Comments on the Recent Controversy at Whole Woman

Submitted by lanny on July 1, 2008 - 9:11am
Body: 

With some trepidation I feel the need to weigh in on the recent controversy. I’d like to offer two data points that may help clarify what has happened in the past and hopefully provide some opinions about what has fueled some of the drama here in recent weeks.

First, I’ve spent almost thirty years working with personality assessments in various business and personal contexts. Christine has an unusual ability to see the big picture from a few data points and then with laser accuracy, drive into the heart of the matter. The result of that talent is the work that has benefitted all of you.

Along with that temperament comes a very focused, driving energy. When someone of her temperament feels attacked or manipulated, anger is the natural byproduct. It is an unfortunate quirk of human reality that people with different personalities, who do not have the directive, driving energy that Christine has may feel that a) anger is not a legitimate emotional expression and b) that the expression of anger by someone is a de facto attack on the person to whom the anger is directed.

Neither of these perceptions are true.

Anger is rarely pleasant to deal with, but that does not mean it isn’t legitimate. When confronted with anger, the appropriate response is to recognize that the anger is data. Data about the recipient’s behavior. Playing the victim only fans the flames because what the angry person wants is for the recipient to own their transgression and get resolution. Dodging responsibility or blaming the angry person only drives the temperature higher. Insinuating that anger somehow is not a legitimate expression is really throwing gas on the fire.

My point is this. If Christine perceives that anyone has stepped over a line, she is going to call them on it. Yes, POP is a difficult and emotional issue. Believe me, no one is more aware of this fact than me. If you want to further irritate Christine, all you have to do is to write endlessly about hurt and wounded hearts. The appropriate response is, “I understand that I have stepped over a boundary here. Help me understand where it is so I don’t do it again.” Christine is neither arbitrary nor capricious with her anger. If she is venting on you, there is a good reason. Own it, scrutinize your own actions, acknowledge your mistakes and Christine’s blood pressure will come right down.

Second, is Christine a mama bear about Whole Woman?

No doubt about it. And justifiably.

I know better than anyone the tortures she went through for years with no information, no guidance, no support, being lied to by her surgeon, told to get a hysterectomy by her gyns. Or the two years she spent locked in the med school library turning over rocks and being increasingly horrified at the ugly truths about the medical system that kept crawling out. Or the incredibly intense effort it took to write and publish Saving The Whole Woman, not just once but twice. All of this in the face of at best indifference and at worst open hostility from the medical establishment with all the potential threat that implies.

I realize none of that is news to any of you, but I know the emotional toll it took on her and it is a useful context in which to understand Christine’s passion for the Whole Woman community and forum. Which brings us to an important, delicate and maybe even difficult subject. And that is Christine’s leadership role.

Christine and I are both thrilled that WW has become such a “home” for so many fine women. That having been said, it is important to remember that the forum has an overriding function...to convey Christine’s message to the world of women. And while the forum has grown and taken on something of a life of its own, Christine is still the leader.

Her leadership role, I believe can best be described as custodian of the space that she holds open for all the participants to fill with their cries for help, for mentoring, support and information from their sisters.

In many ways, being custodian of the space is (or at least appears to be) a passive role. It is very easy to mistake that role for an abdication of power, control, or influence because all that is visible is the space.

That is until the integrity of the space is or is perceived by Christine to be threatened.

Then the appropriate leadership response is to be much more directive, clarifying that the rules have been violated in a way which threatens the integrity of the space. Who gets to define the space? Let’s be very clear about this: Christine does. It is that clarity that can and will create emotional safety.

We’ve all experienced setting boundaries for our children and suffered their resistance and pushing back. It’s easy to assume that children instinctively rebel against boundaries else they wouldn’t push against them so hard. As experienced parents, we’ve learned that kids push hard on the boundaries because they desperately need to know they can trust that the boundaries are real. They cannot emotionally survive in a world without boundaries to give them a sense of emotional safety. Perhaps over the years some of the struggles on the forum have been the result of not defining clearly what the rules are. Perhaps if the boundaries were clearer, everyone would feel safer.

Let me propose some rules. On the Whole Woman forum:

1. Supporting pelvic surgery for anything short of a life-threatening situation is not OK.

2. Where possible (according to your conscience) we would appreciate your support for Whole Woman products. The hard truth is that Christine and I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in web development, product development, inventory, production costs, building the Whole Woman center, not to mention the years of effort Christine has put into Whole Woman where she could have been gainfully employed and bringing income to the family. Christine feels the burden of this terribly. We continue to subsidize Whole Woman because we must and because we hope to build it to self-sufficiency in the next year or so. If you don’t have anything good to say about our products, that’s fine. Then please just don’t say anything.

3. Christine is the world’s leading authority on non-surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. In Christine’s absence, the Whole Woman moderators are the authorities. Christine trusts them to have mature judgment about the limitations of their knowledge and to refer questions to her they don’t feel qualified to handle. Being supportive, sharing experiences and resources is what Whole Woman is about. Setting yourself up as an authority on this forum either explicitly or by implication is overstepping the bounds.

4. Christine is always interested in new information and resources that may help or enrich everyone’s understanding and/or POP management. She recognizes that no one has all the answers. That having been said, any exploration of non-Whole Woman products must be openly discussed and explored. There will be times when Christine will come down on the negative side of something because it violates some of her fundamental principles of health. Trimosan and Replens are good examples. She will not support their use nor condone others promoting their use on the forum. Those limits need to be respected to keep the peace whether you agree with them or not.

5. The Whole Woman forum is not for everyone. Every leader creates a tone, a culture in the systems they create and lead. Christine’s style is straight talk about hard issues. Prospering in such a culture requires a level of emotional maturity, willingness to look honestly at oneself, and one’s own issues. There have been, are, and will be those who have their own ideas about what’s right and wrong for women’s health that are to a greater or lesser degree divergent from Christine’s. Such women should go start their own forums and develop their own following. Nothing good will come out of trying to take on Christine and attempt to take over philosophical leadership of this community. There will be a fight and Christine’s dominance will be the foregone conclusion. If all the women desert her and go to some other forum, so be it. She will not compromise her principles, nor allow anyone else to take control of the community she has founded. If the Whole Woman community is not a good fit for someone, trying to hang onto them is not appropriate. With love and best wishes send them on their way to someplace they can prosper.

There may be other rules that would be worth articulating, but it is my expectation that these are the boundaries within which peace, harmony, love, mutual support and expansion of knowledge can blossom. We have all seen that when these boundaries are crossed, painful conflict inevitably results. I know those of you who are close to the community experience the pain. What you may not be aware of is how much pain it causes Christine. But as I said earlier, she is a mama bear when it comes to defending her principles and the integrity of the community she has founded and to which you have all contributed so much.

Looking back over the recent controversy, it is pretty clear where at least two or three of these boundaries got violated. The resulting confrontation and escalation was therefore inevitable. I hope these thoughts help clarify matters and will set the stage for a more harmonious future for the Whole Woman community.

All love...Lanny

louiseds

July 1, 2008 - 10:01am

Thanks Lanny

I think your words are helpful for *all* of us. I look forward to proceeding with a clearer view of what is acceptable, and what is not. Any chance of condensing these guidelines/rules and putting them somewhere on the Forums front page for ready reference?

Cheers

Louise

elleninala

July 1, 2008 - 11:03am

Lanny --

Your comments are beautifully and clearly put, and I second them wholeheartedly. This isn't the place for folks to bring baggage. We ALL have areas of our lives in which we offer leadership. Likewise we all need to recognize the leadership of others. Nature is full of benevolent and necessary hierarchies, and in the human community, we can be the leader in one situation and a follower in others. It does not indicate any sort of lesser-ness to be a follower. In fact it brings out lovely human traits like gratitude.

Let us all be leaders in our own proper venues, and let us be grateful for Christine's leadership here. Without her this space would not be here, past present or future, and that says it all I think. She knows her rights and she knows her responsibilities and that's the mark of a trustworthy leader.

