This last month has been horrible. I am behind in everything, exhausted, overwhelmed, and need a break. So I took one for weeks. I think I'm back now. There should be more consistency in what you see here.
Thanks for bearing with me and for coming back.
October 14, 2006
October 9, 2006
Wierd labels
For those of you who have ever had a colonoscopy, the name, GoLytely arouses fear and horror as little else can do. GoLytely is a medicated beverage that doesn't make you go lightly at all. To the contrary, it makes a person lose all but their immortal soul in a few hours. As I listened to thundering feet down the hall for most of last night, I wondered who the creative soul was who thought up this euphemistic label.
The advertising world has had a heyday with an unsuspecting public--one that they assume is as daft as to not realize they've been had. They charge virtual miracles resulting from unknown products; veritable entry into the world of ageless, consciousness-raising, advanced members of the race. Consider these bylines straight from product labels in my house:
Apply all over for volumes of attitude (I can assure you that volumes of attitude I did get--especially from bemused passersby whose glances told me that my hair had definitely made a statement that day.)
Restores natural suppleness and bounce. (I should bathe in this!)
Amazing radiance without gritty sensation. (Why would lipstick ever be gritty?)
For hair that's irresistably alluring to the eye and beautiful to the touch. (This concoction gave me one of the worst bad hair days I've ever had)
Makeup for lost time with our Micro Lift System. (This sounds like gym equipment, but it is on my makeup bottle).
Pearlized microparticles brighten the eyes and diffuse light... (wow!)
...whipped mousse formula... (this sounds like pudding--I should like to eat some)
And it goes on and on. Snake oil can be marketed colorfully to keep us coming back for more, always longing for something we don't have. It's all in the languaging of things.
Perhaps this is one reason why Jesus said, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Matthew 5:37) and James reiterated this, "...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12).
October 6, 2006
What did the kids see?
A story of abuse is never over until we see what happened to the children and grandchildren of the abuser. The Bible doesn't tell us much about these individuals, except for the incident in which Jacob's sons killed the entire male population in a city for violating their sister. Apparently they had zero tolerance for abusive behavior and rather than dealing with the guilty parties, they took it out on the entire city.
But before we leave the story of Laban, there are questions that need to be noted--unanswered questions:
What did the children see?
What did they think about their grandfather chasing them as if they were criminals?
Did they see their mothers and father cower?
Did they feel the stress in the family because of the working conditions of their father?
Did they see how dishonest their grandfather was?
Did they hear explanations for Laban's behavior from his daughters?
Did they learn to associate power with abuse and deceit?
Did it seem a normal thing to them to have intrigue in hierarchical relationships?
Those who live in abusive relationships forget that what they allow to continue, what becomes a daily pattern, becomes internalized by the children who watch. Far too often, the children look for romantic partners who will keep this pattern alive--the call of the familiar is equaled only by the anxiety of being in a relationship with unfamiliar rules and behavior. So this continues on and on. Be careful what you do and what you allow in your home. It sets the template for your children's marriage and personal fulfillment in the future.
As for the story of Laban the abuser, I have read this story over time and again, despised him, and moved on. It was only recently that I read more slowly and realized that his behavior was so typical of abusers. I hope this has been a useful discussion for the readers. It has for me.
But before we leave the story of Laban, there are questions that need to be noted--unanswered questions:
What did the children see?
What did they think about their grandfather chasing them as if they were criminals?
Did they see their mothers and father cower?
Did they feel the stress in the family because of the working conditions of their father?
Did they see how dishonest their grandfather was?
Did they hear explanations for Laban's behavior from his daughters?
Did they learn to associate power with abuse and deceit?
Did it seem a normal thing to them to have intrigue in hierarchical relationships?
Those who live in abusive relationships forget that what they allow to continue, what becomes a daily pattern, becomes internalized by the children who watch. Far too often, the children look for romantic partners who will keep this pattern alive--the call of the familiar is equaled only by the anxiety of being in a relationship with unfamiliar rules and behavior. So this continues on and on. Be careful what you do and what you allow in your home. It sets the template for your children's marriage and personal fulfillment in the future.
As for the story of Laban the abuser, I have read this story over time and again, despised him, and moved on. It was only recently that I read more slowly and realized that his behavior was so typical of abusers. I hope this has been a useful discussion for the readers. It has for me.
October 4, 2006
A heap of stones
Then as so many abusers do, Laban accused Jacob of stealing his gods. He needed some pretense for hotly pursuing Jacob, so here it was. Through the entire preceding tirade of Laban, Jacob was quiet. But when he was accused and shamed, he responded. And he responded with an admission of his feelings--and this again, is so often what the abused do. It occurs because they think that if they can just be honest and vulnerable in some way, then the abuser will reply in kind. Or they may be scared and feel guilty because of the accusations about their character. So they make comments that work against them.
You were scared that I'd take your wives by force? Laban never responds to this concern. Obviously, he would have done this, had it not been for God's instruction to Laban to the contrary, in a dream. Jacob must have been quite rattled, facing this man with all of his children, wives, and belongings standing behind him. And on the other side stood Laban with "all his relatives," the Bible tells us. I don't know how many people that was, but it could have been quite a crowd. What more, they did not have the dream from God and they had pursued with the intent of bringing Jacob back home. So they probably didn't have the most pleasant expressions on their faces.
One of the challenges of women in abusive marriages, is that their abuser often goes to relatives to get them to prevail upon the wives to return home. They say things to their mother-in-law or sister-in-laws like, "I just couldn't live without that woman! Won't you please tell her that I'm dying here without her?" And family members get suckered into acting at the behest of the abuser, to fulfill his best interests. Most times it is not the best interest of the woman to go back to him. But there they are: the woman standing at one side and her husband, his family and her family, all standing on the other side asking her to go back. And we wonder why it takes an abused woman about six to ten goes to get away from an abuser...
Finally, Jacob seems to regain his wits. He invites Laban to search through his belongings for his missing household gods--and to do it while there are witnesses present. I really dislike the image of Laban that emerges here. Rather than sending off his daughters with a celebration and best wishes--even giving them his household gods for good measure--he begins a search, tent by tent, looking for these idols. Now it is the principle of the matter for Laban. He wants to prove that Jacob has done wrong by him and therefore his need to flee, his belongings, his dignity are of little consequence. So he goes through everyone's things, looking for these gods.
