Thursday, May 26, 2016

Control. Surrender. Compromise. Negotiation.

I WAS born into and grew old in a culture where the woman is the boss, generally. She is called Kumander and that is widely accepted. She controls practically every aspect of the relationship and family matters—and maintains final decision/s from tonight's dinner to where the kids should enroll in college. A deliberation happens but expect the wife to excise a more upperhand tact. Meanwhile, salary remittance of overseas workers linked with department of labor can only be withdrawn by the wife or common law wife or mom of common kids. Truth is, this is rooted to a cultural truth: a father's earning goes to the mom 100 percent and the woman takes care of budgeting (in consult with the hubby) and bank transactions.

          When partners live together irrelevant of marriage, still the man surrenders all money to girlfriend. Traditionally the woman is the head of the household and the strongest pillar of the family. Men don't have problem/s with a “controlling” woman if we define “control” that way. A woman's job is not that easy—I mean financially managing a house, especially with monthly money that can't actually keep up with the basics. I don't have a problem with that either.
         But I have a problem with how the man/woman is tackled in the context of compromise/negotiation and control/surrender issue. The sexual politics of it freaks me out. Many times it's no brainer to me. Man works to give provision to family, woman works to keep the house. You may tilt or reverse that depends on situations and circumstances. There are many househusbands back home including some of my own kin (woman supervises farm/business, man does the laundry and housework, cook, tutor kids etc) or there are many women who simply stay home and raise kids while hubby works. In my time, husbands/fathers go abroad as OFWs (overseas Filipino Workers) while the wife/mom takes care of the family and house.
         If a relationship fails, I believe it is because it failed. It's an individual issue. Synergy is ideal but we simply need a partnership that works. Sometimes we idealize relationship so much to the point that when see/feel “hints” of control and surrender on either side we give up—instead of working things out on the basis of practical reasons vis a vis romantic ideation. I mean, when you suggest Bee Gees to a partner who listens to Rising Appalachia all day is called control then why the hell we need to skirmish or meld our expostulating atoms and sensibility and sensitivity with another human being anyways. Being single seems more plausible and peaceful.

ALL these “what should and what shouldn't be” that we talk about in regards relationships are ideal. It's easier said than done. When partners try and things didn't work out, we'd say, "Ah well, I knew where I did wrong but it's over. " You know. Thing is, as long as we have the humility and surrender to accept that it was a two-way street, that we are not pointing fingers and it's not her and not me--that it's the attempt that didn't work out, then there is hope. There is always hope. Humans aren't robots. We evolve, we learn. We try again. As long as we don't close doors to our heart, it's all good. Emotional maturity isn't easy. Many times rationales and reasons get in the way. But we are elastic, resilient. And it's always fun to be reintroducing truths to a new person. That's the fun of relationship. When it's loose yet serious, freefalling yet calculated. 

No comments:

Post a Comment