Thanks and love to all,
Ellen

AnneH

July 1, 2008 - 11:20am

Excellent post. My only comment is that I suggest the rules not be hard rules but only guidelines. Christine reserves the right to delete any post at any time for any reason or no reason at all. And she should not allow anyone ongoing and unlimited use of her site as a soapbox to promote opposing ideas. However, it is extremely important not to appear to want to completely silence the opposition through brute force. Allowing a public challenge and responding to it in a decisive manner while giving it limited spotlight shows confidence in your position - then ultimate leadership and direction. People should not get the impression Christine promotes her philosophy through censorship, but rather through strength of truth. Truth must be seen against the foil of the very falsehood it opposes. To ban opposition outright only makes people suspect you aren't as strongly confident in your truth as you claim.

Judicious management of dissent is the key, not squashing it. When you totally squash dissent, you lose credibility.

alemama

July 1, 2008 - 11:38am

is that now that these suggestions are out there in list form and I look at them- I can see that they were well in place before today. I am glad to see them listed here- just wanted to say if enough time is spent here those previously unspoken rules are very well known (well at least that is my perception).
Could you clarify #1 for me a little. I know this website is not supportive of surgery for POP. But I think in the past we have done a pretty amazing job supporting women and their choices. Is this type of support still acceptable?

I am not sure I understand the point about anger. "When someone of her temperament feels attacked or manipulated, anger is the natural byproduct. It is an unfortunate quirk of human reality that people with different personalities, who do not have the directive, driving energy that Christine has may feel that a) anger is not a legitimate emotional expression and b) that the expression of anger by someone is a de facto attack on the person to whom the anger is directed. "
I understand well the personality you describe as it is very similar to my own. The only thing is that I have been working for almost my whole life on that anger. And I think I am finally getting somewhere. So how is it that one person is felling attacked and anger is a fine reaction but that reaction is not viewed as a counter attack? I'd love it if this were the case because then I would be off the hook. I agree that anger is productive and many times necessary and certainly honest. I have just learned in my own life that my anger can hurt other humans. If my personal boundaries are crossed I have found that if I am able to calmly define the boundary most humans almost apologize immediately- in rare cases I have to defend my boundary but even then if I am able to harness my anger and power the message is well received. Am I making any sense? In a way it simplifies things to feel the anger- then to go ahead and assume the person who violated the boundary has no clue what they did and then to define the mistake made. Then there is no guess work- no one has to wonder what the heck they did to upset me.

well I don't know- when I feel anger directed at me I usually say- "hey are you upset by something I did or said?"
I wish I could say more here or say what I am thinking better but all three kids want a book read and the baby keeps trying to 'help" me type and I am getting pretty angry with him for being angry with me so I gotta go-

Christine

July 1, 2008 - 1:07pm

I know Lanny will enjoy reading and responding to your replies.

Just want to speak to Alemama’s comments because they affect my heart (literally) so very much. Unquestionably, yes!, reining in anger is a skill set that must be constantly worked on and acquired – and I think it takes lifetimes to master within the context of a supportive family/culture and healthy environment in general – if we are to grow and evolve.

What Lanny didn’t say is that my personality is very spiky – for every point of “red” I have almost as much “blue”, so that angry outbursts, while often a relief, also sadden me greatly.

I also want to comment that there are different kinds of anger. Some people scream and yell while others undermine and subvert. And for some reason – probably because the latter is usually pretty invisible – there’s not as much recognition and credence given to that sort of anger. But it ‘s just as real and just as shocking to the person who doesn’t operate that way.

I’ve learned so much through all of this. I feel shameful, too, for having been so unskillful. But there’s no time for wallowing in the muck.

In every town – almost around the world at this point – women are being told they are defective. We are the only community on the planet that has real and lasting help for them.

Kit, if you hand out the pillows, I’ll hand out the peaches.

Heartfully,

Christine

MeMyselfAndI

July 1, 2008 - 1:17pm

Everything is a learning curve. YOu hafta live and learn your whole existence on this earth. The moment you say 'I know it all' Something will pop up and remind you that you don't lol

So - Things like disagreements can show one a different part of oneself and you can learn not only about yourself but about the human condition itself...

Lets hope that everything will settle down, and move forward in a positive and better way.

''Onwards and upwards as they say''

Sometimes you are holding someone else's heart whithin your hands. You can drop that heart & bruise it. You can squash that heart & hurt it. Or you can stomp on it & totally annihalate it. You stomp on that heart or bruise it. It can forever be changed.

