This idea that rage is a natural response to anger or frustration has really been bothering me.
This lead to a lot of questioning about "acceptable" and "should" and "natural", and the general consensus has been that feeling angry is healthy. It tells you something is WRONG, and that you need to stop, figure out what it is, and do something about it. There is even some agreement that rage could be a response to anger. However, everyone (books, therapist, friends who are willing to debate these things with me without taking the conversation as a personal attack) resoundingly agrees that while someone can choose to respond to feelings of anger with rage, I don't have to stand around and be part of it, and that being honest with myself - and others - means that I need to be clear that I will not tolerate rage.
Which beg the question: Why do I keep letting myself get caught in other people's shit storms of rage?
As part of my wonderings (wanderings??), I revisited Alasko's book, Emotional Bullshit. I've read and reread this book a number of times over the last year or so. This time, I think I was in a place where I could think about the principles Alasko outlines.
For example, I am currently in a whole world of shit.
I am over-committed at work. I am teaching 17 hours this term.
I am over-committed at school. I need to write a thesis and I'm taking six hours (because that way financial aid will pay for my classes).
I am over-committed at home. The Boy has a list of activities. I am trying to maintain my home.
And I have no real budget that plans for long-term expenses.
I lived in denial for a really long time that the situation is as messed up as it is. I was surviving - well, to be honest, I wasn't dead, and grades were being turned in. The Boy was fed, and no one could call the health department on the state of my house.
I lived in a world where I thought if I just ran faster, I could get everything done, and people would stop yelling at me. This is all important because as I read through Alasko's book this time, I finally understood one of the scenarios he uses to explain his philosophy - *I* was the person who kept saying, "Yes" in a desperate attempt to be accepted. *I* kept agreeing to do things that I really had no capability to complete, because agreement (and then failure) was easier than the potential for conflict I associated with telling someone, "No."
Being honest with myself and others means I am going to have to tell them, "No" sometimes, and that scares me. "No. I don't have time to come visit today." "No, I really can't take on another class." "No, I really can't commit to serving on your committee." "No, I can't meet you except for during office hours." "No, I can't have this conversation with you right now."
Right now, I find myself in the rather uncomfortable situation of knowing I am over-committed for this term, and not being able to change my commitments. I have to work. I have to finish the thesis. I have to take care of my kid and myself. And, I don't know where to start.
That isn't true. I know what I have to get done between now and tomorrow, because I have classes that are tomorrow, and papers that have to be returned. I need to grade about 100 papers, write two lectures, and pack food. Tomorrow is my long day. I get up at 4:30 and I don't stop until 11 at night. I will drive about 110 miles tomorrow. So, what it looks like I need to do is stop writing here (no matter how good it feels to think these things through with no one but the universe listening), and get busy.
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment