dishes are washed in the bathroom sink. All we need is a loud neighbor on one side and the smell of weed coming under our door and it would feel just like a college dorm!

Everything is harder without a kitchen. In fact, I would estimate that no kitchen uses between 30 - 35 Little Soldiers every single day.

And it is not just the work of life with no kitchen, but also the work of dealing with all the moving parts of getting things reconstructed. I am exhausted by it — and truthfully, I suspect that is part of their strategy.

But I persist.

I sent this email this morning:

Good Morning [Insurance Person with copies to various other insurance persons plus the Repair Person Company]:

I have a question I hope you can answer related to the below [email string that included negotiation between various insurance companies about who is ultimately paying this claim].

I spoke with the Appliance Specialists at Home Depot about the dishwasher fiasco; the dishwasher that is Ground Zero for the destruction of 1/3 of our home was purchased there. I explained the situation, which is that one these two things caused damage to our home:

1. Faulty dishwasher (i.e., water supply line malfunctioned); or,

2. Repair Person sent by GE did not tighten the dishwasher water supply line.

There are no other options, unless someone is prepared to assert that some random stranger snuck into our home and loosened the water supply line; I suppose someone could also offer that a dog or cat did it but that, of course, is equally ludicrous.

The opinion of the two appliance experts is that it was the Repair Person's failure to adequately tighten the water supply line because there is no history of that kind of problem in GE appliances. They, in fact, recommended a GE dishwasher to me, which is how the conversation started in the first place.

By the time the house is reconstructed we will have been without a kitchen for seven months. Seven Months.

Here is the question: Who is going to make it right in terms of the disruption and additional expenses we have incurred as a consequence of either a Repair Person's failure to do his work properly (a Repair Person sent to our home by GE) or -- less likely but possible -- the failure of a GE appliance under warranty to work properly?

Absent a magic wand, I am absolutely talking about additional compensation for the loss of three rooms in our house for an extended period of time. Which of the various companies involved is going to negotiate with us about that?

Thank you!

I believe that they should pay rent — after all, they are effectively utilizing 1/3 of our home for 7 - 8 months!

SO ANNOYING.

In happy news (sort of) — after months of negotiating to get the budget where it should be we were able to finally order the kitchen cabinets and countertop — they will be here in 6 - 8 weeks (hence the “sort of” part of the Happy News).

This is the design — but appliances and sink will all be stainless like the fridge, and that is not the actual floor.

The countertop will be quartz and in a fit of whimsy, I selected something called Stellar Snow — because it sparkles. Yep — my kitchen will match my dog.

I have a most agreeable and patient Dear Husband — or maybe he is just more exhausted by it all. When I say, “what do you think of this?” he just says, “I want you to be happy.” Hence the sparkly countertop.

Aren’t you glad you wondered about the kitchen?

Nasty Woman

Part 2. Still not a political post, even though I include an image of politicians. That said — isn’t everything political?

I am an equal opportunity crusader. I do not just want Life with Dogs to be fair — I want Life to be fair.

And it isn’t. I know that.

But does human imperfection mean we give up trying to make things better?

I have two challenging situations going on that have highlighted how difficult it is to be a woman in what is still a man’s world.

Do you doubt it is still a man’s world?

How many of your tribe have a seat at the table? Source: White House photo.

A woman who stands up and faces down a man with power does so at her own peril. And let me tell you this — it takes a great deal of something to do it knowing that you will likely be insulted and dismissed.

“Nasty”

“Hostile”

“Meltdown”

“Unhinged”

This is part of the explanation for why people stay silent in the face of unfortunate behavior — because being attacked for speaking up is so painful.

Note that I did not say the attack was for saying untrue things — rather, too often the attack is simply for speaking truth.

Anger is an appropriate human reaction to injustice — but a woman, no matter how thoughtfully, expresses it at considerable personal and professional risk.

There is an implicit social narrative that angry women are bad, nasty, crazy — even unseemly. But it is not just social pressure that supports that narrative. I believe we all have that internalized schema — do you, after all, know the answer to this question?

