Separate but equal–worth another shot?

Don’t get me wrong, doing away with “separate but equal” thinking was entirely appropriate, necessary, and too long coming in terms of race relations (and I actually remembered it was Brown v Board of Education that did away with it — shout-out to my constitutional law class). But I think it might be worth another look in that other even more longstanding and volatile vortex — gender relations.

I ask you females-who-live-with-males, does separate but equal sound like a good thing in terms of bathrooms?

Is there a woman alive who doesn’t long for her own bathroom? (And if you have one, are you eager to give it up?)

And, dare I say it, doesn’t the idea of separate (but equal) beds — even bedrooms — sound good once in a while?

My sister sent me this article earlier this week — don’t ask me what prompted her to send a 3½-year-old article, but so be it. I was particularly drawn to this passage:

“Dr. Neil Stanley, a sleep expert at the University of Surrey, said: “It’s not surprising that people are disturbed by sleeping together.

“Historically, we have never been meant to sleep in the same bed as each other. It is a bizarre thing to do.

“Sleep is the most selfish thing you can do and it’s vital for good physical and mental health.

“Sharing the bed space with someone who is making noises and who you have to fight with for the duvet is not sensible.

“If you are happy sleeping together that’s great, but if not there is no shame in separate beds.”

So practical, this Dr. Stanley. And as you’ll see, the gist of the article is that sharing a bed is even worse for men than for women.

It’s a topic my sisters and I have discussed many times before. That it’s just so darn hard to share these spaces with men. No matter how much you love them (and yes, I love my husband to pieces).

Consider the “olden days.” Visit Clayton, the Henry Clay Frick mansion here in Pittsburgh, or Biltmore, the Vanderbilt mansion-to-end-all-mansions in Asheville, and you’re treated to a tour of the separate (but equally lovely) bedrooms of Mr. and Mrs. Frick and Mr. and Mrs. Vanderbilt — and of course their separate but equally lovely bathrooms.

Too Victorian, you say? Too prudish? Too upper-class? Too convenient for midnight dalliances with people other than one’s spouse?

Let’s come a little closer to home (and social stratosphere). Ever see the episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Deborah, with Ray’s blessing, claims their bathroom for her own while he shares with the kids? Within hours, she transforms the space with soft lights, candles, rugs, until it oozes with femininity. Even her constant nemesis, mother-in-law Marie, is delighted for her (and jealous). Unfortunately, and naturally, the new arrangement doesn’t last long (not because Deborah wanted it to end, mind you).

Or how about even closer to home, when, a couple years back, Mike’s parents were thinking of selling their home to move into something easier to maintain and on one level. After visiting one possibility, my unenthused mother-in-law confided, “I don’t know about you, but the idea of sharing a bathroom…”

Fifty-plus years of wedded bliss can’t be wrong.

I even remember reading somewhere that director Tim Burton and his wife, actress Helena Bonham Carter, actually live next door to each other in separate, but connected, homes.

I have to say that thought has come up in my sisterly discussions as well — sort of the Holy Grail of living arrangements to some of us. (Not me, honey. Really. Hardly ever.)

Now, of course, I know what a pipe dream most of this is — who has the spare bedrooms and bathrooms to accommodate “his” and “hers”? Although a friend of my husband’s recently completed his dream home — including separate bathrooms for him and his wife, that lucky, lucky woman. And a king-size “sleep number” bed in the (shared) bedroom — nice compromise!

But if there was the opportunity, ladies…if there was: Would you want your own? (Go ahead, tell me, it’s completely anonymous.)

How about you, gents? This is a (separate but) equal opportunity forum. No one’s saying that women are ideal to share with either. (I come from a long line of female snorers, sad to say. And I might not keep my side of the sink tidy all the time.)

What say you? It’ll be fun to find out.

Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other.
Perhaps they should live next door and just visit now and then.
~ Katharine Hepburn

Didn’t work. I got frustrated.

If you’ll remember, back in December I lamented that it appeared I was going to have to pay for my annual mammogram because it was coded as “diagnostic” rather than “routine.”  As I said at the time, I balk(ed) at having to pay for the same smash-your-boob-in-the-machine mammogram every other woman in my plan gets covered for free. (As do a lot of women without any insurance at all.)

So I went through the appeals process and guess what I got in the mail today? Yes, you are correct, a letter that was clear in nothing except one line:

Thank you for choosing the UPMC for your medical care. Our primary mission at UPMC is patient care and customer satisfaction that is based in a strong commitment to excellence. [I’m an editor, so why “the UPMC” in the first sentence and just “UPMC” in the second? And shouldn’t it be based “on”?]

After careful review of your medical records [need a comma here] it has been determined we are unable to honor your request for an ICD-9 diagnosis code change on this account. ICD-9 diagnosis codes are used to identify diseases and conditions, and provide justification for any procedures performed on the patient. The ICD-9 code chosen for this procedure was found to be appropriate according to the highest level of specificity. [What?]

[Here comes the clearest part of the letter] Payment is expected immediately….

I wasn’t even going to bother to call for clarification, but I did. I was told that UPMC did contact my physician, as they said they would, and she wouldn’t change the code. So, I’m stuck this year. Next year I will be vigilant in requesting (or obtaining) only a ROUTINE mammogram (and I’m sure I won’t be able to tell the difference).

What this letter SHOULD have said was something like:

We understand you are questioning the diagnosis code on your mammogram. We contacted your physician (insert name) and learned that the coding of “Diagnostic” rather than “Routine” was correct and cannot be changed.

Instead, I got a generic letter with a Senior Account Representative’s name on it, but no signature. And I had to follow up by phone for clarification.

How hard is it to write a letter that clearly explains a situation? Even though it was delivering bad news, a more personal, factual letter would have gone a long way toward making me feel like my concern had been heard and addressed.

Now I’m not sure what I’m more frustrated about: having to pay for a mammogram that should have been covered or feeling like I got the runaround, even though I actually didn’t. Or maybe it’s being reminded, once again, that the written word is so powerful and yet so often underused.

Be obscure clearly.
~ E. B. White

Oh god, they know!

I was more than a little annoyed one night last week (or was it earlier this week?) when I had to get off my usual spot on the couch (dislodging a cat or two in the process) and scurry upstairs to answer my cell phone, which is also our “home phone.” I rarely get calls; my phone is rarely where I am. Most often it’s in my purse or on the charger upstairs, and I’m downstairs, hence the running and swearing.

When I heard a recorded voice, my reaction was even worse. Not fit for print. But before I hung up, I managed to discern that the call was from Giant Eagle (a local grocery store chain) about a recall of frozen hash browns. Seems their records showed that I “may have purchased this item” in the past.

It was helpful and creepy at the same time. (Did Big Brother also know what color underwear I was wearing?)

It’s finally happened. After several years of laying low (lying low? I’m too lazy to check), the Advantage Card has struck. That clever little “save me a few cents on groceries and gas” gimmick that also lets Giant Eagle track my every purchase. I always knew it COULD, but it creeps me out to know it really DOES.

Yes, that half-full/half-empty bag of hash browns is in my freezer. I bought it many months ago (and no, I don’t plan to throw it out now, having survived quite fine after eating half the bag. But, oh geez, you know if I’ve had it in there too long, don’t you? Has it expired? Am I a bad person if I serve it to my family or friends?)

The whole thing made me more than a little glad I don’t shop at Big Bird all that much, my budget relegating me to Wal-Mart most of the time. And I’m glad no one is tracking my purchases at Target or Lowe’s or HD. (Although Pet Smart knows what the cats like, thanks to its discount card program.) And how long is that information on record anyway? Do I still have to feel guilty about all that after-Christmas candy we bought on clearance a couple years ago? Will you tell my husband about that bag of potato chips I bought and ate without sharing?

And what’s next? Will you let me know when I’m running low on Tazo Green Ginger? Will you inform the health care police (probably mentioned on page 796, section 214, subsection iii of the health care bill) if I purchase too much pop or too little spinach? Or politely suggest I lay off the potato chips and offer me some baby carrots (on special this week) instead?

Yes, I know it’s a mixed blessing. Had it been an actual emergency, I’m sure I would have been instructed where to turn in my area for more news and information, and I’m sure I would have felt more grateful. Turns out, I heard about the recall on the news a couple hours later. Or I would have read it online the next morning. But I know a lot of people don’t do that, and the call may have been their only warning of a potential danger.

Does it mean I’ll stop using my Advantage Card? No, I’m cheap like that. But I also have a little secret — most of the stuff I’m buying at GE isn’t for me, but for my 91-year-old mother! And don’t be surprised if the ol’ demographic profile gets shaken up a bit now and then…a can of chew, some ham hocks, a pack of diapers. Trust me, you only THINK you know me…

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were
in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing
could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety,
a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the
suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case,
to wear an improper expression on your face…was itself a punishable
offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime.
~ George Orwell,
1984

« Older entries Newer entries »