When Laban got to Rachel's tent and she said that she couldn't stand up in his presence because she was menstrating, Jacob finally found his voice and his anger. There are times in the lives of abuse victims when they can't clearly see what is happening to them because they lack distance from their situation. But when abuse occurs to someone they love and feel protective of, they can act decisively. Research on abuse victims tells us that this point for a number of women occurs when their children are abused by their abuser.
So here Jacob sees Laban intruding on Rachel--his favored wife whom he loved enough to work 14 years. And he becomes very angry and his anger finds words:
"What is my crime?" he asked Laban. "What sin have I committed that you hunt me down? Now that you have searched through all my goods, what have you found that belongs to your household? Put it here in front of your relatives and mine, and let them judge between the two of us.
"I have been with you for twenty years now. Your sheep and goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten rams from your flocks. I did not bring you animals torn by wild beasts; I bore the loss myself. And you demanded payment from me for whatever was stolen by day or night. This was my situation: The heat consumed me in the daytime and the cold at night, and sleep fled from my eyes. It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household. I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your flocks, and you changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hands, and last night he rebuked you."
Laban doesn't respond to this, although it's true. At this point, he must have had some sense of embarassment to hear this in front of his relatives whom he incited to pursue his renegade nephew. Jacob was right--God had rebuked Laban. Jacob had worked hard and perhaps the relatives present didn't know just how hard he had worked or what he had done for Laban. But Laban didn't admit to any wrongdoing. He couldn't.
Abusers are fragile souls. They have what we therapists call a "very weak ego system." Many abusers are all or nothing, black and white thinkers. They are unable to admit to anything unsavory because if they do say they have done bad, then they reason, they are bad. And if they say they have done something bad, then they are unable to think of themselves as good in any way. So one wrong, if admitted, means that they are 100% bad. If they sit with this knowledge, they are overwhelmed and want to die. Suicide and homicide are common bedfellows on this point. This is true of most criminals and abusers, but not necessarily about the antisocial criminals (psychopaths).
Think about it: how many criminals who are interviewed on television ever admit to their deeds or the badness of the deeds? They deny their guilt to their last breath. Prison wardens will tell you that jails are filled with "innocent" people! I worked with a woman who had systematically tortured her child and who had been imprisoned several years for the crime. Not once in six months could I ever get her to admit that she had done anything to her child. Because if she did admit it, then it would be proof that she was bad, all bad, not good, all bad. And she would have felt unfit to live. Few people realize the fragility of people who have abused others, or that the degree of intensity they use to fight and control represents the degree of desperation they feel about maintaining their fragile ego, intact.
So Laban is just like this, too. Rather than admitting that he was dishonest and that he had no cause for his aggression toward Jacob and the family, he states ownership over all that Jacob has: "The women are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks. All you see is mine." This, in the face of Jacob's explanation of how he came to have his flocks and herds, not to mention, his wives. Laban can't back down. He does (again), what so many abusers do when they can't argue a point and win. He takes control and suggests an activity they can do together to prove that they have good will between them. It's something that suggests, "Let's just put this all behind us and move forward as though nothing ever happened." And since the abused want to move ahead and forget what happened, they often comply.
So a pillar and heap of stones are set up as a memorial of this agreement between the two men. They eat nearby, all together. Then comes time for the pronouncements to solemnify this gesture. It's the Mizpah prayer--the prayer of the watchtower, as it is known. It is also what we used to stand by our desks and say aloud every afternoon before we were allowed to leave school:
"May the Lord watch between me and thee,
While we are absent, one from another. Amen."
Laban gets a lick in when he charges Jacob not to marry any other women than his daughters, or to mistreat them. This, after his own surly behavior. I doubt that Laban really cared that much about his daughter's wellbeing. He was flexing his muscles in threatening Jacob, and also making it seem that he (Laban) was a good father. That is something that abusers come unglued about: accusations about their integrity or capabilities. Any chink in their armor means that they are all useless, incapable, worthless, all un-good. So they make a play of being attentive and caring. But it is for the wrong reason. Laban did this here once again. Perhaps it was for the benefit of his relatives, with whom he would have to live when he returned to his own land. Maybe it was for his self esteem that he said this. It also may be that he realized that he had no grounds for pressing Jacob and he (Laban) was dangerously close to losing face.
Laban states, "Here is the pillar and the heap that I have set up." Even though in verses 45-46 it says that Jacob set up the pillar and asked his relatives to gather stones for the heap of rocks. Now he says that this heap of rocks has become a boundary so that Laban will not go past it "to harm you." Odd statement this, from a man who had just tried to make his pursuit of the family be about his care for his daughters and grandchildren. If he was a loving, good-hearted father, why does harm even come into the picture? The first time I read this I found this word jarring. It just doesn't fit with the Mizpah prayer cited above. Perhaps Laban was beginning to feel his age and fear for his safety, should Jacob ever become vindictive for all that Laban had done against him these years. So he added, "...you will not go past this heap and pillar to my side to harm me." If Jacob had wanted to harm Laban, he had ample time to do it before now.
When all else fails, abusers may resort to calling on God to witness the supposed integrity and selfless motivation in their abusive acts. And Laban does this here: "May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us." Judge? Judge who is guilty and who is innocent? Decide who is right and wrong? It was an odd oath from a man who purported to be concerned about the wellbeing of his daughters.
Jacob must have felt some resolution and strength in this. He then took the lead by preparing a meal and serving his relatives that night. The Bible says they ate that night, spent time together, and the next morning Laban kissed his grandchildren and daughters and returned home. End of story.
Or was it?
You were scared that I'd take your wives by force? Laban never responds to this concern. Obviously, he would have done this, had it not been for God's instruction to Laban to the contrary, in a dream. Jacob must have been quite rattled, facing this man with all of his children, wives, and belongings standing behind him. And on the other side stood Laban with "all his relatives," the Bible tells us. I don't know how many people that was, but it could have been quite a crowd. What more, they did not have the dream from God and they had pursued with the intent of bringing Jacob back home. So they probably didn't have the most pleasant expressions on their faces.
One of the challenges of women in abusive marriages, is that their abuser often goes to relatives to get them to prevail upon the wives to return home. They say things to their mother-in-law or sister-in-laws like, "I just couldn't live without that woman! Won't you please tell her that I'm dying here without her?" And family members get suckered into acting at the behest of the abuser, to fulfill his best interests. Most times it is not the best interest of the woman to go back to him. But there they are: the woman standing at one side and her husband, his family and her family, all standing on the other side asking her to go back. And we wonder why it takes an abused woman about six to ten goes to get away from an abuser...
