Monday, November 17, 2008

Oh boy

I was sitting with Stella last week, eating dinner out. We rarely get time alone together, and even more rare that it's simply togetherness, without trying to accomplish something.

It's nice, too, to sit across from her and look into her eyes while we eat. We typically eat at our island, side by side. What we miss by doing that is looking at each other. It was nice.

Beside us was another parent/child combo. A mother and this time, and her son. He had to have been ten or twelve, and was such a nice kid that he smiled at Stella a few times. Most boys of that age don't pay attention; he must know a four year old.

As we ate our meals something slipped into my mind that never had before. It's pretty likely that we've hit our allotment, with the two girls. This shop is closed, if you know what I mean.

And as sweet as it is, as glorious as these two little wonders are, I'll never have that special bond that a mother has with a son.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't love my girls to pieces. To the moon and back, so the story goes. But I wonder about that more unconditional love that a son has for his mother, that unwavering bond. And the difference, to be loved by someone the opposite of me. Male. Who didn't choose his love, as my husband did, but rather is bound by something else entirely.

If wishes were horses, though, and I certainly don't want to wish my life away. But it is a thought I'd have, so here is where I tried to make some sense of it.

Maybe all of my grandchildren will be boys.


RMW said...

Good Morning,

What a great blog. What talented writing. I will read every morning!! Something to look forward too...
Little boys are sweet. I know what you mean.
Funny, I used to want to clobber my brother because he was clearly my mother's favourite and baby. Actually I did clobber him. Maybe that's my penance.

Those plastics- interfering with our estrogen and making the world a high ratio female population.

Well I have been at work for 3 hours and have not yet actually worked....time to get to it. Great site.

spinregina said...

Well, how nice of you to stop by, RMW. Thank-you! I too clobbered my brother, brothers, constantly. And there is no doubt in my mind that they are my mother's favourites. But that's okay. She's stuck with me anyways!

*It seems wrong to me to have not put commas embracing the word "too" above. I am not sure I can make this change.

tasha said...

I found this. its a Q&A

Why do I often see the adverb "too" set off by a comma at the end of a sentence. Here are a few examples, both from a classic novel by the Wilkie Collins:
1. "...Mr Vanstone showed his character on the surface of him freely to all men. An easy, hearty, handsome, good-humoured gentleman, who walked on the sunny side of the way of life, and who asked nothing better than to meet all his fellow-passengers in this world on the sunny side of life, too. Estimating him by years, he had turned fifty."
2. "'No, he can't,' said Magdalen. 'He's in the business, too.'"
Thanks for your help. This "too" business has been bothering me for years

According to the Gregg Reference Manual, we shouldn't set off "too" when it appears at the end of a sentence and means "also," which would seem to apply to Wilkie Collins's sentences, above. It's easier to generalize about punctuating around "too" when it appears in the middle of the sentence (and still means "also"), as in "He, too, is in the business." Generally, I think GRM is right: we can get along without the comma when this additive adjunct (in case someone asks) comes at the end of a sentence, and I would probably leave out the comma at the end of the second sentence, above. For the first sentence from Collins, though, the adjunct feels nearly tacked on and the meaning and rhythm of the sentence depend on setting off "too" with a comma. I'm afraid this description will not make your choice any easier. Just remember that when "too" appears at the end of a sentence and it means "also," you can almost always skip the comma — but use the comma if the complexity and sense of your sentence seem to call for it.

Authority: The Gregg Reference Manual by William A. Sabin. 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York. 2001. Used with the consent of Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. p. 29.

I hope that helps a bit. The gregg ref is something you need. its so helpful.

lotusloq said...

I soooo feel your pain on the "too" issue. That explanation is so crystal clear too. Yikes! See, I can do it too.

Thanks Tasha for helping us figure it out.

As far as the boys are concerned, having them is different and the same. Their approach to things, in my experience, is very different. Boys are so straightforward. Girls are a bit more devious. e.g. me: David, what are you doing? him: Throwing this ball to see if I can hit the window. (Aaaaah!) me: Please stop. him: ok. Then he trots off to throw the ball somewhere else--at trees in the yard for target practice. Contrast that with one of my daughters. Me: Maggie, what are you doing? her: Nothing. Generally, I have to go see. It could be anything and she will be hiding the evidence.

I have to admit that there is a different connection with him. It's not better or worse. Stronger or weaker. It's just different. Sometimes it's hard to tell if that's because of their personality or gender. Girls are much more moody though--even when they are little. That to me is wild. That may be part of what makes it different.