Reading through Peter Goodman’s Modern Love column, wherein
he recounts the story of his courtship and marriage, I was struck by these sentences:
As the
product of 1970s-style parenting that embraced therapy and a formulaic mode of
sensitivity, I had been marinated in the notion that talk was the sole means of
alleviating human friction. Deanna and I did plenty of talking. We could stay
up all night and not run out of things to say. But the obstacles in our
relationship were sufficiently weighty that words alone would not resolve them.
I am naturally happy to see that someone else sees therapy
and its culture as something that needs to be overcome.
Goodman outlines the problems in his relationship with
novelist Deanna Fei in terms that are both intelligible and real:
I’m a
dozen years older and was keen to start a family, but she wasn’t ready. I was
an expat living in China, a foreign correspondent seeking to extend that life
indefinitely. She was longing to get back to her family in New York and
appalled by the thought of letting my career dictate her geography: She would
be no one’s appendage.
Talk
can yield clarity, understanding and empathy, but sometimes it just brings
exhaustion and recrimination. Sometimes action is the only pathway to good
will. And when I picked her up, I proved it.
Dare I mention that his action does not feel very
feministically correct.
How did Goodman discover the limits of the therapeutically
correct way of life? One evening in Shanghai he and Deanna could not agree on
where to go for dinner. After a time the disagreement descended into bickering.
He recounts what happened next:
Chinese
or Italian? A high-rise restaurant with a commanding view, or the leafy garden
of a French colonial mansion? The stakes were hardly critical, yet our conflict
was a proxy for a deeper question gnawing at our life as a couple: Where were
we headed?
I grew
exasperated. She said, “Forget dinner.”
In
previous relationships, I might have stormed out and sought diversion in a bar,
writing off the possibility of resolution as both futile and beneath my pride.
This time, though, I swept up Deanna in my arms, damsel-in-distress-style.
Caught by surprise, she succumbed to my rescue. I had literally elevated us
above our stalemate. We kissed and headed out to dinner, no longer concerned
about where we went.
One suspects that this is seriously incorrect behavior.
Perhaps that is its charm. Perhaps that is why the two of them ended up married
and living in New York:
Every
time she felt lost or worried, I swept her off her feet. Every time she
contemplated walking away, I carried her over the next threshold. I aspired to
be her superhero, rescuing her from whatever perils lay in our path.
Of course, there are limits to such superhero antics. There
are worlds where it does not fit, where it is jarring, where it leads
astray. You cannot construct a marriage on uniquely male behavior or uniquely
female behavior. Goodman discovered this truth when his daughter was born
seriously premature and had suffered a brain hemorrhage.
He describes what happened:
As
Deanna lay in a recovery-room bed, I was led upstairs to the neonatal intensive
care unit, where this wisp of a creature was encased in a glass incubator and
connected to an alarming tangle of tubes, wires and beeping machinery. It did
not feel right to look at her, let alone photograph her as the nurses urged me
to do so I could share this image with Deanna. She didn’t look like a baby to
me.
There
was nothing I could say or do to lift us from our stark reality. I tried to
reassure Deanna that there was at least a one-third chance that our daughter
would be fine. But then the doctor returned to our hospital room to tell us
that our daughter had suffered a brain hemorrhage. She used the word
“catastrophic” and discussed the possibility of “comfort care,” a euphemism for
pulling the plug….
Once
the doctor had left, I told Deanna that if comfort care became our daughter’s
fate, we would not be there to watch her die. We would go home to our
irrepressible boy and pretend none of this happened; we would tell ourselves
this was a miscarriage. Never having known her, we would not know the pain of
losing her.
I felt
strengthened by my words of resolve, but my wife looked at me as if I had
become a stranger — as if she were now facing this crisis alone.
“If it
comes to that,” she said, “we would be there. We’re her parents. However long
she lives, whatever her life turns out to be. We’re the ones who have to hold
her. She’s our baby.”
In that
moment, I recognized that my wife was the real superhero. In trying to plot a
clean escape, I was the coward.
Of course, he wanted to protect his wife. He wanted to do
what he could to limit her suffering. In so thinking, he had misunderstood
her, had underestimated her strength and had failed to recognize that his duty
to protect and provide extended to a helpless neonate.
3 comments:
All that talking didn't do much good for the couple in "Eyes Wide Shut".
Tuco would agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cu8iwru-Q4
In the end, it's about the jism, not the ism.
Sometimes you have to march up to the Gates of Hell, pound on them, and shout "I'm coming in!"
Beautiful, an absolutely beautiful story illustrating the differences of masculinity and femininity at their best. It also made me think of a very old movie we enjoyed in a psychoanalytic film group, "Swept Away."
Post a Comment