Finally, Jacob seems to regain his wits. He invites Laban to search through his belongings for his missing household gods--and to do it while there are witnesses present. I really dislike the image of Laban that emerges here. Rather than sending off his daughters with a celebration and best wishes--even giving them his household gods for good measure--he begins a search, tent by tent, looking for these idols. Now it is the principle of the matter for Laban. He wants to prove that Jacob has done wrong by him and therefore his need to flee, his belongings, his dignity are of little consequence. So he goes through everyone's things, looking for these gods.
When Laban got to Rachel's tent and she said that she couldn't stand up in his presence because she was menstrating, Jacob finally found his voice and his anger. There are times in the lives of abuse victims when they can't clearly see what is happening to them because they lack distance from their situation. But when abuse occurs to someone they love and feel protective of, they can act decisively. Research on abuse victims tells us that this point for a number of women occurs when their children are abused by their abuser.
So here Jacob sees Laban intruding on Rachel--his favored wife whom he loved enough to work 14 years. And he becomes very angry and his anger finds words:
"What is my crime?" he asked Laban. "What sin have I committed that you hunt me down? Now that you have searched through all my goods, what have you found that belongs to your household? Put it here in front of your relatives and mine, and let them judge between the two of us.
"I have been with you for twenty years now. Your sheep and goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten rams from your flocks. I did not bring you animals torn by wild beasts; I bore the loss myself. And you demanded payment from me for whatever was stolen by day or night. This was my situation: The heat consumed me in the daytime and the cold at night, and sleep fled from my eyes. It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household. I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your flocks, and you changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hands, and last night he rebuked you."
Laban doesn't respond to this, although it's true. At this point, he must have had some sense of embarassment to hear this in front of his relatives whom he incited to pursue his renegade nephew. Jacob was right--God had rebuked Laban. Jacob had worked hard and perhaps the relatives present didn't know just how hard he had worked or what he had done for Laban. But Laban didn't admit to any wrongdoing. He couldn't.
Abusers are fragile souls. They have what we therapists call a "very weak ego system." Many abusers are all or nothing, black and white thinkers. They are unable to admit to anything unsavory because if they do say they have done bad, then they reason, they are bad. And if they say they have done something bad, then they are unable to think of themselves as good in any way. So one wrong, if admitted, means that they are 100% bad. If they sit with this knowledge, they are overwhelmed and want to die. Suicide and homicide are common bedfellows on this point. This is true of most criminals and abusers, but not necessarily about the antisocial criminals (psychopaths).
Think about it: how many criminals who are interviewed on television ever admit to their deeds or the badness of the deeds? They deny their guilt to their last breath. Prison wardens will tell you that jails are filled with "innocent" people! I worked with a woman who had systematically tortured her child and who had been imprisoned several years for the crime. Not once in six months could I ever get her to admit that she had done anything to her child. Because if she did admit it, then it would be proof that she was bad, all bad, not good, all bad. And she would have felt unfit to live. Few people realize the fragility of people who have abused others, or that the degree of intensity they use to fight and control represents the degree of desperation they feel about maintaining their fragile ego, intact.
So Laban is just like this, too. Rather than admitting that he was dishonest and that he had no cause for his aggression toward Jacob and the family, he states ownership over all that Jacob has: "The women are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks. All you see is mine." This, in the face of Jacob's explanation of how he came to have his flocks and herds, not to mention, his wives. Laban can't back down. He does (again), what so many abusers do when they can't argue a point and win. He takes control and suggests an activity they can do together to prove that they have good will between them. It's something that suggests, "Let's just put this all behind us and move forward as though nothing ever happened." And since the abused want to move ahead and forget what happened, they often comply.
So a pillar and heap of stones are set up as a memorial of this agreement between the two men. They eat nearby, all together. Then comes time for the pronouncements to solemnify this gesture. It's the Mizpah prayer--the prayer of the watchtower, as it is known. It is also what we used to stand by our desks and say aloud every afternoon before we were allowed to leave school:
"May the Lord watch between me and thee,
While we are absent, one from another. Amen."
Laban gets a lick in when he charges Jacob not to marry any other women than his daughters, or to mistreat them. This, after his own surly behavior. I doubt that Laban really cared that much about his daughter's wellbeing. He was flexing his muscles in threatening Jacob, and also making it seem that he (Laban) was a good father. That is something that abusers come unglued about: accusations about their integrity or capabilities. Any chink in their armor means that they are all useless, incapable, worthless, all un-good. So they make a play of being attentive and caring. But it is for the wrong reason. Laban did this here once again. Perhaps it was for the benefit of his relatives, with whom he would have to live when he returned to his own land. Maybe it was for his self esteem that he said this. It also may be that he realized that he had no grounds for pressing Jacob and he (Laban) was dangerously close to losing face.
Laban states, "Here is the pillar and the heap that I have set up." Even though in verses 45-46 it says that Jacob set up the pillar and asked his relatives to gather stones for the heap of rocks. Now he says that this heap of rocks has become a boundary so that Laban will not go past it "to harm you." Odd statement this, from a man who had just tried to make his pursuit of the family be about his care for his daughters and grandchildren. If he was a loving, good-hearted father, why does harm even come into the picture? The first time I read this I found this word jarring. It just doesn't fit with the Mizpah prayer cited above. Perhaps Laban was beginning to feel his age and fear for his safety, should Jacob ever become vindictive for all that Laban had done against him these years. So he added, "...you will not go past this heap and pillar to my side to harm me." If Jacob had wanted to harm Laban, he had ample time to do it before now.
When all else fails, abusers may resort to calling on God to witness the supposed integrity and selfless motivation in their abusive acts. And Laban does this here: "May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us." Judge? Judge who is guilty and who is innocent? Decide who is right and wrong? It was an odd oath from a man who purported to be concerned about the wellbeing of his daughters.
Jacob must have felt some resolution and strength in this. He then took the lead by preparing a meal and serving his relatives that night. The Bible says they ate that night, spent time together, and the next morning Laban kissed his grandchildren and daughters and returned home. End of story.
Or was it?
October 1, 2006
Laban the Bully
Laban's sons became jealous and began a smear campaign by saying that Jacob had only gotten rich and prestigious because of Laban. This angered Laban and Jacob could see that "his face was not with him as before." Interesting. Lots of things show in people's faces, but as we get older we blunt our perceptions until we become stupidly incapable of seeing what is actually there.
