I adapted. That does not mean it was good for me.

I have adapted to many things. To complicated people, to decorative promises, to discussions in which the answer was difficult to come by and did not, in fact, answer anything. With enough exercise, you end up functioning almost normally in a place that doesn't suit you.

From here, a very convenient confusion arises: if I resist, it means that I am evolving. Not necessarily. Sometimes I just learn better what not to say, when not to ask and how to avoid the next unpleasant situation. I am more skilled, but not necessarily freer.

Adaptation has its purpose. I cannot ask every team, relationship or situation to be organized according to my preferences. Some difficulties force me to learn something useful. Others consume my attention just so I can stay put. The difference cannot be seen from the heroic statement "I can handle it".

I look at what remains after the effort. Did we understand something, did we gain a skill, do we work better together? Or have I become very efficient at hiding my displeasure? If all the progress consists in the fact that I am less bothered by what I previously considered unacceptable, I would check exactly what has improved.

Not every hard time requires leaving. There is difficult work that is worth it and relationships in which a bad stage is crossed together. But even resistance is not worth using as a universal argument to continue.

"I can handle it" says something about my ability. "Do I still want to keep doing this?" is another question. For a long time I treated them as if they were the same.