would you let your wife fly from Dallas to San Antonio on Saturday night? Please reply.
(see figure 1)
fig1.
Paul Soupiset is a graphic designer, illustrator, songwriter, liturgist, youth media consultant, journalist, mentor, typophile, husband, father, and self-described armchair theologian who lives in San Antonio, Texas, USA, with his wife Amy and four children.
If the airline will let her board, I would let her fly. They are much more concerned with safety than we are (although perhaps not for as noble reasons), and much more informed about actual flying conditions. It's the unexpected bad weather that causes problems with airplanes, and Rita will be about as well watched as any meteorologic event in human history.
We are flying through Houston Monday morning on our way to El Paso. I only hope there is still a Houston airport by the time we leave!
Posted by: erik | Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 09:21 AM
Good question. You have to assume that the airlines want nothing to do with this hurricane, either, and that they would make every effort to ensure the safety of their passengers b y cancelling or postponing flights that might be in danger. However, I used to work for an airline, and putting the well-being of your most beloved in their hands might not be a wise choice. If it's not urgent that she return to S.A., I would have her stay put until we see where this thing is headed. Then again, I'm the guy who called 911 because a poor drunk guy was standing in my yard!
Posted by: duane | Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 09:24 AM
I'm sure it's not a shopping trip. So I guess it depends on how important it is for her to be there.
Doesn't seem like risk-taking is a good idea right now. Better safe than sorry - a wise park ranger once said :)
Posted by: Danny | Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 11:48 AM
I got the destinations mixed up - she's coming home.
Doesn't matter. I'd still say it's best to wait it out ...
Posted by: Danny | Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 11:52 AM
"let"?
Posted by: betsy | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 01:12 PM
Mea culpa. Thanks Bets:
Trust me, I just got "Inquisited" (for good reason) at lunchtime today for this poor choice of words. You're right, that was heavy-handed, and I see totally how this post came off as overbearing, etc.
How do you, (or do you?) put your foot down when you're sincerely concerned for the other's well-being?
As in,
"I'm not going to let you jump off that building"
"I'm not going to let you drink that next drink"
"I'm not going to let you slit your wrists"
Anyway, it's a moot point now, but I still need to come to grips with where my post landed on the control/power continuum.
I can't "make" amy do anything, of course.
sorry, i feel terrible and ogre-like for the whole thing.
argh.
Posted by: paul soupiset | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 02:13 PM
call me insensitive, but isn't mutual submission the key to marriage? And doesn't that mean, by definition, that one spouse might override the other's wishes on some issues at some times? I think "let" is a perfectly appropriate word. There are often things my wife wants to do that I veto (usually for reasons of safety or fiscal responsibility), and vice versa. I am hers and she is mine--that's a choice we willingly made 12 years ago.
Posted by: virusdoc | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 03:17 PM
I was being snarky - it seemed like an out-of-character word choice for you, really. I didn't really think it was what you meant.
It is hard to know a better way to express that. I think he'd say that he didn't LET me make a short drive through a hurricane we had here a few years ago.
1991 - about this time of year, about the time we started to calm down about the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, about the time we figured out that one of the terrorists had lived in our little town...a tornado destroyed 6 houses about 2 blocks from ours. Siding was peeled like the shell of a hardboiled egg, roofs and bedroom sets were sitting in the middle of the street. A tree was uprooted and driven straight through a brick church sign.
The storm blew up suddenly one afternoon; I was at work, getting ready to make the 10-minute drive home. Eric called me at work and said "You have to stay put until I call back and tell you it's safe." Our power was out at church, and I was bored, so it was a hard sell to get me to stay, especially since the weather there was just fine -cloudy but not stormy. Besides, Eric's much more of a worrier than I. But I stayed there rather than fight about it.
I came home literally minutes after the storm had blown through. Our house was fine (a lot of trees had blown down, but not onto anyone's house or car...on our block. Tornados, apparently, are weird in that they can totally flatten one house and leave the house next to it literally indisturbed. The house with the side ripped off? And the furniture blown into the street? The house next to it still had plants and a grill on the deck.)
We are not used to this sort of thing around here.
Needless to say, I spent the next several days telling Eric that he was totally right, and yes, I could have easily been killed if he hadn't been so insistant.
He is kinder than I am, and never gloats, and I can't recall a time I have had to put my foot down with Eric. It's rare that he doesn't ask my opinion (does that mean he's considerate, or 'whipped'? I'm not really in a position to judge, since I'm the beneficiary.)
- there will be new trails to blaze when the kid appears this winter.
Anyway, long digression aside - I didn't mean to pile on you. Really.
Posted by: betsy | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 03:45 PM
Friends, Romans, Countrymen,
Clarifications abound:
Mutual submission. Yes. But felt/feel that I was coming across as a little more heavy-handed than "mutual" - I guess I've been questioning the idea of "mutuality" this afternoon -- and also questioning the wisdom of blogging this entry in the first place, at least the way I did. You're correct that Amy and I both have 'editability' into each others' lives .. but "let" has a lot of baggage with it. Insistant and Manipulation. a fine line?
If you're a woman, for example (--- Erik, last time I checked you weren't a woman, neither was i) , I can imagine "I won't let you______(fill in the blank)____" might not be received as love, especially if she's been domineered, or been the recipient of power games, control stuff, etc. I'm still learning on issues of spouse roles.
Amy and I both veto each other regularly. And I'd agree we seek that out in each other. "I am hers and she is mine" -- is good medicine.
I'd also like to state for the record :) -- that I didn't want those friends who "Inquisited" me at lunch to think that I felt ganged upon, or like it was the Spanish Inquisition (noooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! dooong), or anything negative or whatever. I didn’t feel beat up, I felt “questioned” -- it’s an editability that I’ve requested/desire/require from my friends. which was good. My defensiveness pointed out stuff to me that I’ve been reflecting on all afternoon. I “count it all joy”.
Somewhere in the intersection of Erik's point, Bets' counterpoint, Cliff and Casey's sharpening me, and my reflections, I'm sure I'm if nothing else learning, and learning to love.
Thanks, y'all. no harm, no foul.
Paul
Posted by: paul soupiset | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 03:57 PM
Now - I will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.
Posted by: paul soupiset | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 04:01 PM
Oh No! Not THE COMFY CHAIR!!
Posted by: betsy | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 04:19 PM
for the uninitiated:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/script.html
Posted by: paul soupiset | Friday, September 23, 2005 at 04:23 PM