AnneH

July 1, 2008 - 2:37pm

No Christine, you were not unskillful. You handled this very well in my humble opinion. No one expects you to be an emotionless robot; there is nothing wrong with displaying righteous anger from time to time. As you point out, this is honest and direct, and actually easier for people to deal with than if you behave passive-aggressively or otherwise express anger in submerged, disguised ways.

Alemama has an incredible insight that I have found makes the difference between bitter, dysfunctional people and emotionally healthy ones... when someone angers you, ASSUME they did not have bad intent. This doesn't mean you don't get mad at them; it simply makes it much easier to let go of the anger as soon as the moment blows over. It also doesn't mean you are a doormat to true evil against you; I am talking about giving the benefit of the doubt in petty squabbles, not when you're being robbed at gunpoint. I know this so well because I too am like the two of you and have struggled with anger all my life.

Christine, you said,

"In every town – almost around the world at this point – women are being told they are defective. We are the only community on the planet that has real and lasting help for them."

There you go... refocus on the Mission. You're doing fine keeping the site in line with your vision.

alemama

July 1, 2008 - 4:53pm

you know I wasn't thinking that my comments would be critical sounding. Christine I have deep respect for you and have noticed that laser accuracy Lanny describes- even during this current discussion- I didn't even notice what you saw so clearly until you pointed it out. That relief/pain cycle is something I can also relate to. Please know that I did not write my last post with a single bone of criticism.

Honestly I think I was just really wanting Lanny to be on to something. I have been told all my life and only in the last 6 years (since my first baby) rejected the idea that anger is somehow not an intelligent response and that anger is unnecessary. So it is amazing to read another's ideas on anger that fall into line with my own. I am always open to rejecting past imposed beliefs that don't seem to jibe with what I find to be true- I was sincerely hoping that his data point about anger was right on. I know I am not responsible for how others react to me or my anger- in my mind- but somewhere in my heart I am unable to really own that thought and feel that same deep sense of responsibility for the fall out after an expression of anger.

lanny

July 1, 2008 - 9:10pm

Louise,

I'll put something together and figure out where to post it. Thanks for the thought and always for your support of WW.
Lanny

lanny

July 1, 2008 - 9:18pm

Ellen,

Thank you for your thoughts. It has been my experience with effective groups that leadership flows freely to those who have what the group needs at the moment. There has been a lot of that at Whole Woman over the years. But when things get out of whack it's all too tempting to point the finger at the people instead of asking "what is it about our systems and processes that are giving rise to this dysfunction?" From that point of view it seemed pretty obvious there were tacit rules in place which produced friction when violated. Seemed appropriate to make them explicit rather than expecting people to discover where the fences are by tripping over them.

Ultimately, it seems to me that "when in doubt ask" would be a reasonable operating premise for everyone. It seems to work in marriages and most other settings. I think it will work here.

All the best,
Lanny

lanny

July 1, 2008 - 9:36pm

Your point is very well made, Anne. It has been my experience that Christine has been mostly very tolerant of dissent (probably more than I would have been). I can count on one hand the times I'm aware of that she has deleted posts over the past five years. To me, forum etiquette (any forum, not just Whole Woman) is a bit like being invited to someone's house. You don't hang your clothes in the closet or repaint the living room, have sex in the back bedroom or raid the fridge. Relax, enjoy yourself, commune, sure. Engage in friendly debate even. But always being mindful of whose house it is.

I have a colleague with whom I work closely at one of my client companies and we sometimes disagree about things and she is always puzzled after passionately making her case for something when I respond with something like, "Thanks for sharing, but I disagree." I think some people operate on the premise that if you just make your case strongly enough the people around you will roll over. And from my side, viva la difference. It's useful to know when to quit arguing, however and acknowledge that we agree to disagree. If that makes the relationship untenable, so be it. We respectfully take our leave and go find some more like-minded folks to hang out with. That's fine. Where does it say we have to like everyone with whom we interact? Again, remembering whose house we're in to me is the appropriate framework for how to handle a mismatch of points of view on anyone's forum.

All the best,
Lanny

lanny

July 1, 2008 - 10:53pm

Alemama,

Thanks for your great questions.

