"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.
Thanks Rags. I remember
Thanks Rags. I remember seeing this before and appreciated it then as well as now. I think they're very compatible with what I've been reading in the book. Good practices are going to be expressed in more places than one. My dh doesn't want to read the book with me, and he doesn't want me to either. The fear, guilt, other emotions can be so strong. He may not know exactly why he rejects considering other points of view besides his own in regards to SS, but yet he does.
I love it and that is how I
I love it and that is how I have felt all my life.
My husband is a good man, basically. When we were getting married he asked if his adult son could live with us as the adult son was goig through a rough time. I said NO. Didn't have an arguement about it because H wanted to marry me so that was that. He never brought it up after that. You see, there was something about his son that just gave me the vibes that once he got in I would never get rid of him. Since the adult son could no longer live with his father he went down to FL to leach off his Mother and llive in her trailer with her.
My gut was right on, I missed the "bullet" on that one.
Can you say a little more why
Can you say a little more why your dh could readily accept your decision? In that situation, I think my dh would feel so sorry for SS that he would push harder to have him stay with us and would probably accuse me of being hard-hearted if I said no. Is he just particularly good at being objective (a lot of bio-parents seem to have blind spots)? What would have happened if the BM wasn't willing to let him move in?
IMHO, equity life partners each have a veto.
Once the veto is played, that is it unless the one playing the veto withdraws it.
When it comes to adult children, they are adults. They have no place in a marital home where one of the partners says no.
It is simple. Emotions complicate it.
IMHO of course.
You are right Rags. I had
You are right Rags. I had the upper hand as we weren't yet married. If the son got in and it didn't work out I would have had all heck to pay in trying to get the bum out after we were married.
Sure I can add more. H didn
Sure I can add more. H didn't argue about my saying his son could not live with us because I told him I do not believe adult children should live with parents. My daughter was a senior in HS at the time and she would only be living with us during the summer and during school breaks until she graduated from college.
His son was a guy who seem to have trouble finding and holding down a job and would always run back to whichever parent would have him. I was pretty straight forward about it.
H was planning to see if his D (the one I have emense problems with) would take him but I can tell you THAT wasn't going to happen.
Long story short, the son when and lived with his Mom in Florida in her trailer for many years. When the Mom passed away he didn't even want to contribute for her burial arrangements. Nor did his daughter mentioned above. My H and his other daughter picked up the cremation expenses. H said he didn't want her to be buried in a potters grave. The other daughter has the ashes and is going to purchase a plot for her when she can.
If there is a lesson to be learned here it is --- TRUST your gut instincts.
Spot On!
That is such a sensible, straight forward response! In my opinion, you are right, adult children should not live with their parents.
I am curious, would your feelings have been different for your husband had he insisted? At that point, you likely didn't know what you didn't know....
Boundaries minimize this risk.
Certainly circumstances can be assessed and boundaries adjusted. Though IMHO those adjustments inject a ton of risk. This risk is amplified when one partner has a major emotional investement in the kidult at issue and the other does not have the rose colored glasses or intense rescue complex for the kidult.
Situations matter. However, the foundational standards and boundaries have to be firmly defended.
Yes...
...situations definitely matter. For example, if an adult child is waiting to close on a house and they need to be out of their current home, I would definitely say "yes" to that with pre-defined time limits and expectations. However, it could also be a "no" depending on the adult child's previous behavior....
Yes, if the kid has been respectful and well behaved.
If not, they can rent an extended stay hotel until they close on their house. If they have been nasty, disrespectful, and ill behaved, a pointed "Well bless your sweet little hearts. Write with your new address when you move in. Buh-bye." is the answer to the request to stay pending closing on the house.
We have done this a couple of times over the years. We have also used my parents home as our US home base while we were Expats. As they used out home as their home base when they were Expats. When we are with mom and dad, we keep out space and belongings clean and organized, we help with the shopping, cooking, cleaning up after meals, participate in mom and dad's lives, etc.
Because we have respected them, their home, and their daily routines, they repeatedly ask if we would be interested in moving "home" and doing the multi-gen family home thing. We will. At some point. That point is unfolding to be sooner rather than later. Their home is very large and everyone has plenty of space and privacy.
DW and I hit our retirement investment goal nearly 2yrs ago. The challenge is that we hit it 7-10 years earlier than that number was designed to provide for the rest of our lives. My main concern is not that our resources last for my retirement. It is that it lasts for DW's entire comfortable retirement. As she is 12yrs younger and women tend to outlive men by 5-7yrs, our resources need to provide for her comfortably for probably 20 years after I check out to the happy cloud adventure hijinks in the sky. Mom and dad do not need our resources and we do not need theirs. Interestingly it is always a race to the wallet when we are together. Though we have settled in to just splitting it all directly in half. Dinners out, road trips, etc...
Trudie - if the adult child
Trudie - if the adult child is waiting to close on a house I might consider that seeing as there is an end to the matter.
I was concerned about what
I was concerned about what his response would be. But I made my point telling him we were off to our own new adventure and didn't need adult kids holding us back. We had put in our dues, so to speak.
Also, I could see his son was going to be a problem and I honestly would not have married him if that problem looked like it was going to be mine. No way was his son going to move n with us and spend his days laying on the couch watchhing Jerry Springer (just kidding but you know what I mean). H. knew I don't believe in just living together, so he knew this was a dead end issue for him.
I am really not into drama. But dealing with his D is more than enough.
Thanks for elaborating. Again
Thanks for elaborating. Again, I think that your husband understanding your perspective and not pushing back is unusual and worked out for you. If his son has issues, he might have also been relieved not to have to live with him too. Also, clearly his mom was fine with him living with her.. Maybe she wanted the company, maybe she was co-dependent. I was really surprised, but my dh's ex is continuing to live with SS full time despite child support ending. I was convinced that she would either fight to keep the CS going or insist that we take him half time, but she hasn't done either. She's single and ermotionally immature, so I suspect that she likes having SS there for emotional support, etc. I'm very grateful for that. But SS still comes around almost every weekend, and him still trying to be a mini-wife at 19 drives me nuts.