July 7, 2012

in Reactivity, Two of us

Bridget's gift

There really isn’t any joy in someone feeling bad, even if they have been…. horrid..

I mean, it was really gratifying when Charles apologised and then was all kind and considerate for a while. But that kind of imbalance is not fundamentally right – though of course it oils the return to goodwill and good feeling.

It means one of you is one down, and that is fatal to the relationships of lovers and friends. It has to be guarded against and checked whenever it lasts longer than ….well, an afternoon, maybe??

Balance is all, which is not to say balance is easy. Though cake and ale can help….



Susan C. July 8, 2012 at 8:40 pm

It is difficult to see ourselves as others see us. I got a telling off from my daughter this week for spikey comments towards her dad…. he got the other half of the telling off too. Actually I had mis-heard him and reacted to what I thought was an ill timed comment. So hey ho into old age when I mis-hear all who speak to me and react badly..
Balance : If one admits to being 50% of the problem then one relies on the other person to admit to being 50% of the problem too. I don’t think that happens….. the person apologised to heaves a sigh of … “There you are; I knew I didn’t deserve that”. without looking tosee if they were provocative in any way.
I’m trying to be diplomatic here!!!

anne July 8, 2012 at 11:34 pm

Hi there – I think that’s my point: we can’t hang on to grievances without doing damage. I guess if we find we can’t let something go because it goes on hurting, or being angry making, then serious talk is required when the heat is off? And being provocative needs mentioning?

Great to find you here Sue! XXXXXX

John July 7, 2012 at 8:54 pm

OK, so you imply that Charles has been horrid (para 1), hence the gratification (para 2) when, you say, he apologised.

Charles doesn’t have the slightest horrid streak in him. He doesn’t even have an itzy-bitzy nasty streak in him. He may have erred in some way but I doubt that he was horrid as you imply. And I haven’t seen a post (or Tweet) from Charles that is in the slightest negative about you. Quite the reverse.

Let’s cast our minds back to a post by you about Charles’ response to your suggestion about dishwasher loading. I (I must admit) took your side. But when Charles interjected, I took a totally different approach. You misrepresented the situation to your benefit. And now, I wonder, are you doing the same?

Balance is about balance. On balance I’m with Charles (figuratively speaking of course) here. You’re with him in reality. And I guess that if you balance things right, whatever it was he did will be no worse than whatever it is you do from time to time.

So I look forward to your next post about apologising to Charles and doing something nice for him.

Love you lots (really)!

anne July 7, 2012 at 11:54 pm

O, I wasn’t thinking of finger pointing, quite the opposite really. Nor to imply anything bad about Charles – as you say, sometimes him, sometimes me…. Clearly not so well expressed…

But I do think that that underlying idea that it’s always six of one and half a dozen of the other, has kept a lot of guilt inclined women in dreadful relationships, sure that they are half the problem. Some people are actually just horrible.

Paul Steer July 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm

I am constantly trying to balance, hey that is a revelation !

Previous post:

Next post: