Loving Earth

To save the Earth, we must fall in love with her, writes Robert Koehler, taking his inspiration from the work of Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics.

Koehler and Eisenstein say that in the trajectory of human evolution, we have been locked in the selfish adolescent phase for a long, long time, just seeking to take what we need from our Earth mother, without thought of giving much in return, or of the reality of finite limits.

When we fall in love, Eisenstein says, “perfect selfishness falls apart as the self expands to include the beloved within its bounds.”

I remember falling in love like that as an adolescent, and as a young adult too.

It’s true that when you’re in love, the boundaries between the self and other dissolve, and you exist in a harmonious utopia of mutual beneficence.

But at least for most of us fallen humans, that kind of all-encompassing love doesn’t last forever.

It can’t.  It’s too intense.  Eventually the first ecstatic glow fades and the angelic beloved assumes normal, human proportions, with all the associated warts and odors and quirks of behavior and thought that our human bodies and minds possess.

What happens to love then?

If we are compatible for the longterm, the initial heady crush transforms into a much more solid platform of respect, shared interests, and deep concern for each other.  We care about each other, we enjoy being together no matter what we’re doing, and we respect each other’s views, goals, and talents.

We become partners in the truest sense of the word.

Is it necessary to go through the romantic, boundary-dissolving “falling in love” stage to get to the mature relationship of partnership?

In our culture, we believe it to be.  Our young people, tutored by every aspect of media and pop culture, assume that being swept away with love is a pre-requisite to successful marriage.

And yet how many of their parents, who followed that same script, ended up in bitter divorce fights?

Although I understand the intent behind Koehler’s and Eisenstein’s valorization of “falling in love” as a model for the depth of passion needed to fuel successful environmental action on behalf of the Earth, I am not convinced that this is the right message to be sending.

Young people today may still harbor romantic dreams, but they live day-to-day in a casual hook-up culture that prides itself on separating sexual enjoyment from commitment.

Fifty percent of their parents have made the journey from early romance to disillusioned divorce.

Another 25% or so of adults are either unhappily married, or unhappily single.

The “falling in love” model thus hits home with too few Americans to be effective as a rallying call for environmental action, and it is too limited a metaphor for the depth and breadth of passion that we must summon now to be effective Earth stewards and activists.

Instead we must love with the unconditional devotion of a mother for her child, with the sincere, selfless wish to see that new life grow and prosper and move forward beyond us.

We must love the Earth with the intensity of devotion that recognizes that for her to thrive, it may be necessary for us to part.

Earth has loved us with this kind of pure altruism all these many years of human emergence.  Now, as in the terrifying story of The Giving Tree, she has given so much that she has practically sacrificed herself entirely.

Nothing we can do to the Earth will wreck her forever.  Forever is a long, long time, in geologic terms.

But there is still time to shift from heedless destruction to the kind of loving tending that the Earth herself has modeled for us all these years.

There is still time to develop the kind of deeply caring reciprocal partnership that will last a lifetime, and beyond.

Cupid, you devil–go home!

I find it really poignant that so many people are Googling “love” and turning up my Valentine’s Day blog post on how I was very happy, last February, to be awash in family love, even though romantic love was absent from my life.

That my Valentine’s Day post is the single most popular post on Transition Times is just evidence of how many people are yearning for love, and happy to find affirmations that there are alternatives to the stereotypical “and they lived happily ever after.”

As the 50% divorce rate in the U.S. attests, very few of us live happily ever after.

For the other 50% who stay married, well—I would like to know how many of you folks consider yourselves truly happy.

My guess is that something like 25% of the people who dutifully marry in their twenties find themselves compatible enough to live happily ever after.

So what does that mean for the institution of marriage?

Is it good enough that a quarter of those who marry in their prime child-bearing years are likely to stay together through the rigors of raising children?

What are the alternatives?

Unfortunately, in our society, there are few alternatives.  Women of means can choose to have children via artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood, without needing the fathers in the picture.

But this is the exception, not the norm.

For most mothers, having the financial, emotional and practical support of fathers (or co-parents, in the case of lesbian couples) is essential.

Raising children is hard.  Raising them alone is much harder.  I can say this with conviction since I’ve been a single mother since 2009, and going it unofficially on my own for longer than that.