Re surgery, I'll pass that hot potato to Christine, because it's really her place to define the rules. For what it's worth, my opinion is that if a woman decides for whatever reason to submit to surgery, that is definitely her choice (however questionable). However, for her to show up on Whole Woman two months later touting how much she loves her surgeon and how clever s/he is and how much better she feels and why everyone else should line up to get eviscerated also is where the line should be drawn. There are other sites for that brand of enthusiasm. We just pray that in three years she is not back on Whole Woman weeping over the irreparable damage she has done to herself.

The subject of anger is one of my favorites.

It's a complex subject, though and it would be useful to define a personality type that tends toward expressions of anger. The most typical we could call a red person. This is someone whose fundamental emotional needs tend toward taking action and getting results. The red instinct is "When it doubt, do something, it almost doesn't matter what. Because if you do something, you will get some result and the result will help you figure out what to do next. Sort of ready, fire, aim. Red people tend to be very direct, even blunt. They are not particularly sensitive in picking up on the nuances of what's going on around them. On the other hand they are tough. Their presumption in relationships is that "I'm taking care of me, I assume you're taking care of you. If you need something from me, I'm assuming you'll let me know and when you do I will respond appropriately. But meanwhile, no news is good news." Watching two red people have what they would consider a spirited conversation, someone who was not red would see a thermonuclear exchange and would be convinced these people will never speak with each other again. Amazement follows when the two reds slap each other on the back and go have a beer. Red people are focused, energetic, intense and tend not to suffer people they consider to be fools gladly. Red people can be easy to deal with because you are generally very clear about where they stand, and they can be difficult to deal with if you are not red and don't know how to read their intense, focused energy. Again we're talking about basic nature here even though no one is purely this way. There are always other needs, talents and temperaments shaping our strongest tendency.

One level of complication in all of this is that layered on our basic nature is a bunch of programming we got as we were growing up about doing "the right things". You know what I'm talking about. There are things that "nice" girls do and nice girls don't do. We all got our version of that. In US culture, the most common set of attributes we receive are to be flexible, adaptable, willing to give and take and subordinate our instinctive needs for the benefit of the group. We should also be compassionate and empathetic to those around us. For women, there is a triple whammy which is women are socialized to service due to their role in the reproductive process. (For an interesting look at the socialization process and the differences between how boys and girls get socialized, take a look at In A Different Voice by Carol Gilligan.) All of this means that it is remarkably easy for women to sell themselves out and give away their power in order to assuage their guilt. Sound familiar anyone?

So for a red person whose authentic nature is directive but whose socialization is flexible/adaptable/compromising (let's call this yellow), there is a pretty serious internal conflict. If you're directive you feel guilty. If you're compromising, you feel frustrated. Can you relate to any of this? By the way, for women, this is compounded by the fact that the stereotype for women is more like the socialized behavior. Red is closer to the stereotypical behavior for men. This can be particularly challenging for women who have grown up in highly traditional social or family situations.

What I have found is perhaps the most important midlife transition, is learning what I call the art of creative selfishness. That means asking the question, "What do I need and want here?" It is based on the premise that our values (the shoulds and ought-tos) while necessary at 18 when we first left the nest and needed a map to help us find our way in life, at 35, 45, or 55 aren't nearly so necessary. The reason is at 18 we know practically nothing about life. at 45 we're a hell of a lot smarter (often sadder but wiser). Growing up through midlife requires cutting through the programming and finding our authenticity and living there. It means coming to terms with the fact that guilt won't kill us, but failing to recognize, honor, and seek fulfillment of our most fundamental emotional needs very literally will.

Coming full circle to red, in the context of social mores, red behavior always falls under suspicion of being abusive. From a red perspective, if you stomp on my toe, where does it say that I should get all weepy and apologize for having my toe in the way of your important journey through life? No. As you described Alemama, "Excuse me, but you just stomped on my toe" is a reasonable opening round. If the person has any kind of feelings, s/he will sincerely apologize and all is forgiven and forgotten. If it happens to be Dick Cheney, the response is likely to be, "You shouldn't have put your f***ing toe in my way." That's when the 2x4 should come out. Bursting into tears and falling into a heap isn't going to earn you any points at that moment. I wonder at times how it is that empathy is the default expectation in conflict situations. Why is it that red people are expected to learn to practice restraint and empathy but empathetic people are never expected to toughen up and learn to deal with the legitimate expression of anger from a red person? I've seen this over and over in organizational contexts. It's quite puzzling. Can anger be hurtful? No doubt about it. Can lack of forthrightness in dealing with tough issues be hurtful to a red person? No doubt about that either, but somehow that isn't considered an issue.

