DH is somewhat bitter about it. As much as I try to point out that he was able to make it on his own (and should be proud of that) plus he's better off as a mustachian for it, he's still miffed that his parents favored his sister. It not because of the money but the inequality. It says to him that he is less important and he's never forgotten that. It doesn't help that my in laws stupidly made comparisons to his sister's husband who was making more money while DH was young, getting his start on his career and wasn't making as much. And then finding out during that same time that his parents were supporting SIL with EOC, on top of the money her husband brought in. They were pretty unkind about that at times so personally I think they are pretty fortunate that their son is even talking to them.
Please tell DH that I understand. All of the EOC to my sister over the years and now my mom asks *me* for money every month. I send her $100/month but my sister who LIVES with her pays nothing in rent or utilities. It is not at all that I need the money but sometimes the unequal treatment is painful and hard to take.
One of my pet peeves is when someone takes to me in order to give to someone else... I call them "redistributors" and it's especially annoying when the recipients of their largesse are fully capable of handling their own expenses or who are living at a higher standard of living than me. I have a few such individuals in my family and I've had to really limit contact with them.
It's hard to deal with a redistributor for three reasons. First, their ability to consume is infinite. They're not limited by time, space, or opportunity because they can and do hand resources out to anyone who crosses their path. Now, the human ability to
produce resources such as money, material assets, and other forms of wealth is finite simply because there are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. The same goes for his or her ability to consume. The ultra-rich, or the FIRE, discover that there's a level of consumption beyond which they cannot easily spend. Even if they do not use their own time or labor to generate wealth anymore, there are still only 24 hours in a day. So, there are only so many meals that can be eaten, only so many trips that can be taken, and only so many garments that can be worn. It makes little sense to own stuff you can't or don't use, so ultimately there's an upper limit to human consumption. That, of course, cannot be said of a redistributor because his or her ability to
consume resources isn't limited by time and space, because he or she makes use of other people's time in a perverse kind of reverse delegation. There's the giver (you) whose role is to generate resources and give to the redistributor. There's the redistributor, who turns around and redistributes whatever he or she is given and then returns to the giver with his or her hand out, saying "I need. I don't have. Somebody took. Somebody stole. Somebody borrowed and didn't return. This happened. That happened." The story is generally pretty convincing, so the giver bails out the redistributor time and again. This is emotionally hard on the giver, which is the second reason why it's hard to interact with a redistributor.
The third reason it's hard to interact with a redistributor is that, in any community shared between the giver and the redistributor, the giver's name ends up being trashed. Why is this? Well, on the other side of the redistributor is what I call the entourage: a group of people who are either mooching hard off the redistributor or engaging in what they think is a normal interdependent reciprocal relationship, except that the resources the redistributor uses to maintain the relationship don't come from the redistributor but from the giver. This is a fact the redistributor conceals. To cultivate his or her relationship with the entourage, and to justify the vulture-like way in which the entourage competes to see who can rip off the biggest piece of flesh, the redistributor makes sure to depict the giver as an extremely wealthy person who doesn't notice or doesn't mind the endless extravagance (when in reality the giver is doing his or her utmost to stop the bleeding) or as an extremely bad person who deserves the financial abuse. When the giver meets the entourage, it's usually unpleasant because the entourage goes into flying monkey mode and rebukes the giver for not giving more, for cruelly mistreating the redistributor, or for turning off the tap. The entourage very seldom actually gets to know the giver-- they don't enjoy the cognitive dissonance that comes from learning that they have been complicit in deliberate financial abuse of the giver, that they've been directing their gratitude to the wrong person, and that the person who deserves their gratitude and friendship is one they've been taught to hate.
A redistributor can spoil things, give them away, allow them to be stolen, waste them, sell them for pennies on the dollar, or otherwise burn through resources with superhuman abandon. It's because even though their time isn't generally impinged upon by the exigencies of a full-time job or other resource-generating work, they aren't using just
their time to consume the giver's resources. They're using their time, their relatives' time, their friends' time, and on and on. If you have to support a redistributor, you find out pretty quickly that you're not just supporting them. You're supporting them, plus a needy entourage.
The individuals in the entourage can be a mixed bag. Some are completely dependent on the redistributor because they're feeding an addiction or some other financial rabbit hole. Others are relatively normal people who think that they and the redistributor have a normal reciprocating relationship in which they take turns borrowing clothing, paying for lunch, and buying each other treats or gifts. They are generally unaware that the money the redistributor spends on them has been gouged out of somebody else, or that the gifts they receive or are loaned put the redistributor in a bind so that the redistributor has "no choice" except to come back to the giver and ask for more. A few are deliberately using the redistributor to gain access to the giver's resources. They know the giver "has money" or "has a good job", and they know the giver has been willing to share resources with the redistributor in the past, so they pressure the redistributor to "get money out of" the giver for the entourage's use. They also pressure the redistributor to allow them access to the giver's other resources such as a home, a vehicle, or personal effects. The redistributor consistently caves to the pressure, but knows from experience that the giver cannot or will not subsidize the member of the entourage. So, the redistributor gives his or her own resources, and ends up short, creating distress or even an emergency so that the giver has no choice but to step in and relieve the redistributor's distress. Then the cycle begins again.
Most of the time, the redistributor's gifts to the entourage are outside the giver's view. The giver often does not have a relationship, and definitely does not have a reciprocating give-and-receive exchange, with the members of the entourage. This does two things. First, it's the reciprocator who gets credit from the gift and who builds social capital. When someone in the entourage reciprocates, the gift, treat, or debt repayment is made
to the redistributor, not to the giver. The giver doesn't get any return whatsoever on his or her investment and is frequently cut out of the society created by the redistributor and the entourage. The redistributor and the entourage can have a very good time on the giver's dime, and a very good time when someone in the entourage has something to share, but guess who never gets invited to the party? The giver. This is part of the redistributor's game. By making sure that the giver "can't come" (more frequently, the invitation is not passed on), the redistributor makes sure he or she can play the giver and the entourage off against each other. He or she exaggerates the extent to which people in the entourage steal, borrow, or otherwise deprive him or her of assets, and conceals the extent to which the redistributor initiates the transaction. This lets him or her get more out of the giver. Meanwhile, he or she conceals the giver's role in the support provided to the entourage. This stimulates reciprocity in members of the entourage that are inclined to it, but the reciprocity only extends as far as the redistributor.
From a giver's perspective, being used that way is a form of financial and social abuse. It sucks monkey balls.
Topic: Relatives who just don't get it (Read 3631754 times)