It must have been pretty serious, because God told Jacob to get out of there and go home. God added to His injunction, "I am with you." It was a blessing and promise that God would protect Jacob. Everything would work out.
Genesis 31:4 says that Jacob called Leah and Rachel out into the field to consult with them about leaving. This leads me to believe that Jacob had had a chance meeting with Laban that was negative enough that he felt immediate changes were necessary. The women made an interesting observation in response to Jacob's query. "Haven't we become as strangers to our father since he sold us and utterly consumed our money?" I'm not sure about the ancient customs related to women and wills at that time, but clearly these women indicated that something was grossly wrong with the treatment they had received from their father. They verbalized that whatever Jacob had gained during his hire for Laban, they deserved. So they urged him to leave right away.
Laban went off to another town to shear his sheep. Jacob packed up his belongings, and Rachel went to her father's house and stole his teraphim--household gods of the time. And they rushed off toward Gilead.
After three days, someone told Laban that Jacob had left the area and was on his way back to his father's country. Laban followed in hot pursuit for seven days and caught up with him in the hill country of Gilead. I wonder what Laban planned to do? He was an older man chasing after a much younger man and his family--his own daughters and grandchildren. Apparently, he traveled with his relatives, with whom he hoped to coerce Jacob to return.
Laban had an interesting dream in which God told him not to do anything bad to Jacob. So he restrained himself from being violent, at least.
"What have you done?"
"You tricked me." (the pot calling the kettle black!)
"You have taken my daughters away like prisoners of war!" And he had sold them as though they were slaves, having little regard for them. This is what often happens with abusers: they are quick to accuse others of things that they themselves are guilty of. It is so guilt inducing that people immediately feel off-balance and back down. Then the abuser gets what s/he wants.
Laban does here what so many abusers do: boast about their intentions. He wanted to kiss his children and grandchildren goodbye, have a huge party and sing the old family songs together. He would have sent Jacob and his daughters off happily. This is what he said, however, his life with them proved otherwise.
I wonder what Jacob, Rachel, and Leah did when he made these statements. Perhaps they said nothing or looked disbelieving, because Laban continued with a bullying tone: "I could have hurt you, you know. If it weren't for God speaking directly to me about this--and I am as important as that--then I would have hurt you." This right after he said he wanted to give them a party. Why would a person even suggest such a thing? Again--typical of an abuser. If flattery or promises of grand things don't work, then threats and muscle flexing commence.
In the field of family violence studies, this behavior comes up again and again. There are several reasons for it. For starters, intermittant rewards are the most successful in gaining compliance. What does that mean? Just that if a person is a bully but sometimes appears not to be, their victims live in hope that they will just revert to the way they are supposed to be--the "good" non-bullying version. The victims see possibility in the allusions to good behavior and therefore comply in the hopes that it will come true. Of course it may, but then quickly reverts back to violence. This keeps a person in limbo and unable to adjust to the nasty behavior that most commonly occurs, or to get away.
Another reason these good comments come up about what an abuser intends to do is because they are in denial that their behavior is unacceptable. They are fooling themselves into thinking that they really do the generous things they speak of. Their victims know otherwise.
When bullying and promises of good times are ignored, Laban becomes shaming and accusatory again. "Now you have run away. You wanted to go back to your father." Read here, "You wimp. You have left with your tail between your legs."
Jacob finally speaks up. He admits that he was fearful that Laban would take his wives away from him by force. That is an interesting comment--not one that would be made of someone trustworthy, warm, and protective, as father-in-laws are to be. He didn't trust Laban, and for good reason.
It must have been pretty serious, because God told Jacob to get out of there and go home. God added to His injunction, "I am with you." It was a blessing and promise that God would protect Jacob. Everything would work out.
Genesis 31:4 says that Jacob called Leah and Rachel out into the field to consult with them about leaving. This leads me to believe that Jacob had had a chance meeting with Laban that was negative enough that he felt immediate changes were necessary. The women made an interesting observation in response to Jacob's query. "Haven't we become as strangers to our father since he sold us and utterly consumed our money?" I'm not sure about the ancient customs related to women and wills at that time, but clearly these women indicated that something was grossly wrong with the treatment they had received from their father. They verbalized that whatever Jacob had gained during his hire for Laban, they deserved. So they urged him to leave right away.
Laban went off to another town to shear his sheep. Jacob packed up his belongings, and Rachel went to her father's house and stole his teraphim--household gods of the time. And they rushed off toward Gilead.
After three days, someone told Laban that Jacob had left the area and was on his way back to his father's country. Laban followed in hot pursuit for seven days and caught up with him in the hill country of Gilead. I wonder what Laban planned to do? He was an older man chasing after a much younger man and his family--his own daughters and grandchildren. Apparently, he traveled with his relatives, with whom he hoped to coerce Jacob to return.
Laban had an interesting dream in which God told him not to do anything bad to Jacob. So he restrained himself from being violent, at least.
"What have you done?"
"You tricked me." (the pot calling the kettle black!)
"You have taken my daughters away like prisoners of war!" And he had sold them as though they were slaves, having little regard for them. This is what often happens with abusers: they are quick to accuse others of things that they themselves are guilty of. It is so guilt inducing that people immediately feel off-balance and back down. Then the abuser gets what s/he wants.
Laban does here what so many abusers do: boast about their intentions. He wanted to kiss his children and grandchildren goodbye, have a huge party and sing the old family songs together. He would have sent Jacob and his daughters off happily. This is what he said, however, his life with them proved otherwise.
I wonder what Jacob, Rachel, and Leah did when he made these statements. Perhaps they said nothing or looked disbelieving, because Laban continued with a bullying tone: "I could have hurt you, you know. If it weren't for God speaking directly to me about this--and I am as important as that--then I would have hurt you." This right after he said he wanted to give them a party. Why would a person even suggest such a thing? Again--typical of an abuser. If flattery or promises of grand things don't work, then threats and muscle flexing commence.
In the field of family violence studies, this behavior comes up again and again. There are several reasons for it. For starters, intermittant rewards are the most successful in gaining compliance. What does that mean? Just that if a person is a bully but sometimes appears not to be, their victims live in hope that they will just revert to the way they are supposed to be--the "good" non-bullying version. The victims see possibility in the allusions to good behavior and therefore comply in the hopes that it will come true. Of course it may, but then quickly reverts back to violence. This keeps a person in limbo and unable to adjust to the nasty behavior that most commonly occurs, or to get away.