So my thesis is relationships are complicated. We all live in different realities and because our consciousness is reflexive, there is no place we can stand to be objective about ourselves or our realities. It's all we know, therefore, we assume that everyone else lives in the same reality. It's only when the internal logic of our reality dictates a particular response to a situation and we find the people around us (who are following the dictates of their internal logic) behaving in different ways, that we become convinced that they are somehow deeply flawed. :-) Being red, like all other temperaments has 50% assets and 50% liabilities associated with it. Red people can be powerful, effective, charismatic and overcome resistance and get things done in ways that no other personality can do. (E.g. Christine.) But with that power comes the responsibility to use it with care and mindfulness. But one should never have to apologize for being red any more than any other temperament should feel the need to apologize for their attributes. Those of us who are red have our challenges like everyone else. But if you ever find yourself in the middle of a barroom brawl, we're good people to know. LOL.

Hope this rambling dissertation throws some light on the subject. By way of personal anecdote, both my parents were Ph.D.'s, distinguished scientists and very rational people. They were married 36 years when my mother died at 58. I can remember only one fight in my entire childhood which was very rationally conducted behind closed doors. As a result, I never learned how to fight even though red is my dominant characteristic. In many ways, this cost me my first marriage because I never learned how to go to bat for my own legitimate interests. I was committed to doing the compassionate, adaptive thing. This is not a way to garner respect in the long term. When Christine and I got together (again) twenty years ago, I told her frankly that we were going to fight from time to time. (I had been doing my remedial homework.) But I emphasized that we would not be fighting each other, we would be fighting for the vitality of the relationship. When needs conflict, which they do in every relationship from time to time, it's appropriate to call the other person out and thrash it out. What's not OK is to sell yourself out with the rationalization that I really shouldn't have left my toe in my partners path. No, your partner should have been more careful about where they stepped.

Christine and I have developed a wonderful relationship in part because we both know the other will stand up for what they need. The joy of the relationship comes in proactively supporting each other in the fulfillment of those needs.

I hope all this is meaningful to you Alemama (and others who read this). Honor your nature, stand tall and just as you work hard give others room to be themselves, equally demand of others that they make room for you to be your authentic self.

All love and appreciation for your support of WW.
Lanny

lanny

July 1, 2008 - 10:58pm

Indeed what you say is true. The most robust systems in nature are both loose and tight. They are tight around the core abilities they have to survive and prosper and loose around the edges so they can grow and adapt. That is I think both Christine's strength and the strength of the WW forum. Hopefully a little clarity about what's loose and what isn't will help.

Peaches to you...
Lanny

alemama

July 1, 2008 - 11:38pm

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer what it was I was really asking. oh I could write a book of response. hmmm. instead I think I will just reread. I am feeling something really close to freedom right now- but have no clue why. Man oh man.

goldfinch1

July 2, 2008 - 8:30am

Christine:
Would you be able to share the screen names of the forum moderators? I think it might be helpful to know. Thanks.

Christine

July 2, 2008 - 9:41am

Gosh Goldfinch...I had no idea that wasn't clear! Our moderators are Louise, granolamom and alemama. I truly am *not here*...I have a ton of work to do and need to step back from the forum.

granolamom

July 2, 2008 - 10:59am

because its ok to get angry

as a 'red' person myself, I can attest to the fact that its hard to always be seen as the 'wrong' one when others aren't behaving all that adaptively when their needs aren't being met. when you feel that your response (anger) is not only warranted, but acceptable, you are free to be yourself.

now, as a 'red' person who is married to a very not red person, I have also learned to be careful with how I tell my dh that he stepped on my toe. I don't apologize for being in the way (unless he's moving the sofa and has asked me to watch out), but I take care not to bruise his sensitive soul either. instead of HEY YOU STEPPED ON MY TOE I've learned to say things like 'honey, do me a favor, watch out for the toes, ok?' which seems unnecessary to me (if I step on your toe, please DO say GET OFF MY TOE') but because I care I don't mind going to the effort. and because he cares, he's learned to own it and straightforwardly say 'I'm sorry, will try to be more careful'.
it took a while for us to learn each other's anger habits. initially I couldn't stand the fact that he wouldnt own up, he'd say 'oh I didn't see your toe'. doesn't cut it for me. OWN it, no excuses. so I'd get angry and we'd go round and round.

