What drives me nuts isn't asking John - clearly, concisely, with apparent understanding & agreement from him - to do something, only to have it go undone. It's that he gets so WOUNDED at the possibility he doesn't listen to me. What gets under my skin is having to experience the outcome AND him being aggrieved at the possibility he'd tuned me out.
What drives me nuts isn't the subsequent feelings of hurt & (admittedly) often irrational irritation over being thus majorly blown off. It's when he tells me, after hearing how that is so frustrating because he can never change what he never owns, "Don't feel that way." Don't feel distressed because you're often ignored & then I refuse to see the consistent dynamic underneath the ignoring - just don't feel that way. The way I experience it - or, as Brene Brown would say, the story I make around that particular response - is him saying, "I don't want to deal with the exasperation & hurt you feel over my inability to ponder the why behind my actions, dooming you to having to go over it over & over & over because you can't change what you can't see, so please stop feeling that way." My story is that his "concern" harks back to him, not to feelings of regret over my response.
What drives me nuts is when John can see that we have a problem rooted in something he does, then expects me to come up with his solution. First off, he inability to step back to look at the why behind stuff he does isn't my issue - if it's anybodies', it's his. And if it's not his - it sure feels like it's not - then it isn't anyone's. Look around our house - how many books are there are personal family community dynamics? Dozens. Because knowing my why or other's potential whys has been important to me for all of my life. It's just not important to John. I get that. Different strokes... But it drives me nuts when he insists it is, insists he's emotionally invested in figuring out motivations when what I see is someone who doesn't want to be inflicted with my drama, but even more doesn't want to be inconvenienced. I get that. Thus it has always been, from our earliest days. I got it, telling him over 25 years ago that he'd do ANYTHING for me - as long as it was convenient. I'd now add, as long as it didn't put him out, didn't discomfort or make him feel icky.
Once again, praise be for Kevyn Malloy, who explained to us over ten years ago that a major problem women have with me is when the guys SEEM to be listening to us, when they reinforce back to us that they've heard & processed & understand something we're asking of them - except they really haven't. Then they feel blind-sided confronted with a distressed female spouting off frustration over it not being done. It's a guy thing - I get that. But John refuses to even go there. Which means I get to experience the same scenario in a different guise over & over & over.
For years, John's asked me for suggestions on ways to improve the situation. As mentioned earlier, I usually don't, because what's a good method for me could fall flat for him.
When we sent to see Kim Vargas, I did all the talking, while he sat there. Shouldn't have been unexpected - he has no curiosity about the roots of his aaarrrgggghhhh behaviors. He went. Engage? Participate? Gain any insights that he could remember & work on? Nope.
When I gave him a book that had been unusually helpful to me, that considered personal dynamics in the context of other relationships - partner family community - he didn't make a serious effort to actually read it. Gave it to him over three weeks ago; he's read less than 20 pages. He wants ME to make him a reading schedule, to butt heads & badger him into doing it.
Again, I get that's very much a guy response. I get that makes sense to & works for him. My reality is that it not only doesn't work for me, it goes to the heart of what doesn't work for me. Being able to step back & take a stab at my own motivations has been second nature to me since forever. It's hard,when something comes so naturally, to get my head around others not being able to do the same.
It's not that John WON'T look at root causes of hurtful stuff he does - he can't. It's not in him. That doesn't drive me nuts. But it seems to me he can at least stop doing a few things that twist the knife - stop insisting he does listen to me when he clearly tunes me out, stop insisting I not feel crunched up inside when that happens. Those two things, which he also can't change, are what drive me nuts. It seems so simple - stop doing justifying goofs - and it so isn't for him. Which is what really drives me nuts - not being able to totally slam him for not doing things which just aren't in him to do.
Am I being confusing enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment