Dear Reader:

All right.   I'm done feeling dramatically self-pitying and self-absorbed for the moment.  It may have been the 6 fantastic hours of piano practice between my last blog entry and now.    It may have been a friend making me laugh at myself (heartily!) several times today.   It may have been the transcendental calmness I felt (and always feel) while I was washing dishes and watching the storm clouds gather outside this evening.    Whatever it was, I am back in the "life is good" saddle again.   Ha.   I do tend to delve into the darkness now and again, dear reader.   But, like Dante and Virgil in the Divine Comedy, I am only a visitor.   I do not plan to stay, if I can help it.

As I was laughing at myself and my hard won title as "Rumination Queen," I remembered that Billy Eichner character on Parks and Recreation.   He was just Full-Tilt all the time, talking loudly.  Everything was so emotional and right on the edge.   He was just one big slap in the face.   So, I started to imagine that I was putting all of these ruminations about my "outcast state" and all of my tendency to "trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries" into the form of a person yelling at me - a Billy Eichner version of my neuroses.   And, then I just imagined myself slapping him.   And, yelling back at him to calm the hell down.   This was surprisingly effective, dear reader.   It was like me looking my Thoughts in the eye and saying - "STOP TALKING SO LOUD.  I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING ELSE IN HERE.  GO TO YOUR ROOM."   And, just like Billy Eichner was calmed down by Donna Meagle's directives on Parks and Rec, my Thoughts just hung their heads and slunk out the door.   I'm sure they will be back, but now I've got a whole method of taming them!  And, it's totally not so weird that you are now worried about me, right dear reader?  Right?   :)

But, here's another thing I want to get off my chest.   So, get ready.

Ambivalence.   I find this an amazingly powerful concept in my own life.   And, I've decided that I don't trust people who don't find some ambivalence in their own views on various life issues and events.   Just for the record, dictionary.com says that ambivalence means (among other variations),  "the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions" and "the simultaneous existence of two opposed and conflicting attitudes and emotions, etc."

Story of my life.   I think one of the most wonderful and freakishly bothersome things about being so empathetic and sensitive to other people is that you can't stop seeing things from their point of view and understanding their motivations.   Which causes you to, sometimes, view your own feelings and values with some ambivalence.   Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that because I feel empathy with someone who has done something that I would objectively consider wrong or harmful, I am willing to eschew my own sense of morality.   I'm just saying that I can no longer categorize or dismiss their behaviours or words as just awful or just wonderful, etc.   Gosh, there are some days where I wish I could categorize and dismiss, so I could breathe easier.   Ha.

Anyway, this line of thinking about ambivalence was heightened for me by two things recently which I will now force into connection with each other, just for the benefit of my dear readers.   (Sorry, guys!  You can skip this, if you want, and get to the plans for yoga and mindful eating later in the post :)):

1)  My ambivalent feelings about the storyline "resolution" for Peggy Olson (my fav!  my doppelgänger!) in the Mad Men finale  - AND -

2) My ambivalent feelings about my own perceptions of myself as a single woman in her 40's in a somewhat idiosyncratic domestic situation.

So, first of all, my gut reaction to Peggy's "romantic resolution" was to be extremely satisfied and happy for her.   Because, oh my goodness, she has been so inept at knowing what was good for her, romantically, throughout the course of the show.   And when she says that Stan is always there and "always here" while patting her heart (which, of course, he can't see over the phone) and she tells him that he makes everything OK and I think about how he clearly worships the ground she walks on and considers himself extremely fortunate that she might return his affections (after all of the jackasses who saw her as competition or used her for their own selfish purposes),  I just want to wrap them both up in a little bubble and cover them with blankets and take care of them - metaphorically speaking, of course.   It is just as sweet as it could possibly be.   Sigh.   Swoon.

So, that was my first reaction.   I mean, I also had the thought that this wasn't really a tidy resolution because, clearly, Peggy is C-R-A-Z-Y and will annoy the hell out of Stan eventually.    He's going to have to put up with a lot.   And, Stan is super irritating with all of his opinions and personal habits.   I mean, come on.    That's going to get old.   But, I still think they are going to have fun working it all out.    And, my little closeted romantic heart was so happy!  joyful!  Whee!