Another reason these good comments come up about what an abuser intends to do is because they are in denial that their behavior is unacceptable. They are fooling themselves into thinking that they really do the generous things they speak of. Their victims know otherwise.
When bullying and promises of good times are ignored, Laban becomes shaming and accusatory again. "Now you have run away. You wanted to go back to your father." Read here, "You wimp. You have left with your tail between your legs."
Jacob finally speaks up. He admits that he was fearful that Laban would take his wives away from him by force. That is an interesting comment--not one that would be made of someone trustworthy, warm, and protective, as father-in-laws are to be. He didn't trust Laban, and for good reason.
September 28, 2006
Looks are Deceiving
Many abusers are quite charming on the outside. They may present themselves as earnestly desiring the best for another party. Yet they may be taking advantage of them, or trying to play the relationship in order to capitalize on an opportunity. They can be quite funny, polished, educated, sophisticated, and as dishonest and untrustworthy as the day is long. You can count on them to choose what is best for themselves regardless of how it leaves you in the end.
I once had a friendship with a man who kept me in stitches most of the time with his hilarious reparte. He had an accent that made women swoon and that evoked comraderie with even the most hardened man. I've been with him in ice cream bars when he has charmed the counter staff into giving us free ice cream, just because of his demeanor and earnestness. He has networked with more important people in his field than many people do over their lifetime--and he has a thriving clinical practice. Yet I don't trust him as far as I can see him. Why? Because I've watched him behave, seen how he darts into opportunities that advantage him alone, then heard his unkind commentary about the people he has just riffed.
Abusers can look earnest, spiritual, educated, sophisticated--and can be extremely personable. Laban was like this. He was wealthy and now we see in Genesis 31 that he had sons and many herds. We see that Laban changed Jacob's wages 10 times. I don't know what the time frame of those 10 changes was, but we already know that Laban didn't seem to have any consideration for his own daughter's wishes, let alone Jacob's wellbeing. One would think that a man would want to ensure the future prosperity of his grandchildren if it stood within his power to do so. Laban obviously was pretty well off--Jacob had added to his wealth considerably. But he was stingy and sneaky. Why else would he have changed Jacob's wages so often? I doubt it was because Jacob got a raise each of those 10 times, or else he wouldn't have complained about it.
Laban uses the right language to create a picture of being a dedicated God-fearing man. It reminds me of a man I know who appeared to be a very godly man. He was a chaplain who was well known for being a real communicator and warm person. Yet he hated being called to the emergency room when people died, hated to pray with people at the bedside, and didn't want to be known as a chaplain. He also had a pretty healthy sexual addiction. His off-campus office was right across the street from the local X-rated bookstore. And he was unethical in imposing his religious (non-religious) views on patients. His language and demeanor were right for the image, but his heart was far afield. Sadly, this often happens.
I once had a friendship with a man who kept me in stitches most of the time with his hilarious reparte. He had an accent that made women swoon and that evoked comraderie with even the most hardened man. I've been with him in ice cream bars when he has charmed the counter staff into giving us free ice cream, just because of his demeanor and earnestness. He has networked with more important people in his field than many people do over their lifetime--and he has a thriving clinical practice. Yet I don't trust him as far as I can see him. Why? Because I've watched him behave, seen how he darts into opportunities that advantage him alone, then heard his unkind commentary about the people he has just riffed.
Abusers can look earnest, spiritual, educated, sophisticated--and can be extremely personable. Laban was like this. He was wealthy and now we see in Genesis 31 that he had sons and many herds. We see that Laban changed Jacob's wages 10 times. I don't know what the time frame of those 10 changes was, but we already know that Laban didn't seem to have any consideration for his own daughter's wishes, let alone Jacob's wellbeing. One would think that a man would want to ensure the future prosperity of his grandchildren if it stood within his power to do so. Laban obviously was pretty well off--Jacob had added to his wealth considerably. But he was stingy and sneaky. Why else would he have changed Jacob's wages so often? I doubt it was because Jacob got a raise each of those 10 times, or else he wouldn't have complained about it.
Laban uses the right language to create a picture of being a dedicated God-fearing man. It reminds me of a man I know who appeared to be a very godly man. He was a chaplain who was well known for being a real communicator and warm person. Yet he hated being called to the emergency room when people died, hated to pray with people at the bedside, and didn't want to be known as a chaplain. He also had a pretty healthy sexual addiction. His off-campus office was right across the street from the local X-rated bookstore. And he was unethical in imposing his religious (non-religious) views on patients. His language and demeanor were right for the image, but his heart was far afield. Sadly, this often happens.
September 26, 2006
Let me go
By the time we get to Genesis 30, Leah had given birth to six sons and a daughter. Rachel had given birth to Joseph. Jacob must have been working for his father-in-law for a minimum of 14 years. He suddenly had 11 children by Leah, Rachel, and their servants. Now he wanted to go back home. His parents had never seen his children and he wanted to go back to his own country.
When he asked Laban to allow him to leave and take his wives and children with him, Laban asked him to stay by. God had blessed Laban because of Jacob's wise care of the flocks. Apparently, Laban still considered him part of his own household and had not given him anything with which to start his own flocks. This is an important issue, since in Bible time, wealth was reckoned in livestock. It strikes me as a pretty stingy streak Laban had. He was clearly taking advantage of Jacob, even though in those times things were different. Jacob asked for the outcasts of any flock: the speckled and black sheep and goats. No sheep with any marks on it could be used as a sacrifice for sin, so Jacob would have to buy from Laban what he would need for his family. It's interesting also that Jacob stated that he didn't want Laban to think he had stolen anything from him, or that he had gotten his wealth dishonestly. I wonder why he said that--I'd never ask for something from my mother and then clarify what I've asked for so she wouldn't think ill of me. That is strange to me.
Laban turned over his speckled and black lambs and goats, and then put three days distance--or about 30 miles--between the two of them so they wouldn't get their livestock mixed up. Then, Jacob was smart enough to strengthen his herds and to breed only the strong ones of the flock, not the weak ones. Laban bred both strong and weak and thus his herd was not of the same caliber as Jacob's.
In all these things, we get a picture that Jacob worked hard, was smart, and tried to do well for his family. There is nothing to suggest that he had done anything unreasonable in his request to Laban, nor how he managed his own affairs.
