Tucson, or bust?

[Kettricken]

I think empathy gets a bit easier when you commit yourself to a course of empathy *without* surrender.

I think that's what I'm doing, by talking with her about her feelings, but doing so with a stated purpose of trying to make this trip "okay" for both of us. Even if she is not "okay" with it, and I end up going, at least I tried to talk with her about it. Is this the "empathy without surrender" you're talking about? If not, some examples would be helpful to me.

Yes, I guess that's pretty much what I meant. "Empathy Without Surrender" is a new concept I just made up, and you want me to give examples? You are making me think ..... actually, thanks!

I guess I was imagining an "Empathy Spectrum" something like this:

1. Refusal to acknowlege the other's feelings as valid, logical, worthwhile, important, etc. Decisions made purely on one's own agenda and desires.

2. Acknowlegement of the other's feelings as valid, logical, worthwhile and important based on their perception of reality, history, coping mechanisms, etc. Decisions made weighing the case on its merits and taking into consideration the needs and desires of *both* parties. Decisions will sometimes favor one's own agenda and other times favor one's mate's agenda.

3. Extreme "fused" empathy with the other's feelings. Acknowlegement of the other's feelings means no decision can be made which would cause those feelings to be discounted or "violated". One's own agenda consistently takes a back seat through unwillingness to see a partner suffer preventable emotional pain, unwillingness to "be the bad guy".

Scenario (1) could be either the result of pure selfishness, or a desperate attempt to avoid (3). If you think your partner's feelings are "crazy" and don't validate them at all, it's easier to proceed with your plans regardless of the pain it may cause them (self-inflicted or not).

I see "empathy without sacrifice" as the "decisions will sometimes favor one's own agenda" variant of (2). Discussing and accepting your mate's objections to any proposed plan as valid and important; "their truth" ... seeking compromise if possible ... but not letting that stop you from doing what you believe to be the right thing *for you*, even if they may suffer some pain/anger/disappoinment as a result. Which is what you are proposing to do.

I am still trying to wrap my head around this myself ... I can look in my past and see instances where I tried to invalidate my husband's emotions or reason him out of feeling them so I wouldn't have to choose between causing him pain and losing myself....