I guess what I'm saying is, we all do anger differently. its ok to be angry, its ok to express it. but its nice to try to consider the needs of others too.

and Lanny, thanks for all you've added to this. I've learned so much from your posts. will definitely be rereading them as well.

a6a25725

July 2, 2008 - 1:26pm

Granolamom, you are indeed wise and I,m sure your family is blessed to have you.

Life is indeed a learning curve and I know I never stop learning. Sometimes it takes more than once to sink in.

I used to be known to shoot from the "lip," and not stopping and thinking. Family and friends tried to tell me this diplomatically but...it didn't sink in until, someone I loved very dearly told me I had a tendency towards "diarrehea of the lip." That set me back on my heels and I took a long hard look at myself and had to agree with him. Now my first thought is peace but not at any price.

I watch my cats and of course they have spats but they are over quickly and they get a long peacefully until the next go-around.

Something else I've learned is knowledge from one source can be helpful in situations you wouldn't dream would apply. One day awhile ago dd phoned me and asked about what methods were used to hold up a prolapse. It seems one of her turtles had a prolapse of some kind and she was woried about it. Told her about pessaries sea sponges etc., but didn't think they could be modified for a turtle. Then told her about the v2 belt and how it worked.
Something sparked in her intelligent brain and she rigged up a diaper of sorts and put it on the turtle. Had to change it several times a day but eventually the prolapse stayed up.

Finally my upside down tomatoes decided they didn't like hanging upside down and the stems have done an almost 180 degree turn and are reaching towards the sun.

So I think we can learn to overcome our differences and reach for the sun or the stars and succeed.

Life goes on and so must we.

Regards to all.
Flora.

AnneH

July 2, 2008 - 2:06pm

Lanny, that "red" personality analysis is amazing, it describes me EXACTLY. The only thing I don't understand is the Dick Cheney reference... that makes no sense; I've never heard that he has bad manners and wouldn't apologize if he accidentally stepped on someone's toe, nor have I heard that he goes around using the "F" word. So this reference just completely confuses me. Other than that your post is very enlightening.

Anne

Clonmacnoise

July 2, 2008 - 6:35pm

Lanny,

Thank you for a most wonderful piece on Red Personalities. It was a joy to read. Now... what are the other personalities? Do they have colors?

And are peacemakers really peacemakers if they don't "do" anything? I mean is the focus word peace or maker?

I agree with Anne about Dick C. I think he's a breath of fresh air in a very compliant stream of so called peacemakers.

Judy

Christine

July 2, 2008 - 10:31pm

Thanks, everybody, for your insights and comments (I especially loved hearing about Flora’s upside-down tomatoes - hurray!)

Lanny is on the road again…saving the world of business from soul-killing management practices. He probably won’t have time to give more personality commentaries for the foreseeable future, but I’m sure he will be back at some point.

((((((hugs to all!)))))

Christine

louiseds

July 2, 2008 - 11:08pm

ROFL about the V2 for the turtle and the defiant tomatoes!! You are a breath of fresh air, Flora.

Louise

babygotback

July 3, 2008 - 12:33pm

Thank you for taking the time on that, Lanny. It rings true and I am grateful you took the time.

Granolamom, I'm with ya'. I like your thinking.

Christine, I support you and just feel amazed by the contribution you make to the world of the natural woman's health. Thank you for the tremendous work and expense of putting this information out there. I see you as a pioneer like Ina May and so many others that brought to light things that now are taken as a given. Where were their supporters in their early days!? Taking them for hippies and crazies. We are all fortunate to be associated with the founder of essential human health insight. In 50 years, it will be granted true, but it always has been. Lucky us for having such access.

Thanks.
BGB