And so women who want things to be just are not only dealing with powerful huMANs who want to maintain the status quo but also a pervasive social narrative about what it means to be female — a narrative that we have understood from an early age.

And that narrative does not actually include speaking up or being angry.

It isn’t just the salmon who are swimming upstream — and right into the jaws of the waiting predators.

Source: https://www.alaskaphotographics.com/blog/2009/07/18/brown-bears-at-katmai-national-park-alaska/

And so we have a wee bit of a dilemma (understatement alert). Getting angry about injustice plays right into the hands of those in power because the social narrative is activated and suddenly the message is lost in the volley of arrows used to Shoot the Messenger.

Sparkle wonders why bitch is pejorative?

I suspect people in power NEED women to be angry. Not only do social pressures help manage angry women, but so do our own internal messages. Angry women can therefore be rendered ineffective and/or they can be silenced -- simply by the activation of implicit and internalized social narratives.

Clever strategy.

We must be smarter. All of us.

I believe in the goodness of humans, no matter the stripes. I know well the social narratives that suppress women also limit and hurt men.

And if anger is a trigger, it is also a shield. It covers up pain and vulnerability, and in doing so disinvites others into an understanding of our experience.

Maybe the secret to effectively highlighting injustice and/or asking for change is to stay present with the pain and not take cover in anger, no matter how justified it feels.

After all, we also have a powerful social narrative about how to respond to an unarmed, wounded person…

When the Only Defense is to Shoot the Damn Messenger

Disclaimer: This is not actually a political post, even though I am going to mention Impeachment.

I just read a news story that impeachment is not popular in what are known as “swing states.” I have lived in a swing state, and appreciate the generally kind and respectful nature of people who live there. I can envision such people wanting to avoid impeachment because it is messy and unsavory and divisive, regardless of whether they find the actions of the president to be appropriate or not.

I am always astounded by the reality that wonderful, decent human beings will take what I perceive as unfortunate behavior over confrontation any day of the week.

Like it seriously blows my mind.

And it causes me to wonder if there is something wrong with me that I lack the ability to just roll down the shades and ignore the drama going on outside.

Because trust me on this — I totally lack that ability.

I have had occasions in recent weeks to observe my reactions to what I perceive as unfortunate behavior, and I am not just talking about the national news.

Fascinating stuff, all this self-awareness.

I recognize that where I used to wade right on in, I am much better at hitting pause and considering what I might not know or understand about said situation. This is a good thing.

However, hitting pause doesn’t mean I let something go — quite the contrary. While my response is suspended, my actions are not. Instead, I am obsessively seeking evidence and data to support or refute my initial impression(s).

Frankly, it is exhausting.

The past week has reminded me of an unpleasant reality: When unfortunate behavior cannot be disputed or covered up, the strategy shifts to attacking or dismissing the person (or process) noting the unfortunate behavior.

Because of the aforementioned inability to pull down the shades on things, and because of my persistent and dogged determination to establish accuracy before I react to unfortunate behavior, just know that when I do identify unfortunate behavior I am as sure as humanly possible that the evidence supports the conclusion.

The dog was shown after the prohibited surgery. The person did cheat. The colleague did plagiarize. Policies were not followed. And so on.

In fact, I believe that being dismissed or attacked means I hit the evidential bullseye, so to speak.

Shooting the Messenger, also known as an ad hominen attack, is what we do when we cannot dispute facts. It is a dishonest, unfair, unkind way to divert attention from the unfortunate truth.

I am always surprised that people actually fall for all that nonsense.

But what really blows my mind is that some people truly do not care about the unfortunate behavior in the first place, no matter how well-documented.

Whereas I see unfortunate behavior as something that needs to be addressed, others see the cost of addressing the unfortunate behavior — or even acknowledging the unfortunate behavior — as too great.

Huh.

Humans are so interesting.

Okay — given that we have different responses to the same behavior, wouldn’t it be better to just acknowledge and accept the differences instead of attacking the character of those with a different opinion?

Of course, that requires that people agree on what they are seeing. I have been trying to think of an example of how that can happen with a good outcome and think I have one — but this post is too long and so let this end as…