For the most part, divorcing women tend to argue hard for custody of our children. We can’t imagine being separated from the little ones we once carried in our bellies—even when they’ve become big hulking teenagers.  They are ours in a way that must be honored.

And yet…they are their father’s children too.  It never ceases to amaze me how fathers can be so casual about their offspring.  They will insist on custody to stick it to their divorcing spouses, but for the most part they don’t have the emotional attachment to their children that we women have.  Or if they do, it is something they are willing and able to forego if need be.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, guys—this is just what I’ve perceived from very unofficial observations of my own family and friends.

All this to say that those who are avidly reading my Valentine’s Day post should be aware that my feelings about love are very complicated indeed.

I love my children.  I love my parents.  I love my brother and his family.  My ex-spouse?  Well, I am grateful to him for the good times we shared, including bringing our two boys into the world.

I wish we could have survived as a couple.

And I am ready to move on.

Ode to my firstborn, on his 20th birthday

Twenty years ago tonight I was going into labor with my firstborn son.  I was 29 years old and had been married to his dad for four years.  We were living in Manhattan, and the plan was to give birth at New York Hospital.

When the labor pains started, around midnight, I felt an odd sense of calm.  It was like having some kind of ocean tide within me, pulsing with the ebb and flow of the contractions.

All through the morning they continued, getting very gradually stronger and more painful, until I would gasp when the full cramp bore down on me.  My husband left for work; my mother wanted to take me to the hospital right away, but I knew it wasn’t time yet.  I asked her to make me the filling for stuffed grape leaves, and I sat, pushed away from the edge of the kitchen table by my huge belly, methodically stuffing and rolling the grape leaves, training my mind and hands on that simple task as the great rolling breakers of contractions surged through my body.

Eventually, my mother and I got into a yellow cab to go to the hospital, and she called my husband to meet us there.  I was admitted, but there was apparently a fair amount of dilation yet to go.  Despite my plan not to have an epidural, the waves of pain became so great, as I lay there on my back on the gurney, strapped to a fetal monitor, that I quickly accepted one when it was offered.  Thereafter, it was quite surreal: I could watch the contractions on the monitor, each one higher and more intense than the last, but I could not feel anything.

For hours, I lay on the gurney in that disassociated, semi-vegetal state. A nurse came and went, giving me a catheter when I could not manage to pee on my own, and coaching me about pushing when the epidural started to wear off and it was time to begin serious labor.  “Push like you’re really constipated!” she urged, and soon I was bearing down like a pro, like my life depended on it.

Then all of a sudden the doctor was there telling me to stop pushing, because the baby was coming and the operating room wasn’t ready for me.

Stop pushing?  He had to be kidding.  My body had taken on a life of its own, quite independent of my rational will.  There was no way I could stop pushing.

So there I was, groaning and pushing, as they rolled me down the hall on the gurney to the operating room.

No, this was not 1952.  It was 1992.  But I had the misfortune to be giving birth at New York Hospital just a year or two before the maternity ward was renovated to allow for modern birthing rooms.  I gave birth in a dark, windowless operating room painted a dismal hospital green, without a trace of softness or warmth anywhere.

When my son appeared, they showed him to me and my husband and then quickly whisked him off for tests or treatments.  I was left on the operating table waiting for the anesthesiologist, who took his time getting there.  The doctor had done an episiotomy (without consulting me; this was something else I did not intend to have done) and now we had to wait for anesthesia so he could sew me up.

The anesthesiologist, a cocky young man, must have given me too much, because afterwards I could not feel my legs at all, and I was not allowed out of the recovery room until I could feel my legs.  My son was not allowed to stay with me in the recovery room.

So there I was, sobbing my heart out because I had lost my baby—he was off on another floor somewhere by himself, screaming his head off, with my husband running back and forth between us, distraught.

Finally, after a couple of hours, I began to feel prickles in my legs, and was allowed out of the recovery room.  I got into a bed in a communal nursery room, and at last could hold my newborn baby in my arms. He was upset, still crying—it took him hours to calm down, and both of us were so stressed that nursing was difficult.

