Sure, so long as you make it clear that my comment was in response to that one highlighted paragraph, not the article as a whole, which I completely agree with.
That one paragraph is kind of an off note to the general theme. Ossiana chose not to engage, which is fine and completely her right, but that meant the thought kind of got left hanging.
The thought was this. I get what she’s saying about creating safe space for our partners to be authentic and be vulnerable. Totally on board with that. It’s necessary in order to have a healthy relationship.
But.
When that need manifests as "becoming someone’s peace", well now we’re in problematic territory. Maybe it’s semantics. Maybe it just wasn’t the best word choice. Depends on what is meant, exactly.
When you’re expected to BE someone’s peace rather than you choosing to keep peace for someone, we’re not in the same place. It’s not sustainable long term. Despite how romance movies and stuff have conditioned us, this isn’t how to have a healthy relationship. We can’t look to our partners to complete us in any way. We need to look for partners who respect, love, and cherish our completeness and want to share their completeness with us.
It’s a fine line going from one to the other. One works. The other doesn’t.
But sure, feel free to use my comment so long as you represent me fairly.
Also, I don’t know if I qualify as a progressive. I’m for most progressive policies, it’s true; but as an American, my country is facing a fascist uprising. So yeah, I’m like "we need a new FDR. Stat."
But I don’t tend to think of myself as a "progressive". I tend to think of myself as a small L liberal and a small L libertarian (which I have capitalized the letter here to make it clear that was an L and not a capital I, and just to confuse things. Lol).
Tag me when you get it done so I can read it. Perchance I shall write a rebuttal. Muahahahaha.
If you want more detail on my perspective on this, I wrote about it a ways back inside a broader article.
https://link.medium.com/l4bpj8Kkdyb
