We've come to accept the one who professes "hurt" must always be bowed to. And at first this makes sense. We SHOULD be empathetic to other's pain, suffering, annoyances and irritations and we should try our best to smooth out relations and get along. But this dynamic creates a power imbalance. The one who complains, the one who is slighted is now given control over those they claim slight them. And this power is often abused.
This is the "two way street" part. It's trying not to offend when you speak..but being CHARITABLE when you listen; meaning you interpret the words/actions of someone in the best possible manner, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe he worked hard, had moments of stress and liked the dish by the sink? Shouldn't she just let the little stuff go? The point is... if it's always one sided, always one person not letting it go, or always one person not being empathetic to the condition of others.. it's bound to fail.
The whole "you're not wrong but you're an asshole" can go for the one slighted as much as the one not-intending-to-but-doing-so-anyway slighter.
My biggest problem about the author isn't even the content - but the whole thing is phrased the way it is for clickbait bc he's trying to sell a book.
My point is... relationships are about mutual-ism Mutual-ism that exists without having to keep score.