During the first night, the nurses began to give him a bottle of formula, and as a new mother I got the impression that I would have to supplement with formula; that I did not have enough milk to satisfy him.

So began months of a colicky baby who screamed every night from around 11 p.m. until 2 a.m.  There was nothing I could do to stop it—I tried everything I could think of, but in the end all I could do was hold him.

It was hard, that first birth.  I learned so much about how important it is, as a mother, to protect oneself and one’s child: to make sure one has a birth plan, a doctor one can really communicate with (my OB-GYN did not show up at the hospital for the birth, she sent her partner instead—a man I had never met and who seemed quite uninterested in me as a human being) and preferably a doula; to investigate the hospital and make sure it has birthing rooms; to stand firm about pain medications and cuts.

My second son was born under entirely different, polar opposite conditions.  No meds, gurneys or fetal monitors; a nurse-midwife and a doula in attendance; a birthing room I could walk around in comfortably while in advanced labor; giving birth squatting rather than flat on my back.  My second son came into the world very peacefully, nestled in my arms and immediately started to nurse.  He never screamed or cried, not until much later, when he was around 11 months old and got pneumonia, and then asthma…but that is another story.

My first child has taught me so much about how to be a mother.  I wish I had known more about it before he was born, so that he would not have had to go through some of the hardships caused by my ignorance.

He will forgive me, I know, because that’s what the unconditional reciprocal love between mother and child is all about.  It is unshakeable, unbreakable.  It is an elemental force that springs from that deep, uterine connection and runs forward, rich with emotion, through a lifetime.

 

Cupid, go home!

It’s fascinating to me that the Transition Times blog post that has gotten the most attention, by far, is “There’s more to love than Cupid and his arrows,” my Valentine’s Day 2012 post, which has been read hundreds of times since February 14.

Of course, people are always interested in love and romance.  And this is a positive, peaceful essay about being very thankful for the love I have in my life through my parents and children, to the point where I’m not missing romantic engagement.

Truly, I’m not.

There has been a spate of articles lately about so-called “singletons,” men and women who choose to remain happily single.

Some of the articles fret that such people may have troubles as they age, since they have no companions to help care for them.  A recent New York Times Room for Debate series, “Being Alone Together,” explored both sides of the issue, with many of the writers arguing that solitude has significant benefits.

I am not living alone; I am living with my two teenage sons at the moment.  I have to say that I do enjoy the rare times when I have the house to myself, and have no one but myself to please.

When I was in my early twenties, before I married, I lived on my own in Greenwich Village while I studied as a graduate student at NYU.  Although I had never felt confined or fettered while I lived with my parents, the freedom of living alone was fantastic, as was the convenience of living so close to the NYU campus and the stimulation of the Village.

But nevertheless, during those years I felt a tremendous pressure to marry, to have children—to paraphrase Mrs. Ramsay in Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse.

Did it come straight from my ovaries?

It wasn’t like my parents were pushing me at all. But I felt a kind of insecurity about being single, like I was lacking or missing something. I was incomplete.

In those days, the 1980s, there was a lot of talk about how if you didn’t find a mate in your twenties or early thirties, you’d be over the hill and never find one.  Believe it or not!  Stories of unhappy women in their forties abounded—women who had never been married, and were totally, miserably fixated on finding the ever-elusive Mr. Right.

Although I was living alone and perfectly content with my life, I still felt like it was temporary, and I’d better be constantly on the look-out for the man who would come along to complete me and open the door to my real adult life, which could only begin with those wedding vows.

Now, on the other side of two decades of marriage and a divorce, I am once again single and enjoying the freedom, this time without that little Cupidlike imp sitting on my shoulder warning me that I’d better focus on love and get myself hitched.

I have young friends getting married now and of course I wish them much happiness and fervently hope that they will be better marriage partners than my ex and I were for each other.

But I have to say, from my current vantage point it seems rather miraculous that one’s chosen mate at age 25 could still be the perfect partner at age 50.  What an amazing feat to grow together so harmoniously that you still complement and satisfy each other after so many years of married life.

I know it happens; I have witnessed it for myself with others.

I just suspect it’s the exception, not the norm.

I have no illusions about finding—or being–such an exceptional partner in the next chapter of my life.

And you know what?  That’s just fine.