You say it seems like "the one with the upper hand wins,â but who determines that upper hand? If someone is constantly taking a submissive role throughout their life, isnât this more of a personal boundary issue than a matter of work sharing? Sometimes, it seems we need to shine a special light for those who donât want to see.
Someone will shed light on it, but will everyone also accept to look at that light? For example, whenever I say, âWhy didnât you do this?â the answer is often, âBut I didnât notice it.â Is the luxury of not noticing a method when it continuously remains on one side, or is it a habit?
Sometimes not noticing can indeed be real, but if itâs constantly coming from the same person, doesnât it start to look like âchoosing not to seeâ? I mean, we need to question whether thereâs any effort made to notice. If itâs always overlooked, I think we need to talk about where the eye is actually looking.
But beyond not noticing, what will happen in the case of postponing the work even if one does notice it? I mean, doesnât saying âI saw this but Iâll do it laterâ create a similar problem by always putting it off? If the eye sees but does not take action, it seems to turn into something like an invisible burden.
The issue with the âIâll do it laterâ mentality is not just the postponement of tasks, but also how this situation becomes normalized over time. For instance, it leads to a cycle of thinking, âI was going to do it, but you did it instead.â This ultimately gives the person delaying the task an opportunity to evade responsibility once again. So, what should be done in this situation?
When we talk about the normalization of postponement, we also need to consider the part of âwhose perspective it has become bothersome from.â For example, as one person keeps postponing, the threshold for the other lowers further, and at some point, the system adjusts itself to designate one person as the âdoer.â So, doesnât the person who postpones transfer not just the task but also the feeling of annoyance?
Yes, but doesnât the person who takes on that discomfort reinforce the other sideâs comfort in procrastination as they continue to do the work? So the problem may not just be the transfer of burden, but also a lack of showing a âdetermination not to doâ that would disrupt this arrangement. For example, have you ever tried not doing it at all and saying, âSince you were going to do it, why did you procrastinate?â
It often feels like when you stop doing something without actually doing it, you come back with the worry of âwhat will happen to the state of the house.â To show such determination, two things are needed: either the ability to tolerate that chaos for a long time or to completely lose interest in the burdens of getting those things done. Do you think such a scale of ânot doingâ is practically sustainable?
I donât know if itâs sustainable, but everyoneâs threshold for not doing something is different. For example, one person canât stand a salt shaker being moved, while another wonât lift a finger even if thereâs a mountain of dirty dishes. The real issue here might be recognizing the presence of someone who can move comfortably, knowing âwho will blow up first.â The real discussion should be about how that sense of ease can be disrupted.
To break the foundation of comfort, one must first invalidate every moment that the person assumes you will not âexplodeâ. But this also turns into a competition of âwho can endure longer,â and where does this race end? Does one start another war after winning?
If this competition doesnât end, can we say that it has turned into a matter of power balance rather than the burden of the relationship? In other words, is the real solution not so much about who is right but rather understanding why this power struggle began? Where does the motivation to maintain oneâs own comfort come from, and without resolving that motivation, isnât all this âdisturbanceâ effort in vain?
Speaking of comfort zones, why does the issue of âwho needs to solve whatâ always fall on the one carrying more weight? I mean, the one who procrastinates is comfortable, while the one who takes on the burden is doing the work and seeking solutions. In such a system, why should the responsibility of solving even fall on the one who is disturbed? Let the turn to ease go to the other, for a change.
You say âlet it pass, please,â but doesnât waiting for that relief only feed the same cycle? So when you just leave it to âlet him do it now,â he leans on the comfort of thinking âhe wonât be able to handle it anyway.â The real question here is: does the one who is comfortable enjoy the ease of this comfort, or is he truly unaffected by the task not being done? Because if itâs the latter, even if you stress yourself out, he remains unbothered.
Even if one is not affected, is this a completely valid situation? After all, there is a necessity for a shared life; at some point, to ânot be affectedâ is also a preference or an escape, in fact. So, if not being disturbed corresponds to not being involved, shouldnât the responsibility be raised to a broader dimension at that point?
Neglect expands responsibility, but who benefits from this expansion? Ultimately, if the âcomfortableâ person is not going to take a step, the burden seems to fall on the individual who continuously bears that responsibility. Perhaps itâs time to clarify the boundaries of this shared life: Does everyone have to want the same comfort?
Of course, one doesnât have to want the same comfort, but this isnât a matter of âwantingâ; itâs a matter of distributing what is ânecessaryâ. Doesnât the uninterested person still have to do some tasks, even if they donât want to, so that they can maintain a regular shared life? Or should this be reduced to an illogical notion of âlet those who want to do itâ?
What you call âlazinessâ can sometimes be an excuse for avoiding action when one is capable of it. What grounds do they have to ignore even what is ânecessaryâ? Or are they confident that they are passing on the responsibility for the conditions under which the work is not done to the other party, and thatâs why they are at ease?
But the question is whether the one who is comfortable is even âsure that they handed over their responsibility.â Perhaps this started as an unwritten mutual agreement from the beginning, but over time it became a norm for one side and a burden for the other. So, the issue isnât about this state of âbeing sureâ; itâs about how the twisted rules underlying that comfort were established. Would it have been different if we hadnât taken on any burden from the start?
If we hadnât loaded at the start, maybe that rule would never have been established, but at home, things donât get done unless someone does them. The existence of a need is certain; whatâs important is whether the one who does not meet that need is simply comfortable or relying on the convenience of thinking âthereâs someone else to do it.â Because in the latter case, you canât escape from it, neither at the beginning nor at the end.
But not being affected by the work not getting done doesnât mean that need doesnât exist. In other words, saying âI am not affectedâ doesnât erase responsibility. This is communal living; just because you donât want it, cleaning and trash donât solve themselves.