Pieces

[liralen]

Kind of tired today.

Lots of work things going on. My teeth feel much better, now. Jet's in a good mood today. We're caught up on sleep. I have swimming tonight.

I've got lots of internal processing going on...

The day was cold slate today. The sky was dull grey and slightly brown. The ground was dry and dusted with snow like powdered sugar haphazardly tossed over day-old cake donuts to brighten them up a little. The high, today, was below freezing. I'm not used to that, but there's a hard beauty under all this that has an impact all its own.

Relationships are never, ever *equal* because the two people in them are never the same. So it can be a good thing, or it can be a terrible thing, depending on how the jagged edges cut or line up. Who need? Who gives? And they can not ever be the same, so some call it 'unfair', but with the ones that work, it can seem overwhelmingly bountiful. With the ones that don't work, it can seem overwhelmingly suckful

I just have to remember that it can never be fair, though, when the term fair means 'each gives the other the exact same thing'. They don't know what I meant when I did something, they can't return it with the same interest, intensity, or desire. They're different people. I really love my relationship with John because we each do what we really want to do for each other and we accept that that works for each other, especially when it's not something we'd have done for ourselves. That's the treasure.

Comments

Hm, I disagree.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's semantics, though. I'd say that a relationship can certainly be equal, although it will never be exactly equal in all ways, and to strive for that is madness. But if both people care and respect for each other and themselves equally, then it can absolutely be equal in the aggregate.

Re: Hm, I disagree.

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Hyup... might be semantics. Mathematically, for me, 'equal' is exactly the same so, for me, it has a very strict definition. But I could see that with a definition that goes with the phrase 'all men were created equal', what you've said is true.

I also really agree that so long as the people involved respect and care for each other, the rest can be regarded by the participants as equal in the whole.

I can agree that relationships can have mutual levels of satisfaction, that each person can feel that they have benefits that they weigh to be the same as their effort levels, that each person feels that they have as much say as the other in the majority of their decisions.

But in everything from who cooks more, who takes the trash out more, who motivates whom to go out, who does car maintenance, who gardens, who sets up for a party and who cleans up, who figures out where to go on vacation and who takes care of the various details on the trip, who cleans the bathroom, who makes what part of the money and is it even totally shared, etc. etc. etc... even in the minutea of every day life, it's not as if each person does exactly half of all of those things, either because of desire, interest, availability, or skill and knowledge, and I find that it's the same with the maintenance details of any relationship, different people do, like, enjoy, are better at, and therefore do more of certain aspects. At least, that's what I think and have experienced. I know it can be different for others.

And when they care and respect each other, it probably makes no difference to them, at all.

The thoughts come mostly in respect to my sister, actually, and is in the context (which I never gave, of course *grin*) of where there's a big tally board she keeps of 'what I did for her' and 'what she's done for me' and I was noticing that the things that I thought I did for her never really showed up on her radar, and the reality is that they probably never will. And the things she does for me, while she believes that they are things I want or need, often are things that I am somewhat ambivilant about. There is *care* here, but there probably isn't as much respect, on either side, as there might need to be. So it comes, in some ways, under the unequal relationship where things just don't line up, and unlike a romantic relationship, there is no way I can just move on.

I just have to deal with the fact that there isn't any way we can reciprocate *exactly* what the other does or wants. Especially when the things Kathy expects from me is *exactly* what she does for me. Especially after nearly two decades of not living close to each other. I can't give her a gift that she likes as much as I'm supposed to like the gifts she gives me. I can't give her cheering the way she decided I needed cheering because it was what she wanted. I don't need cheering, I need an outlook that isn't just all nitpicks and blame. It's all just jagged and uneven and the places that one of us has wants and holes just don't match up with the other, and I just have deal with it.

Re: Hm, I disagree.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Ayup, it's a definition difference. Erik and I were getting hung up on that sort of thing at one point, so our counselor suggested we use "equal" for "equal in the aggregate" and "congruent" for "equal in every facet and measure." And yeah, striving for congruency in a relationship IS madness, particularly when it's something like a sister relationship that you can't even choose!

It sounds like a LOT of old crud with you and Kathy is getting hashed out. Congratulations. It's like lancing an abcess; it hurts like hell and is repulsive to watch, but all that goo is better off outside you than inside.

Re: Hm, I disagree.

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Ooo. I like that phrasing and having a mutually agreed upon definition seems a very useful thing indeed, especially as a hangup. You do have it in a nutshell there. Having congruency be the requirement for a relationship I can't choose is really messing me up.

And, yeah, I'm just grumpy that the lancing it taking a while. *grin*

Thank you for a really good opportunity to clarify myself and talk in specifics rather than generalities. It helps me work things through.

Re: Hm, I disagree.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

You're more than welcome. After the tens of thousands of dollars I've paid for therapy, I figure some of this stuff is actually useful. ^_^

What sounds like it's particularly messy is the way congruency is the requirement for this relationship, but *you're* not ever the one who decides the congruency -- IOW, she says "You have to do this because I did," never "I have to do this because you did." She ends up with all the power to define the relationship that way.

Re: Hm, I disagree.

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Hee. Yay for useful! I'm actually seriously thinking about undergoing some therapy soon, just to do a lot of internal housecleaning before Jet gets too much bigger and more independent so I don't bring my issues into his upbringing. There's a lot of stuff that I really have to watch, and a lot of it is tied with all my old family stuff. I'm aware, but I don't feel healed in some of the aspects.

Yeah. You hit on my sore point with the whole deal, I think. I was just trying to sidestep the whole thing by saying 'what you're asking, alone, is impossible' and trying out the argument to see if it made sense to me.

yow.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

i have nothing particularly useful to add here -- kathryn has said everything i would. (btw - i really like the "equal" vs "congruent" thing).

i just wanted to make supportive noises and stuff.