Carolyn Hax: Don’t settle for a mate who won’t let you be yourself | Carolyn Hax's columns | Idaho Statesman
Adapted from a recent online discussion.
Carolyn: You once said that if you find yourself editing what you say, or working to uphold a certain image of yourself with someone, then that’s a bad thing.
Well, why, exactly? I’ve been married for 24 years. I edit what I say and work to uphold a certain image of myself all the time. I can say things politely or rudely; I can live like a reasonably competent person or like a slob. It seems to work better when I think about how I want to phrase things and how my husband would react if I said hurtful things, or didn’t hold up my end of the bargain re: spending, house cleaning, care of the dogs, all sorts of things. Makes the world tick along a little more smoothly, in my experience.
VA.
It’s also a way to find yourself several years into a relationship and bearing no resemblance to the person you really are.
What you’re talking about is civility, and, you’re right, it’s not good for us to express whatever hateful thought crosses our minds.
But I’m not talking about civility so much as authenticity. It’s one thing to be a civil version of yourself,* but it’s quite another to: bite back your concerns/objections because your mate will yell at you for voicing them; or be super-social to please your super-social mate when going out all the time drains you; or be the high-functioning, super-competent half of the couple who carries the load for both of you (even though your mate is perfectly capable and when what you really want is to sleep for a month). These are just a few examples.
Forcing yourself to conform to outside expectations — real or perceived — will very likely kill, in roughly this order: your mood, your sense of self, your feelings for the other person, your will to invest another ounce of energy in the relationship, and finally, your relationship. With possible lingering effects on you.
That’s what I’m talking about.
* If there is no civil version of you that comes naturally, then it’s actually best not to put on a veneer of civility, but instead to either choose a mate who is unfazed by the real uncivil you, or to work on your attitude and temperament to the point where the impulse to be civil is real.
Carolyn: I know it’s natural for moms to favor one child. But do you think it’s even possible to have equal feelings about more than one child?
FROM ONE MOM TO ANOTHER
Yes, though “equivalent” seems more apt to me.
It’s a given that kids coming from the same gene pool and same home can emerge completely different from each other — and different personalities mean different relationships, with their parents and everyone else.
It follows that the high points in each parent-child relationship will be different — and sometimes, each produces something the parent values.
As kids grow and change, too, you might feel closer to one kid here, another there. That’s why it makes sense, for all of you, to treat your feelings as dynamic, and just take each kid, each day at a time.
E-mail tellme@washpost.com. Chat online at 10 a.m. Fridays at www.washingtonpost.com.
I recently had a similar conversation with someone, but I didn't lay it out nearly as clearly and concisely as Ms. Hax does here. Being 'nice' and 'polite' at the expense of expressing ourselves honestly leads to depression and frustration, which often manifest as anger or a tendency toward 'brutal honesty', which to me is the inability or unwillingness to follow the credo of civility, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
The cultural complement to that is, "We only hurt the ones we love," or, "We hurt the most the ones we love," whichever one prefers. (I prefer the former.) In most cases, when there's nothing nice to be said, saying nothing is at least as effective as anything we can say and at best speaks volumes in and of itself. But it's also important to look out for our own well-being and the well-being of those who make up our community, meaning at times we must concern ourselves more with being effective than being civil. It's most appropriate for those closest to any disruptive influence to be the first line of defense in dealing with that disruption, the ones who love him/her/them/it the most, as they're the ones who'll be gentlest in trying to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done. If the disruption continues the ripples must be dealt with in wider and wider circles, but that's where the government ought to be taking a backseat to first family, then loved ones, then friends, then community (neighborhood, church, office or social group, etc.), then law enforcement in dealing with individual choices and behaviors. Instead for some time now our government has made every effort to step in at every turn and take the reins from parents and communities, yet it seems surprised at the dissolution of family ties. (I'd say 'nuclear family ties', but I don't want the assumption made that by that I mean some kind of 'one-man/one-woman' scenario. 'Family' is a very broad term.) Taking over and doing things for a person has never been a terribly effective teaching tool, and as many people as will protest against the intrusion will go with the flow and as many as each of those will be glad to give up responsibility, so of course the cumulative result of repeated encroachments upon the authority of parents and guardians is an erosion of overall family values.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I agree with Ms. Hax, both about the civility and about the parent-child relationships addressed in her bonus opinion. :)
Comments
Post a Comment