"Principles of Governance" for all couples
Hi all, sometimes Rags will post something he read that's usually super helpful. I'm reading a book on relationships called, "In Each Other's Care". It gave the words of what I want in my relationship with dh, and also made it starkly clear why I've felt so hurt and angry. Do you all agree with these principles?
According to the author, these should be core principles in couples that are non-negotiable (I am not including all of them, just the ones relevant to step life):
"1. We have each other's backs at all times, without exception.
2. We make all decision that would affect each other together by getting each other fully on board before acting.
3. We protect each other's interests in public and private at all times.
4. We consider our own interests, concerns and troubles as we consider the other's interests, concerns, and troubles, and we do so simultaneously.
5. Together we lead each other and everyone in our care."
By violating any of these, a couple's interdependency and the energy they cultivate together is thrown off balance and trust is affected which impacts the entire family system. It's so important to protect the respect, trust, and interdependency within a couple. I feel that my dh and I do practice these princples EXCEPT when it comes to SS. In the past and somewhat in the present, dh regularly allows SS to stomp on some of these. In reading this book, I'm realizing that for the sake of the health of our marriage, I have to insist that dh never allow SS to be a mini-wife, to try and drive the narrative, to excuse mistreatment of me because of some emotion SS is experiencing. DH can support and help SS with all of his needs, but never at the cost of my interests and well being. I'm going to be very firm about that. I am especially over it given that SS is 19 yo.
I think a lot of you already do this, but I have to make a strong effort to define my needs and enforce them because I have trouble with standing up for myself.
1. We have each other's backs
1. We have each other's backs at all times, without exception.
.. this one.. kindof. I do think that couples should support each other publicly for sure.. as in presenting a united front. But, I think there is room to discuss things we may not agree with that our partners do or think "behind closed doors".. This also can't include standing by and allowing our partners to do or say things that are totally unacceptable (being racist.. being abusive to someone). I would say though.. maybe we shouldn't be partners who do things that are unacceptable though??
2. We make all decision that would affect each other together by getting each other fully on board before acting.
I would say that this may not always be totally realistic.. and that we should try to do this.. but there will be times we have to make choices in the moment and don't have time for a powow.. of course.. these shouldn't be completely life altering changes like moving accross the country.. but sometimes we have to act.. and try to do it in everyone's best interest without having the ability to discuss with our partners.
3. We protect each other's interests in public and private at all times.
We should be acting as if our partner's best interests.. are our best interests.. but again.. behind closed doors.. we can have discussion where we disagree.. we aren't clones.
4. We consider our own interests, concerns and troubles as we consider the other's interests, concerns, and troubles, and we do so simultaneously.
Yes.. as part of a partnership.. everyone has their own interests and concerns.. but in a good partnership.. people are keeping their partner's in mind as well as their own.. sometimes one may outweigh the other.. sometimes we don't get our way all the time.. it's ok.. but if both parties are working to make the other's life good.. then everyone should feel like they are in a jointly valued relationship.
5. Together we lead each other and everyone in our care.
Disagree a bit on this.. I think this means we don't disengage.. when sometimes in steplife that is life saving.
I agree that they are foundational. Though a couple are odd.
I agree that they are foundational. Though a couple are a bit odd IMHO.
Though in relationships things ebb and flow, 1 is paramount. 3 is a deal breaker if it is not absolute.
The others while important are IMHO somewhat fluid at some level.
2. Not in every topic, situation, or decision will any two people completely be on board and in lock step.
4, What the hell does this even mean? In a marriage everything is interwoven. However, like is the case with #2, any situation has a variety of variables that make it impossible that total and simultaneous universal consideration of two peoples interests, concerns, and troubles absolutely or instantly happens. The visual I get from this one is some need for an immediate phone call to the mate anytime anything of note unfolds in order to get permission. Life does not work like that. IMHO.
