Every relationship thrives on a give-and-take principle. You give and I give. You take from me, and I take from you.

A lopsided relationship is one in which one party gives more and more while the other party takes more and more while giving less and less. What this leads to is a change in the dynamics of the relationship

Instead of equal partners with equal stakes in the relationship, the one who gives the most begins to amass stakes in the relationship, which makes him or her indispensable or puts him or her in control of the relationship.

The one in control then begins to dictate the pace of the relationship, while the other party either joyfully participates or grudgingly participates, depending on many factors.

If the one with the least stake invites the other one to an event, he or she may decide not to attend, but if the one with the higher stake invites the one with the lower stake to an event, he or she must attend if he or she does not want to face dire consequences.

The relationship is no longer equal even though it started out as a relationship of equals. Power has moved to the side of the one controlling the purse strings in the relationship.

Every relationship is like this, whether it is between countries, companies, organizations, or individuals.

Many people, however, fail to see the subtle change in the dynamics of the relationship, even though the shift is always obvious.

They insist that they are equals based on the principle of when the relationship began, rather than accept that power had changed hands for a while.

Two people started a company together as partners, with equal stakes in the business

One partner began clubbing and partying while expecting the business to run itself and turn a profit all on its own.

This partner would just withdraw funds from the company accounts, buy anything he wants, and live recklessly.

The other partner ran the business deliberately and ensured that their business was always in the blue

After two years, the clubber was informed by the other partner that he was moving out and starting his own business.

The clubber checked the company’s account and realized the other partner had moved out all his assets and customers and left him with all the liabilities (mostly acquired due to his reckless spending and lack of attention to detail).

He cries foul and orders an audit. After the audit, he found himself in more debt than the partner had left him with initially. He cried that he had been betrayed because, in his estimation, the contract they signed meant they must swim together or sink together.

How come he was sinking alone?

He had underestimated the role of the individual in the success of a partnership. He had allowed an equal stake partnership to become a burden on the other party to the extent that the other partner saw the need to amputate the rotten leg so as not to get infected by its disease.

The same applies in a relationship between neighbors in a community. A developing area would need the cooperation of all the landlords to oversee its quick transformation from a forest to a paradise.

If all the landlords contribute equally and on time to the development of the area, they all get equal say in the decision-making aspect of running the community. However, if one landlord built his house, single-handedly constructed the roads into the community, single-handedly brought in electricity and pipe-borne water, and single-handedly bought the transformers and the streetlights, you cannot blame him if he names the community after himself and gives all the street names to his children and relatives.

You can protest that every landlord ought to have a say, but the moment one person single-handedly provided what everybody ought to do, it became an unequally staked relationship.

When two companies enter into a partnership, the terms and conditions of the agreement between the two companies are clearly spelled out.

For the relationship to work, it has to be a symbiotic arrangement. If, however, one company couldn’t fulfil its end of the agreement while the other could fulfil its own end of the agreement, it becomes a lopsided relationship in which the one with the ability to meet up gains ascendancy over the other.

Terms like carrying a dead weight or cutting off a barren branch become popular in the boardroom deliberations.

The same applies in a relationship between people.

In recent times, the term “what are you bringing to the table? Has become popular among those who are of below average and average economic class in Nigeria.”

This question is usually addressed to females with intentions to go into a relationship or marriage with a man who himself is struggling to make ends meet.

The man knows he is not earning much and may not be able to meet the needs of a woman based on his meagre income, hence the question.

What he is implying is that since he cannot meet the needs of a family all by himself and he desires to be married, the woman he would get married to must also be able to bring in some economic advantage into the relationship so that they can both combine resources to raise a family.

(Financially successful men do not need a woman to bring anything into a relationship except herself and her commitment, dedication, loyalty, submission, and values of beauty and class that will add elegance to their wealth.)

In a relationship in which both the man and woman are putting their resources together to start and run a family, it is foolish for the man to expect the woman to do all the house chores (because of her gender) while they end up contributing only half of the bill in order to keep the home running.

If it is a, what are you bringing into the table type of relationship, both parties must faithfully share all chores and duties in unison for the success of the marriage.

The same does not apply in a relationship where the lady is not expected to bring anything but herself to the relationship. She will be required to provide acts of service as her contribution to the relationship so that she can successfully fulfill her role in the relationship.

Acts of service here would require that she pay careful attention to her husband’s needs and patiently apply herself to meeting these needs to make life easy for him.

As long as she is doing this as expected, her stake in the relationship is a balanced half, and they will have a good marriage.

If, however, she fails to do this and her husband begins to meet such needs elsewhere, she will find herself sitting on a keg of gunpowder on a raging sea in no time.

I have seen struggling men acting as if they are in a traditional marriage by requiring their wives to meet traditional needs while carrying fifty percent of the financial burden of the family or more.

She can’t be paying bills and still plays a traditional wifey role. It will make the relationship a lopsided one.

I have also seen a wife married into a traditional role acting as if she were married into a “what do you bring to the table” type of marriage.

This was what destroyed Vashti in the marriage between her and King Ahasuerus.

If you understand the relationship and its dynamics, you should be able to know your role and play it without any struggle.

Finally, you are as good as the value you bring into any relationship.

Once you no longer have any value to bring or the value you bring can easily be provided by another, the relationship’s sustainability becomes questionable.

Every entity or individual in a relationship must strive to improve themselves so that the value they bring into the relationship will not be obsolete or irrelevant.

Women, for this reason, insist on having children in marriages (Children are values that can never become outdated or irrelevant in a marriage).

 

PS: Wise people always try as much as possible not to be in anyone’s debt in the name of receiving gifts or handouts disguised as gifts from their equals.

They know that relationships are sacred while loyalties are for sale.

There is, however, a thin line between relationship and loyalty. Sometimes, one can’t tell one apart from the other.

The key to knowing the difference is to ensure that a relationship is kept on an even keel between two entities.

Once a relationship becomes lopsided, loyalties will become divided.

Always remember this.