genderroles

Saturday, February 19, 2005

A Theory of Relation-ivity

I have this theory about relationships and I'm interested in a little feedback on this. In my experience, most relationships are lopsided. One person just cares more than the other. I know the popular, "healthy" view of relationships are that they are mutual and equal. But I just don't buy that in practice. One person always seems to be putting in more effort than the other. And I don't think this is based on certain types of people being more about "taking" than "giving." In my experience, I've been on both sides of this equation. In some of my relationships, I've put very little into it, but have received the benefit of a great friendship; in others, I've been the one investing a disproportionate amount of time and effort. I should add that this theory is not only based on my personal experience, but also on much observation of everyone around me. Haha. I'm probably looking at YOU and evaluating the friendships you have. YOU have helped prove my theory! AND, you're probably going to disagree with it!

posted by CAL at 10:18 PM

22 Comments:

  • I don't know that I completely disagree. But does it apply to romantic relationships too? If so, between you and Dad, who is which? And I'd have to say that Laura and I have a good give and take most of the time. Early in the relationship it was definitely one-sided, but that's changed... Now I can't stand her either! Just kidding. Anyways, I think we're well-balanced. Maybe sometimes its just an issue of perception? Sometimes its hard to see how much each person is involved.

    By Blogger Matthew B. Novak, at 12:33 AM  

  • I get wher e you're coming from, but would like to expand upon the idea.
    Most relationships are one-sided, but they can switch which side deepending on the relationship.

    By Blogger Lady, at 1:17 PM  

  • It makes sense, if two people are always giving or always taking the relationship wouldnt work. However, finding a happy median would work as well. Sometimes one person has to push and work a lot to break the other out of their shell but then it works toward that equilibrium.

    By Blogger Kendrick Novak, at 7:31 PM  

  • here here ... to what Kendrick saided.

    and Cindy - please don't drop out ... My prayers are there for you ... reach for HEAVEN ... He will carry you forever.

    That came from a 6th graders last week when I was down. :)

    God Bless, Love ya ~
    MJ

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:42 PM  

  • I think it depends on what you "give" and what you "take". Sometimes that is what balances out. One person may seemingly give and give and give, while the other only gives ocassionally. However, what they give may balance out what the other person gives. It may be something that is more difficult to give so it is worth more, or it's just more important to the relationship. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else but it makes sense to me so i don't care.

    By Blogger empeterson, at 9:16 AM  

  • i wanted to post from the beginning of this but i am just now doing so. i agree with you for some relationships cindy, but i think a lot has to do with the expectations of both people in the relationship, look at alan and i. neither of us expect a ton out of the other, so its hard to have it become one sided, and the cool thing is he is still my best friend.

    By Blogger Eric Michael Peterson, at 11:00 AM  

  • How can you have a best friend and not have expectations from them?? Minimally, you would expect them to give a rip about your life (which, in iteself, can be a lot of work). Beyond that, a certain amount of loyalty, some effort at keeping in touch, etc. must be expected. Any of these things could conceivably constitute "expecting a ton" from someone. I think, in the case of Eric and Alan, that they actually have a deep enough friendship that it doesn't seem like a lot of effort to maintain it. Plus, they're guys. I don't know if this theory really holds true for guy-guy relationships. I guess I was thinking more girl-girl and guy-girl. I'll give it some more thought.

    By Blogger CAL, at 9:45 PM  

  • If relationships involving women require more work than those which involve only men, then it would be consistent to say that women require more work then men. And since work = a pain in the butt, clear syllogistic reasoning leads us to conclude that women are more of a pain in the butt then men.

    And, since the relationships of only men require minimal or no work we can conclude that men are only minimally a pain in the butt, or not at all. Therefore, mathematically, the ratio would be aproximately X:0 (with X = the amount of pain in the butt that women are) Because we have already established that X is a positive integer this implies that women are infinitely more a pain in the butt then men.

    Naturally it should be clarified that "pain in the butt" is a euphimism for "a problem which has been caused and must be dealt with." Now, because our definition has both pieces (the origin - "has been caused" and the end - "must be dealt with") it would be fair to subsume the description in the word "problem" alone. Now, by substitution we can see that the ratio of problems translates as approximately X:0.

    Clearly then we can see that women are the cause of all problems. Now, if no problems are caused by anything other than women, as we have mathematially concluded, then the very tight connection between the cause and effect could accurately be reduced to the equation (women = problem), or, linguistically, women are the problem.

    Because this flows directly from my Mom's last comment, I shall call this "Cindy's Theorem."

    By Blogger Matthew B. Novak, at 1:47 AM  

  • your "theorum" has a lot of flaws. To start off with, you screwed up right from the beginning that assuming work is the only thing that "=pain in the butt". However, I am inclined to disagree. Waking up can be a pain in the butt, as can sitting in rush hour. Also, when dealing with relationships, guys definitely are a lot of work. at least if you are talking about them in the romantic sense. so sorry, your theorum sucks.

    By Blogger empeterson, at 6:00 AM  

  • *innapropriate comment alert*

    from what i've heard male only relationships are a very big pain in the butt, thats right i went there....

    By Blogger Alan, at 6:40 AM  

  • Alan, good comment, but are you saying what I think you are saying about your relationship with Eric? Cause if you are maybe we should let Emily know this.

    By Blogger Kendrick Novak, at 9:55 AM  

  • no kendrick he is not saying what i you think he is saying. at least not as far as i know, or am concerned, what he had done since he has been in college, well ask him about that.

    By Blogger Eric Michael Peterson, at 11:07 AM  

  • hey, its only what i've heard, don't wish to experiance it first hand... ever...