In the family social science research literature, a fair number of articles exist about the challenges unique to family businesses. Resentment happens, children who should be growing into the next "boss" of the family are kept under the thumb of a parent with declining energy or capability; a new idea of the offspring is viewed through the lens of his or her "wild oat" behavior years before, and their credibility or ideas are not honored. Children begin to squabble over who will get what when the older generation steps down from leadership, or when they die. In Bible times, children were considered part of the family heritage until they married--if they were men. If they were women, they were a liability and allowed to go quickly to join their husband's family. But at some point, male children were given an inheritance and allowed to move on--as long as it wasn't far from the parents.
Perhaps it was because Jacob wasn't Laban's son that he was expected to serve his uncle. He had been taken in and given refuge. And here he had learned how to have integrity and to move away from his deceptive nature. When he began to advocate for himself and see to his best interests, Laban's true colors appeared.
When he asked Laban to allow him to leave and take his wives and children with him, Laban asked him to stay by. God had blessed Laban because of Jacob's wise care of the flocks. Apparently, Laban still considered him part of his own household and had not given him anything with which to start his own flocks. This is an important issue, since in Bible time, wealth was reckoned in livestock. It strikes me as a pretty stingy streak Laban had. He was clearly taking advantage of Jacob, even though in those times things were different. Jacob asked for the outcasts of any flock: the speckled and black sheep and goats. No sheep with any marks on it could be used as a sacrifice for sin, so Jacob would have to buy from Laban what he would need for his family. It's interesting also that Jacob stated that he didn't want Laban to think he had stolen anything from him, or that he had gotten his wealth dishonestly. I wonder why he said that--I'd never ask for something from my mother and then clarify what I've asked for so she wouldn't think ill of me. That is strange to me.
Laban turned over his speckled and black lambs and goats, and then put three days distance--or about 30 miles--between the two of them so they wouldn't get their livestock mixed up. Then, Jacob was smart enough to strengthen his herds and to breed only the strong ones of the flock, not the weak ones. Laban bred both strong and weak and thus his herd was not of the same caliber as Jacob's.
In all these things, we get a picture that Jacob worked hard, was smart, and tried to do well for his family. There is nothing to suggest that he had done anything unreasonable in his request to Laban, nor how he managed his own affairs.
In the family social science research literature, a fair number of articles exist about the challenges unique to family businesses. Resentment happens, children who should be growing into the next "boss" of the family are kept under the thumb of a parent with declining energy or capability; a new idea of the offspring is viewed through the lens of his or her "wild oat" behavior years before, and their credibility or ideas are not honored. Children begin to squabble over who will get what when the older generation steps down from leadership, or when they die. In Bible times, children were considered part of the family heritage until they married--if they were men. If they were women, they were a liability and allowed to go quickly to join their husband's family. But at some point, male children were given an inheritance and allowed to move on--as long as it wasn't far from the parents.
Perhaps it was because Jacob wasn't Laban's son that he was expected to serve his uncle. He had been taken in and given refuge. And here he had learned how to have integrity and to move away from his deceptive nature. When he began to advocate for himself and see to his best interests, Laban's true colors appeared.
September 24, 2006
In Laban's House
Genesis 27 tells the sordid story of deception and dishonesty. Rebecca wanted to make good on God's comment that the older would serve the younger. Taking things into her own hands, she coached Jacob in deceiving Isaac, his father and her husband. I wonder why she would do such a thing: did she closely identify with the underdog, as a woman in that society? Was it that important that she create a sibling hierarchy herself instead of waiting to see how God would arrange that to happen? Was she using her sons to get back at her husband for something? Did she feel so disenfranchised that she needed to use deception to get some control over what happened to her life? Why was Jacob so obviously closer to her than Essau? Was she afraid of what would happen to her if Essau received the greater inheritance and blessing from Isaac? Was Jacob such a milquetoast that he obeyed his mother against his will? That seems highly doubtful. But none of these questions are answered in the biblical account. We just notice that she and Jacob had a coalition against Isaac--a classic relational triangle--something that makes for trouble.
The long and short of it is that Rebecca and later, Isaac, sent Jacob off across the country to Uncle Laban's family until the wrath of Essau had worn off. Isaac thought of how he had obtained his own wife in that country, and Rebecca just wanted him to be safe. So off he went.
Remember, Laban was the one who had blessed Eleazer and then Rebecca, when he had seen them last. When Jacob was brought to his house, after kissing his cousin Rachel, and weeping aloud at the well, Laban welcomed him with open arms--his "own flesh and blood" (Genesis 29:14).
It appears that Jacob willingly went to work right away for Laban, helping him with his livestock and whatever pursuits Laban was involved in. I don't know if Laban didn't have a son of his own or not--the Bible doesn't list any--which is unusual in a society in which lineage is reckoned by males. Laban approached Jacob and invited him to name his price for his work on the farm. Jacob was in love with Rachel and asked for her as a wife. He offered to work seven years if he could just have her as a wife. Bear in mind that he had no money for a dowry, so his work took the place of gifts for the family.
When it was time to marry, Laban threw a huge wedding feast. In the evening, he slipped Leah into the tent with Jacob and that is the person with whom he consumated the marriage. I wonder what Rachel thought of all of this, or where she even was that night. Probably sobbing her heart out in some tent. Surely she could not have been duplicitous along with her father. But we don't know for sure what happened with her at that time.
And what of Leah? Was she a desperate single woman who had been waiting to get married but no one wanted her? Or was the only problem that she was a year or so older than Rachel and without marital prospects? I wonder, when Jacob was making love that night, if he was calling out Rachel's name. Why didn't she identify herself on that unfortunate wedding night? Did she have no choice in what happened to her? Was she in agreement with her father, or did it not matter? It was a morning after of shock and heartbreak. Jacob had just experienced a dream of a night with the woman he had been waiting to marry, only to find that he had been the butt of a very cruel turn of events.
He confronted Laban the next morning. "What is this you have done to me?" Didn't you say I am your own flesh and blood? Haven't I been faithful to you in all that I've done for you on this farm? How could you do this to me?"
Laban's answer: "It's not our custom here to give the younger daughter before the elder daughter. Finish the bridal week and then we will give you the younger one also--after another seven years of work." It occurs to me that in the seven years Jacob lived in that country, he would have learned of this custom himself. But it seems that he was completely shocked by his uncle's behavior. I wonder if he didn't fight back or leave because he realized that just seven years before that, he had been the one to pull the wool over the eyes of his father and brother. So he really deserved what he got.
I wonder why Laban felt he could get away with this. Did he not have any concern about giving a daughter in marriage who would not be loved--could not be loved? Apparently, this was not of concern to him. How did he feel he could justify asking Jacob to work another seven years--much less, present this business transaction the day Jacob was at his most vulnerable? Were elder males such that they had to be obeyed, regardless? In Laban's response to Jacob, there is no tenderness, no apology, no regret. Only a business proposal. There is no concern for Rachel, and certainly no regret for Leah's dismal marriage future. The very time when Leah should be enjoying the greatest affection and attention from her new husband, he was longing for her younger sister. It was a dismal business to be a woman in those days.
In seven days, Rachel became Jacob's wife. There is no mention that they had another wedding feast for her. I would have felt very left out and as though I were an add-on, had I been Rachel.
And life moved on as though nothing had happened--nothing is said about Laban. But he looks very unpleasant to me by this point, paternalistic society or not.
The long and short of it is that Rebecca and later, Isaac, sent Jacob off across the country to Uncle Laban's family until the wrath of Essau had worn off. Isaac thought of how he had obtained his own wife in that country, and Rebecca just wanted him to be safe. So off he went.
Remember, Laban was the one who had blessed Eleazer and then Rebecca, when he had seen them last. When Jacob was brought to his house, after kissing his cousin Rachel, and weeping aloud at the well, Laban welcomed him with open arms--his "own flesh and blood" (Genesis 29:14).
It appears that Jacob willingly went to work right away for Laban, helping him with his livestock and whatever pursuits Laban was involved in. I don't know if Laban didn't have a son of his own or not--the Bible doesn't list any--which is unusual in a society in which lineage is reckoned by males. Laban approached Jacob and invited him to name his price for his work on the farm. Jacob was in love with Rachel and asked for her as a wife. He offered to work seven years if he could just have her as a wife. Bear in mind that he had no money for a dowry, so his work took the place of gifts for the family.
When it was time to marry, Laban threw a huge wedding feast. In the evening, he slipped Leah into the tent with Jacob and that is the person with whom he consumated the marriage. I wonder what Rachel thought of all of this, or where she even was that night. Probably sobbing her heart out in some tent. Surely she could not have been duplicitous along with her father. But we don't know for sure what happened with her at that time.
And what of Leah? Was she a desperate single woman who had been waiting to get married but no one wanted her? Or was the only problem that she was a year or so older than Rachel and without marital prospects? I wonder, when Jacob was making love that night, if he was calling out Rachel's name. Why didn't she identify herself on that unfortunate wedding night? Did she have no choice in what happened to her? Was she in agreement with her father, or did it not matter? It was a morning after of shock and heartbreak. Jacob had just experienced a dream of a night with the woman he had been waiting to marry, only to find that he had been the butt of a very cruel turn of events.
He confronted Laban the next morning. "What is this you have done to me?" Didn't you say I am your own flesh and blood? Haven't I been faithful to you in all that I've done for you on this farm? How could you do this to me?"
Laban's answer: "It's not our custom here to give the younger daughter before the elder daughter. Finish the bridal week and then we will give you the younger one also--after another seven years of work." It occurs to me that in the seven years Jacob lived in that country, he would have learned of this custom himself. But it seems that he was completely shocked by his uncle's behavior. I wonder if he didn't fight back or leave because he realized that just seven years before that, he had been the one to pull the wool over the eyes of his father and brother. So he really deserved what he got.
I wonder why Laban felt he could get away with this. Did he not have any concern about giving a daughter in marriage who would not be loved--could not be loved? Apparently, this was not of concern to him. How did he feel he could justify asking Jacob to work another seven years--much less, present this business transaction the day Jacob was at his most vulnerable? Were elder males such that they had to be obeyed, regardless? In Laban's response to Jacob, there is no tenderness, no apology, no regret. Only a business proposal. There is no concern for Rachel, and certainly no regret for Leah's dismal marriage future. The very time when Leah should be enjoying the greatest affection and attention from her new husband, he was longing for her younger sister. It was a dismal business to be a woman in those days.
In seven days, Rachel became Jacob's wife. There is no mention that they had another wedding feast for her. I would have felt very left out and as though I were an add-on, had I been Rachel.
And life moved on as though nothing had happened--nothing is said about Laban. But he looks very unpleasant to me by this point, paternalistic society or not.
September 23, 2006
Laban: A kind man gone bad
In my study of the Bible a few months ago, I came across that directly spoke to a situation I had been facing with an abused client: What does the Bible have to say about abusive people, and what should be done about being abused?
As I read the story of Jacob, his wives, and Laban, some interesting points became visible. This will be too long to complete in one entry, but here's the first part.
The story of Laban starts clear back in Genesis 24. Abraham knew that his final days were close at hand, so he deputized Eleazer to go back to his homeland and find a wife for his son, Isaac. Eleazer, being a pious man, asked God to show him what woman should be brought back for Isaac. The sign would be that when he stopped at a well to ask for a drink, the woman would also offer to draw water for his camels. He wanted a kind, generous, hospitable woman with a good heart.
This is exactly what happened. The Bible states, "Before he was finished [praying] Rebecca, the neice of Abraham, came out." She was beautiful and she wore some sort of indicator that she was unmarried. She gave water to Eleazer and graciously offered water to his camels. Her speech showed respect to Eleazer, by calling him "lord." It was the custom to offer lodging to strangers and travelers during that time, and she was quick to invite Eleazer, his companions and their camels to their home. Eleazer immediately gave her an earring and gold bracelets on her hands. This was a significant symbol of favor.
This is where we first see Laban. He was the brother of Rebecca. The Bible says that he ran to the well and asked Laban--Thou blessed by the Lord--why he was just standing there. He urged Eleazer to accept the hospitality of his family, even as he pronounced a blessing on him. After Eleazer entered their dwelling, Laban rushed to feed the camels, and offered water for Eleazer and his servants so they could wash their feet--refresh themselves before they ate. We see here a young man who by all appearances was a hospitable, generous, thoughtful and kind person.
Eleazer tells Bethuel, Rebecca's father, and Laban about his purpose in stopping there. It seems, from the biblical language, that Laban must have been an older brother, because he is given authority and is mentioned in conjunction with Bethuel. We also see later on that after he hears Eleazer's story, the two men admit that the coincidence that brought Eleazer to their home is God ordained. They could not argue or protest this. Then they gave Rebecca to him to take back to Isaac.
