Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG
This is an interesting opinion. It is also interesting that the most powerful countries in the world have very strong military forces. This is generally not to protect themselves but to protect their interests and citizens. Think families and children.
I'm not a scholar but have 20 years experience in the concept of protection. It is rarely exercised by the weak but more often practiced by the strong who shield the weak from harm until they are themselves capable of self protection. Think children.
So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.
I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.
I might be misinterpreting your use of the word "protectionism". Can you explain it if that is the case?
What you just mentioned sounds more like isolationism than protectionism.
Perhaps 'weak'ness is not as good a word as 'fearful' in isolationist relationships, but I covered that already. Bullies act out not due to weakness, but due to fear (which is the absence of confidence). So we're back to insecurities, but 'insecure' comes across as an insult even if it describes a situation accurately. How do you communicate that people are demonstrating insecurity without alienating them? How do you negotiate relationship agreements with them? Is it just best not to get involved with people who seem fearful?