5. For minor children or legally dependent adults, absolutely. For others, leading them is not the goal IMHO. Holding them accountable is the absolute goal that the couple should ensure occurs.
Unlike a CO or divorce decree that governs much of blended family life, marriages are a very fluid thing. Yes, there are inviolable sacred elements that both partners have to build and defend together. The invariable hills to die on so to speak. However, the magic is in living all things in a life of adventure and love for the ages, together. Sometimes in lock step, other times in a bust a move moment on opposite ends of the dance floor. Though always in a fluid dance that merges, bobs and weaves, making something that is far more together than it would be apart.
IMHO of course.
Since I find myself with a crap ton of time on my hands, I will get and read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Thanks for your thoughts, Esmod and Rags. I've been digesting your thoughts on these. For me, these "rules" were enlightening, but you both also are showing me that they might not all be suitable to step life or at least have to be modified.
I agree with Esmod about the private v. public distinction. If we're authentic, we're bound to have points of disagreement. Those differences are best not aired in front of the kids, but can and should be discussed in private. But I think that is the meaning of 2. The problem I've had with dh is that he has let SS be the third partner in our relationship and still sometimes makes decisions with him without consulting me about things that affect me. Not in all things, but in enough things that make me feel insecure in my place in the household. This book is putting into words my sense that I have a right to have an equal voice and authority in the household over and above SS. I feel bitchy even saying that I should have more of a say in how the household runs than 19 yo SS, but that's how I think both SS and dh have wanted it to be.They both wanted to put SS on a par with me, and that is wrong. I want to be okay with saying that since I put the work into maintaining the home, I help pay the bills, I get to set the rules in partnership with dh. I think that's the meaning of 5. I feel that sometimes SS would like it to be Dh and SS leading the household, but I want it firmly established that it is dh and I that lead the way. Anything less diminishes my place. I do agree though that there are certain things I don't want to partner with dh in leading, like discipline.
Rags was confused about 4. The book begins with the assumption that we all have our individual interests that we should continue to care about even after coupling with another. So his recommendations are based on two people negotiating and backing their own interests as well as their partners. That in fact, it is a prime motivator that if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and that a couple should want to prmote the interests of the other. But also that self interest should be informed by the other's interest. That was an important point for me because I feel that dh does look out for my interest except when it concerns SS. I'm finding that I have a lot of resentment over the fact that multiple times, Dh ignored or stomped on my interests to cater to SS's demands. I'm realizing that that's where dh should have always drawn the line. SS can make demands all he wants, and dh can continue to feed them all he wants, but I want to make it clear to dh that doing so should never be at my expense.
I've been really angry and resentful these days. I don't interact much with SS still, but I've been more expressive to dh and he doesn't like it. I think the source of my resentment is being partnered with someone who has shown a willingness to habitually violate trust and interdependent harmony to appease an unreliable teen/young adult who is more than old enough to get on with his own life.
The basics have been around for quite a while. The SPBOR.
The SPBOR. Fundamentally it is a distillation of the list in your original earlier post tryingjusttrying. IMHO. I have not read the book though.
If you have not seen the SPBOR, I hope you find it useful. If you have, I hope that it helps you re-basline your boundaries and it is helpful in enforcing them.
Step-parent Bill of Rights
1-I will be part of the decision-making process in my marriage and family at all times.
2-People outside the immediate family - including ex-wives or husbands, in-laws and adult children - cannot make plans that affect my life without my consent.
3-I will not be responsible for the welfare of children for whom I can set no limits.
4-I must be consulted about which children will live with us, when they can visit and how long they will stay.
5-I will not be solely responsible for housework; chores will be distributed fairly.
6-I will be consulted regarding all family financial matters.
7-Others may not violate my private space at home, nor take or use my possessions without my permission.
8-I will never be treated as an "outsider" in my own home.
9-My husband or wife and stepchildren must treat me with respect.
10-Our marriage is our first priority, and we will address all issues together.