Right here, I rankle at the paternalistic practices of buying and selling women in those days, as though they were cattle. Eleazer gives Bethuel and his wife a dowry: jewels and "precious things." Thank God that this dowry system is no longer legal in this country. Apparently, women were such a liability in that society that they were accounted worthwhile only if they bore children or were beautiful enough to bring a large dowry. This horrid practice persists in some countries today.
The family asked that Rebecca stay with them for 10 days before she returned with Eleazer, but he was so eager to get back that he said no. To their credit, they did ask Rebecca if she was willing to go with him and she agreed to go. So Rebecca was sent off the next day with him, back to marry Isaac--sight unseen. Thankfully, she was sent with a nurse and with "damsels" --must have been women servants or companions of some sort. The next day they went off.
Bethuel and Laban blessed her as she left in a typical Bible times way. So this is where we find out that at one time Laban seems to be behaving as young men typically did in that paternalistic system. It's hard for me to tell the difference between unacceptable and acceptable behavior in the Bible, because so many of the male-female behaviors during that time make me recoil. However, the Bible doesn't indicate that he was "churlish" as Nabal, the husband of Abigail was. Nabal was clearly an abusive, irritable, and mean-spirited man. Laban was not characterized that way at that time.
Rebecca became the wife of Isaac and he loved her. She became the mother of Jacob and Essau. More about this in the next entry.
September 20, 2006
Déjà vu
Today I found myself laughing aloud as I drove to work. For whatever reason--the smell of the air outside, the way the sky looked, the sun on the hospital--something reminded me of the day I started my first job as a nurse. I was wet behind the ears and hardly recognized any equipment I saw. I realized that I was truly a hazard to the wellbeing of most patients there. It could be the family genes, but I had it in my mind to bluff my way through whatever unknowns that would present themselves.
One of the nurses who was assigned to orient me that day, invited me to help her give a patient a bedbath. Not any kind of patient, and not any kind of bedbath. This was the trauma unit. Every patient seemed to have a cast, metal hardware, be covered in bandages, have tubes from every orifice, or be on some sort of specialty bed. The bath consisted of two large body towels in a plastic bag full of hot water and rinseless soap. One large wet towel would be placed over the patient and we'd all scrub up and down, back and forth with it, being sure everything was cleaned. Then it would be whisked away and the patient would be covered with a large hot towel with which to be dried. After turning the patient over, the same routine would be repeated on the back, etc.
I watched the first bedbath and noted the assured way the nurses worked: not flinching at nakedness, scrubbing in a way that would surely make me blush, and all the while talking with the patient to be sure he felt okay during the bath. I didn't know if I could do it, but was up for the next bath.
About four of us descended on a large male patient, pulling the curtain partway around him for privacy. I don't remember much about him, just that it took all four of us to life his casts, turn, and scrub. As three of the nurses turned the man to his side, I was left with a large, dirty, soapy towel dripping down my arm. There was no place to put it and I looked around to find a place to set it down. Just then I recalled seeing these wonderfully seasoned nurses throwing the towel through the curtains onto the floor outside the bathroom door. Well, I could do that. I wound up my arm, hoisted the huge towel in the air, and with a surge of energy, threw it overhand at the bathroom door. However, just then, Dr. Thompson, a large stiff, jowly doctor with white hair, walked past the curtain. The wet towel slapped up against the back of his neck, wrapping part way around his face and leaving water marks on his tie and collar.
He whirled about to face me. If looks could kill, I was on my way. His eyes bored into me--the guilty one with wet hands and one upraised arm. The other nurses froze, horrified, as they watched Dr. Thompson disentangle himself from the dirty towel. "That kind of behavior should never be seen in this hospital," he spat.
"Yes sir..." My face turned red and my stomach started doing somersaults. "I'm very sorry."
"See that it never happens again!"
"Yes sir."
Dr. Thompson strode out of the room, his subdued residents with twinkly eyes, following close behind. He looked like an egotistical bantam rooster. I almost fainted. The nurses around me cackled and howled with laughter, in a quiet way so as not to be heard outside the room. I was "in" --at least with them.
Isn't unexpected memory entertaining?
One of the nurses who was assigned to orient me that day, invited me to help her give a patient a bedbath. Not any kind of patient, and not any kind of bedbath. This was the trauma unit. Every patient seemed to have a cast, metal hardware, be covered in bandages, have tubes from every orifice, or be on some sort of specialty bed. The bath consisted of two large body towels in a plastic bag full of hot water and rinseless soap. One large wet towel would be placed over the patient and we'd all scrub up and down, back and forth with it, being sure everything was cleaned. Then it would be whisked away and the patient would be covered with a large hot towel with which to be dried. After turning the patient over, the same routine would be repeated on the back, etc.
I watched the first bedbath and noted the assured way the nurses worked: not flinching at nakedness, scrubbing in a way that would surely make me blush, and all the while talking with the patient to be sure he felt okay during the bath. I didn't know if I could do it, but was up for the next bath.
About four of us descended on a large male patient, pulling the curtain partway around him for privacy. I don't remember much about him, just that it took all four of us to life his casts, turn, and scrub. As three of the nurses turned the man to his side, I was left with a large, dirty, soapy towel dripping down my arm. There was no place to put it and I looked around to find a place to set it down. Just then I recalled seeing these wonderfully seasoned nurses throwing the towel through the curtains onto the floor outside the bathroom door. Well, I could do that. I wound up my arm, hoisted the huge towel in the air, and with a surge of energy, threw it overhand at the bathroom door. However, just then, Dr. Thompson, a large stiff, jowly doctor with white hair, walked past the curtain. The wet towel slapped up against the back of his neck, wrapping part way around his face and leaving water marks on his tie and collar.
He whirled about to face me. If looks could kill, I was on my way. His eyes bored into me--the guilty one with wet hands and one upraised arm. The other nurses froze, horrified, as they watched Dr. Thompson disentangle himself from the dirty towel. "That kind of behavior should never be seen in this hospital," he spat.
"Yes sir..." My face turned red and my stomach started doing somersaults. "I'm very sorry."
"See that it never happens again!"
"Yes sir."
Dr. Thompson strode out of the room, his subdued residents with twinkly eyes, following close behind. He looked like an egotistical bantam rooster. I almost fainted. The nurses around me cackled and howled with laughter, in a quiet way so as not to be heard outside the room. I was "in" --at least with them.
Isn't unexpected memory entertaining?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)