No Woman Is an Island: A Good Relationship is Communist

Last time I wrote about . Now I’m going to talk about economic theory. Or more accurately, ideology.

In this era of feminism and equality we all know that a good relationship is 50/50, right? We should meet each other halfway, take equal responsibility, etc. Yes? Umm, no. I’ll give it to you straight: if each partner is only going halfway you are going to have a half-assed relationship.

The idea that a relationship should be 50/50 is a capitalist idea. Each person invests only what they need to maximize their benefits. But a good relationship is not capitalist. A good relationship is communist in its truest sense: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Let’s think about that for a moment. Each person gives all they can and gets all they need. How does that work? Well first we have to recognize that no relationship can be exactly “equal.” We each have a unique combination of abilities and needs. It is quite unlikely that any two people will have exactly the same resources and capacities, and exactly the same needs and desires.

Obviously the person who earns more money should contribute more money to the partnership. And if one partner is physically stronger then that person should pick up more of the heavy objects. The one who is funnier will contribute more humor. So we can’t each contribute exactly equally to the relationship.

But what about needs? Surely we should each get an equal amount from the relationship, right? Wrong. Just to take one obvious example, if one partner is sick and the other takes care of them, then one partner is getting more care. Should the other partner get an equal number of “sick days” to even it out? That is capitalist thinking. In a true partnership, the one who is feeling well takes care of the one who is sick, no matter how many days that is.

Okay, yes, you may be saying to yourself, sure each person’s contribution will be different but somehow it will be “equivalent.” (Good luck doing the math on that, by the way.) But each person should have an equal “say” or an equal share of the decision-making, right? Umm, still nope. If that were the case, then nothing would ever get decided unless the two people agreed from the start. No, the person who cares more about the issue is usually the one who gets to decide, if only because they are more motivated to hold their ground and not give up until the decision goes their way.

So, in a True Partnership, one person may earn more money, do more to take care of the other, and get less say in big decisions? How is that fair? Why would anyone agree to that? Well here is where we bring back Magic. The magic of Love. In a true partnership, you are motivated to take care of your partner and do what will make them most happy because you love them. And you don’t just love them 50%. Or the same amount that they love you. You love them with all your heart. That is why you each give 100% of what you are capable of giving. From each according to their ability.

I have to admit I had some trepidation writing this post. I feel like my husband and I are going through a phase where he is giving much more than I am. I am not sure I am really holding up my end of this bargain. I almost didn’t want him to read this post because he would start to think, “Yeah, this isn’t equal at all!” 

But then I remembered that much of what you each give is intangible and unquantifiable. If one person makes a joke and the other laughs at it, who is “giving” and who is “getting”? How do you measure the value of admiration, appreciation, and respect?

Basically once you have a true partnership, you don’t have to keep measuring your worth and value to the other. You just have to give all you are capable of giving. And you will get what you need. It’s a pretty good system, I think.