Re: divorce in cohousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rick Gravrok (rick.gravrok![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:06:34 -0800 (PST) |
Oh my! Based on the wisdom of the Harvard Negotiation Project, and the book; "Getting To Yes", it is far better to focus on the behavior of a person, and avoid focusing on the person as if the person is the problem. People are not the problem, it's what we *do*, or don't *do*, say or don't say, that are the problems. In fact, can we agree that in general people *are*good? To put energy into addressing problem behavior is more likely to have positive results than blaming a person. To say someone "*is* bad", to ban someone from a community, to take sides, can easily be shaming and counter-productive to respectful and healthy community living. Let us remember, conflict is a normal part of life. And that sometimes when conflict is avoided, that's when the violence occurs, e.g. as gossip, holding grudges, passive-aggressive behavior, etc. In our community here in Minnesota (at Monterey Cohousing Community) in the past we used the phrase: "When conflict is welcomed in the front door, Violence is less likely to sneak in the back door". That philosophy - and the cartoon someone drew to go with it - continues to work for me. To address conflict/difficult behaviors respectfully, it is important to have a clear process to support people to be accountable in a good way. In a future email, I'll post a statement on accountability, but not here as this is already getting long. With all that being said, and with the general belief, that people *are*good, as M. Scott Peck clarifies in his book The Road Less Travelled (or his followup book The Different Drum), there are some rare cases where people are so damaged and/or damaging, that a community will need to ban such a person to protect the community if all attempts to seek resolution/support accountability fail. Let's keep the (tough) love flowing, Rick Gravrok On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Lyle Scheer <wonko [at] monkeyhouse.org> wrote: > > > OK... first an admission. I'm the half of a divorce in Ashland > cohousing that I think triggered this discussion request from Doug. > > However... I agree with all Diana here said as well as what Cataya said > in a previous email about a policy like this causing *more* stress in > the situation. > > One of the trickiest parts in my personal divorce was around who stayed > in co-housing... neither of us wanted to leave. To have a policy that > automatically forces one to leave just piles more stress on to the whole > thing. > > To have an ex that is shunned by some portion of the community while > living right next door is a terrible situation, confusing for the kids, > and I would not wish it on anybody. > > - Lyle > > On 2/10/14, 7:03 PM, Diana Carroll wrote: > > That sounds like a really, REALLY awful idea. How do you think that is > > going to insulate you from the impact of divorce? I don't get that idea > at > > all. > > > > I don't know what privileges you are imagining "off-site members" have > but > > presumably the divorcing couple will continue to have whatever > relationship > > they will have, regardless of their official community status. And if > > there are children involved, then presumably it is in their best interest > > for their parents to have the best possible relationship...why would you > as > > a community want to throw up barriers to that in any way? > > > > This proposal is also full of so many holes and assumptions. > > > > 1-why are you assuming one of the couple will move? They may continue to > > live together. > > > > 2-if they do move, why do you assume they will move offsite? In our > > community, we have had the sad fortune to have three divorces...and the > > happy fortune that in all three cases, both spouses still live in the > > community, and the children are able to have both parents living close to > > one another and in a shared community. > > > > 3-if your group is an HOA, owners have legal rights, whether they live > > there or not. You can't kick a homeowner out of an HOA, and the > individual > > may choose to continue to be involved. > > > > 4-do you really think it serves anyone's interests for the community to > be > > sticking its collective nose into the family business during such a > > difficult time? > > > > 5-who gets to decide on whether an "exception" is granted? You really > want > > your group to have to vote on whether someone who used to be a part of > the > > community, and may still have close ties of friendship in the community, > is > > allowed to be a member? I would feel terribly uncomfortable being asked > to > > take sides like that. > > > > This policy amounts to the community symbolically choosing to take sides > > against the spouse who moves out. That's just awful. > > > > Bottom line is that I don't think this ill-conceived mean-spirited policy > > would do anything to diminish the hurt and anger that accompanies > divorce, > > or the fallout that results...it would simply be salt in the wound of > > someone who is going through a hard time by definition. > > > > Here at Mosaic Commons, we have a few non-resident/associate members, and > > our policy is that we invite them to join by plenary decision. This is > true > > for people who used to be residents as well, whether their reason for > > leaving was related to a change in relationship status or simply moving > > out. I can't imagine implementing a policy to preemptively block an > entire > > category of people from being able to join. > > > > Diana > > > > On Monday, February 10, 2014, Doug Huston <huston [at] ashlandcoho.com> > wrote: > > > >> At times I've read on this list serve how stressful break-ups/divorces > >> have been on communities. > >> In our community, we are considering the following proposal: > >> When a couple breaks up, the person who moves out of the community is > >> automatically no longer a member of the community. > >> This means he/she cannot be an off-site member, a category which exist > for > >> some communities. > >> This would be the default situation. Exceptions could be considered. If > >> after one year the member who moved out wants to re-join, the group > could > >> choose to consider this - or not. > >> The intention behind this is to insulate the community (to some extent) > >> from the common challenges, stress, and tensions which usually accompany > >> break-ups, and would likely be heightened if both parties remain > formally > >> involved in community activities. > >> We are wondering what others in communities think, and if there are > >> similar or related policies regarding break-ups elsewhere in cohousing. > >> Thanks for your comments in advance. > >> > >> Doug Huston - Ashland (Oregon) Cohousing Community > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > >> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > >> > >> > >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > > > -- Rick Gravrok St. Louis Park, MN
- Re: divorce in cohousing, (continued)
- Re: divorce in cohousing Joanie Connors, February 12 2014
- Conflict Resolution [was: divorce in cohousing Sharon Villines, February 12 2014
- Re: Conflict Resolution [was: divorce in cohousing Joanie Connors, February 12 2014
- Re: divorce in cohousing Lyle Scheer, February 12 2014
- Re: divorce in cohousing Rick Gravrok, February 12 2014
- Re: divorce in cohousing Diana Carroll, February 13 2014
- Re: divorce in cohousing Sharon Villines, February 13 2014
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.