And, then my second reaction was (and you can imagine the voices in my head having this conversation - so much fun in my head on a daily basis! :)) to think that there was probably something shameful and faulty about me being so happy about Peggy's storyline being resolved romantically, rather than through some "OVERTHROW THE PATRIARCHY" bad ass professional move.    I mean, I was SO HAPPY FOR JOAN, you guys.   She did, in fact, slough-off her sleazy boyfriend when he asked her to forget about starting a business so that she could focus on his sorry ass (again, sorry for all the profanity, but it's super fun right now.  I'm in a mood!).   Bruce Greenwood character whose name I don't even care about - BE GONE.   But, still, I was so happy for Peggy.    I then read a thousand feminist sites bemoaning the pat romantic comedy ending for Peggy.   I knew that would happen.   But, the more interesting question for me was:  Why do I feel ashamed at feeling good that this particular celebration of "romantic love" was elevated for this particular character?

And, this led me to think about how I've always seen the desire for romantic love (which I, having done the research, know is an evolutionarily necessary development which occurs between "lust" and "attachment" according to most anthropologists - see Helen Fisher's research on this) as a weakness in my otherwise self-reliant, self-sufficient character.   I've been a closet romantic for a long time.   And, I don't mean the Harlequin Romance type of romantic.   I mean, I require my romance to be a bit more intellectually stimulating, for sure.   But, for some reason, I have swallowed the cultural notion that there is something wrong in my desire for romantic attachments.   Which, by the way, has waxed and waned and ebbed and flowed during my almost 44 years of singledom.   Anyhoo, I was pondering all of this and just about to bring my neurotic Billy Eichner trick back into the picture, when I read this well written article which perfectly encapsulated my ambivalence:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/i_choose_to_be_single_partner/

Go ahead, give it a read if you can stand it.   Or if you, dear reader, are married and thinking - WHY ON EARTH IS SHE NATTERING ON ABOUT BEING SINGLE WHEN BEING MARRIED IS CLEARLY THE HARDER PATH? - I salute you.  You are probably right.   Some days, I am 100% convinced you are right.   It's amazing that I have the audacity to complain about my life.  I mean, I'm white and middle class.   I have a job I love.  Good friends.  Happy and Healthy Children.   I don't have to compromise on anything (except all the things I have to compromise on for my children and my job...) that affects my life plans or my parenting decisions.    I also don't have to work hard at yet another important life thing.  Marriage looks to me, from a distance, to be completely exhausting and sometimes demoralizing work.   But, maybe I'm not even talking about marriage.  After all, romantic love does not always lead to marriage.   As one of my brilliant friends said about Stan and Peggy (or Steggy, according to all of the internet), "I hope they have some good fun before it goes south!"  And, being single and heterosexual in your 40s probably looks like and IS a walk in the park compared to trying to get the right to actually get married at any age if you are gay.

But you know me.   I go ahead and ponder and complain anyway.  So, here are the real take-away quotes for me from this article (because I know you are not actually going to read it, dear reader.  It's OK.   I wouldn't either, if I were you):

"Are women only able to lead respectable single lives when they have the power of refusal?  Do you have to make it clear that guys dig you?"

"I knew that in society's eyes this (desire for romantic love) made me sad and ridiculous, an understating that made me feel awful, until it pissed me off.  Until I finally realized that my unsated desire for romantic love didn't make me a joke.   It made me a human being."

"I'm all for women - single and married - having wonderful lives...But until women writing about singleness no longer feel compelled to set themselves up as the cool girl - who either has a man or could get one at any time - I'd say the answer is that no - we're not people yet."

Ambivalence.

I now feel like I have taken enough of your precious time, dear reader, with this business.   Billy Eichner is shouting at me.

I am going to enjoy my Friday like a boss, even if I am ambivalent about it all.   Yoga, Walk on the Trail, Piano Practice, Motherhood, My Being Single.   Everything With Elegant Capitalizations.

Hee, hee.

Thanks for reading.