    By Blogger Alan, at 1:59 PM  

  • First of all Emily, it isn't my theorum, it's Mom's. So if you think it sucks, take it up with her.

    Secondly, it's like geometery, where you don't start from scratch every time. I thought it was obvious that work = pain in the butt, and I didn't digress into the simple theorums to prove it though I could have. Mathematically the theorum still works. So there.

    By Blogger Matthew B. Novak, at 9:20 PM  

  • Well all I know (from experience, for Alans sake) is that my relationship with my wife is indeed a great deal of work, but is by no means a pitb, in fact it has been the greatest earthly treasure ever!

    By Blogger btnovak, at 8:31 PM  

  • Whaddaya mean, "a great deal of work?" You think it's been work up to this point, I'll show you work buddy!

    By Blogger CAL, at 9:59 PM  

  • work yes, but a problem definitely not!!

    By Blogger btnovak, at 5:12 PM  

  • Sounds like serious back-pedaling to me.

    By Blogger CAL, at 9:24 PM  

  • ok this is what i heard from 1 of my teachers. it goes one at time one person gives while the other person takes then it like switches it pretty much depends on the situation if you need to give u do!
    just felt like posting a comment and it at least sorta fit in i no arent i stupid!
    molly

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:13 PM  

  • I agree with Cindy that relationships tend to be skewed, especially with friends. As for romantic relationships, if they are too skewed they just dont work, thus a working romantic relationship tends to be one in which the equilibrium is such that both parties are actively involved in its maintenance. As for Matts interpretation of this concept, his theorem is sound in that annoying philosophical way.

    By Blogger Nate, at 11:00 AM  

  • In rare situations, a post from the most uninvolved and unenlightened might actually produce a hint of insight. Let's hope thisis the case. Althogh I do not consider myself to be any kind of expert on the subject and I certainly don't know if I make a very good friend most of the time, I would like to think that I am an amature people watcher at worst and quite a budding relationship connesiur(sp?) at best. That being said, I would like to politely disagree in part to the idea that it is one person that "cares" more than another. It is not only possible but expected that certain people are more self absored than others and in that, those who are more self focused demand more than they actually give in a relationship but it would beg the question, does that mean that they care less about the person that they call friend. I would venture a guess that if people were polled randomly with the question, "in your friendships/relationships, do you give more than you receive or do you recieve more than you give? That the numbers would fall out about 80-20 or 85-15 that "I give more than I receive. This, I think is because most people are selfish in general and it is much more taxing to give than to receive. Then there is the whole Idea that it is much harder to give towards people that you don't like or that you struggle in relationship with because it is unrewarding to give to those people. That issue breaks open a whole new can of worms. In those relationships that a person has, where they feel that they are giving more than they are receiving, are they actually giving because of the pleasure and satisafction they receive from the giving act? And if that is true, then is it really giving of self at all or is it a sincerly selfish act? It is my opinion that friends who love each other authentically accept the difficulty of working on the relationship and accept the friends shortcomings as part of the cost of having a friend. When the value of the friend's happiness and joy supersede (sp?) the necessity of continuing the friendship then love will have become the dominant factor in the relationship. Finally, all that being said, I also feel that selfless acts of giving in even the most unhealthy relationships float back and forth from one partner or friend to the other. It is never consistantly one or the other who is giving of self and the other receiving. Only in the cases of abuse, oppression, serious mental or physical illness would this remain consistant. The context for the previous statement would be that a year or two could be weighted towards on or the other but over a lifetime friendship it would vasilate. Some people have been blessed with excellent examples in their lives and the ability to learn in such away that they have responded to the call to holiness with much greater awareness and effectiveness. THose people who live out their faith in such a way that they do not measure, contemplate or weigh their resposnes to those around them in need. They simply recognize that they want to respond in a Christ -like way as often as possible especially when it is difficult. A healthy marriage or friendship should be the overwhelming presence of Christ and the selfless love that goes along with that. Two people living with the unfettered determination to love unconditionally as God loves us. Sometimes we might say as Christ did "you could not say awake with me for one hour?" and sometimes we might need to allow someone to help us carry our cross just like Jesus did. We just know that we are in this spiritual journey and spiritual battle together.At this point I would like to say that this has been written unedited, at 105 am after a night of very little sleep. It is very possible that none of this makes any sense and is crap that I am hoping to see if it stick to the wall and I really can't say that I have even begun to be the kind of friend or spouse that I would desire to be. But I am working on it. Maybe I will begin to post on my unused blog site as to the progress I am making or not making in this area of my life. I can also say that I did not get much sleep but I did get my taxes done earlier than I ever have in my life and the workroom is now cleaner than it has ever been since we moved to andover 2 and 1/2 years ago.

    By Blogger Dan Lockwood, at 11:15 PM  

  • Nope, not buying this.

    And I think pretty much everyone has missed my actual point.

    I still maintain that in some relationships, one person CARES more. And this has nothing to do with how hard they work at the relationship, or how much they "give" (for whatever reason), or "put into" the relationship. In some of my relationships, where I feel I care more than the other person, I'm not "giving more" or putting more into that particular relationship; sometimes, I probably even hold back more than usual, in order to not feel taken advantage of/ used. And yet, I know I CARE more.

    Get this: you can control how you act/ respond toward the people you are in relationship with. This is conscious, deliberate, even "measurable" (as in, doing nice things for your friends, etc.). You CAN'T control how much you care; it's a gift (or a curse, depending on your point of view).

    Love is not equal. Because it can't be quantified.

    By Blogger CAL, at 12:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home