[HN Gopher] A dirty dish by the sink can be a big marriage problem ___________________________________________________________________ A dirty dish by the sink can be a big marriage problem Author : wiihack Score : 361 points Date : 2022-04-12 10:13 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com) | zcw100 wrote: | My wife gave me a huge ration of shit the first year of our | marriage for leaving a coffee mug in the sink and not putting it | in the dishwasher then spent the next 10 years leaving dishes all | over the house. It still pisses me off every single f-ing time I | see one. | incomingpain wrote: | >My wife gave me a huge ration of shit the first year of our | marriage for leaving a coffee mug in the sink and not putting | it in the dishwasher then spent the next 10 years leaving | dishes all over the house. It still pisses me off every single | f-ing time I see one. | | My wife in our last home the day we moved in. I threw a shirt | on top of our bed. 100% it was on the bed. Some point after it | managed to hit the ground. Totally wasn't me. She brings me to | the shirt on the ground and says that since I didn't care I | cant ever complain if she does it. You can expect that my side | of the bedroom is neat and orderly and well... | | So in the process of buying our current home. She explains that | she needs a new start. That our previous home didnt feel like a | home and so keeping things clean will be done at the new house. | Do you expect there was any change? | | Flipside, I never ever criticized or anything along those | lines. Never said a word. I'm not perfect and I don't expect | flawed me will ever get a perfect spouse. Shit will go wrong. | No reason to ever get pissed off or even criticize. | jrm4 wrote: | I'd suppose the thing I'd warn here: Remember that, by | definition, this article was written by a failure -- meaning that | the likelihood that they fully understand the situation even now | is still pretty low; especially since they're still likely in a | sense seeking validation by writing the article. | | Ideally, you'd like to hear from a success. And at the risk being | the horn-tooter, (married for 15+ years), when I read this I'm | like "sigh, okay, where to begin..." | | (As in, I can't even respond to it directly; I'd have to be like, | "no, ask me a precise question and I'll see if I can answer it to | the best of my ability.) | captaincaveman wrote: | hmmm marriages fail after 15 years too, at what point do you | declare success? | axilmar wrote: | The problem in the case mentioned in the article was not with the | writer that left the glass by the sink, it's with the other | person that was bothered with something so minor...usually these | minor things are excuses that cover deeper problems. | | Above all, marriage is a series of compromises: you give up | something for something else. You can't have it all. | | Personally, I put up with my wife's problematic-for-me but not- | for-her small habits, because we have a family and the well being | of us and our children is priority. Loving the other person | includes giving them room to breath, and chasing them after their | small habits is suffocating... | commandlinefan wrote: | Yeah, if he had put his glass away, she would have found | something else to be "upset" about. | jugg1es wrote: | Isn't that what the author is saying? The deeper problem was | that the wife felt that the authors' inability to do something | so simple for her sake was indicative of disrespect. Not | acknowledging that your partner is worth a couple seconds of | consideration is a pretty deep problem. The author probably | demonstrated this disrespect in multiple ways, but the glass by | the sink is a succinct way of summarizing the whole problem. | thisNeeds2BeSad wrote: | There are examples though, were this death by a thousand pin- | pricks is a attempt at "takeover" aka expecting to be in | control of everything your partner does and using emotional | blackmail should he not retreat at once. | | At the end of this, you become a stranger in your own life, | programmed into the small details by somebody else, who then | leaves you because you are "boring and predictable". | mistrial9 wrote: | for some relationships, this is a signal of animal dominance | basically.. "do it my way, because I say so" happens every | day | bachmeier wrote: | To be completely honest, I got the point, but I don't think | this is good writing. Did anyone learn anything from the | article? Probably not. Did anyone do any deeper thinking | because of the article? Probably not. | igetspam wrote: | I did some reflection. I agree it's not a great article but | I read it and did a self assessment. I don't ever want my | marriage to end and people sharing their failures gives me | another thing to consider, in hopes that I can avoid a | similar outcome. | igetspam wrote: | It seems as though people are focusing on the hook and not | the core argument. The author clearly states his marriage | failed from "death by a thousand papercuts" and this glass- | by-the-sink is an example of not understanding their spouse. | bena wrote: | It's because the hook is a real bad example. He's not | entirely in the wrong on that one. While I will trust his | judgment that there were other problems and that he was in | the wrong in those, the glass was one where she should have | given in. | vxNsr wrote: | Friend, the point of it being a "small" issue is that no | one will ever be entirely wrong or right. Any issue that | someone brings up will be viewed as trivial by many ppl, | the point is to respect your partner enough to find a way | to compromise. | | Sometimes compromising requires thinking far outside the | box. For example, buy this guy a in-home water bottle | that he alone is responsible for cleaning. Give it a | permanent place in a cupboard. Boom boom everyone | compromised and showed the other one "I care about your | needs" | xboxnolifes wrote: | > the glass was one where she should have given in | | Why is that the case? | bena wrote: | It's mostly an aesthetic choice. The only benefit of the | glass being in the dishwasher instead of by the sink is | that "it looks nicer to her". There's no real harm being | done and it does not affect her in the slightest. And | there's a real deep, dark, ugly rabbit hole to go down if | one wants to suggest that it affects and harms her by | "being unsightly". | | The more I think about it, the more I think the author is | trying to be deep by being shallow. Taking something we | consider mundane and transforming it into a grand life | lesson. Creating a parable. The problem is that he chose | something that doesn't work. I, for one, will not be | buying his book. | elliekelly wrote: | I'm shocked by how many people in this thread have been | completely derailed thinking the literal glass is the issue | rather than being _symbolic_ of the issue. I always hated | how much teachers would drill symbolism and literary device | analysis into you in school but then I come across threads | like this I wonder whether we aren't focusing on it enough. | zarzavat wrote: | That depends whether you think leaving a glass by the | sink is a cut at all. | | In that case there's two options: | | 1. The author is not mentioning more consequential | problems that happened in their marriage, or doesn't know | the real reason their marriage ended. | | 2. There _were_ no more consequential problems and the | author is blaming themselves for what seems like an | unreasonable spouse. | gizmo686 wrote: | The water cup example isn't symbolic, it is prototypical. | That is to say, it is meant to be a representative | example of the a metaphorical paper cut. | | People in this thread are latching on to it for the same | reason the author used it; it is not clear how else to | talk about the larger issue. | | Different interepratations of the prototypical example | leads to different interperatations of the larger issue. | | If you must use examples to communicate your point, the | normal solution to this is to use many different | examples. | trgn wrote: | We were replying at the same time and crossposted. You | said it better. As a reader, I would have loved to have | more examples. | igetspam wrote: | Agreed but the point is made more than once and in plain | terms that the glass was not the problem it was an | indication of a behavioral issue that went unrecognized | until it was too late for self reflection to make a | difference. | | It's not a great article in the surface but the message | has merit. | elliekelly wrote: | > The water cup example isn't symbolic, it is | prototypical. | | Thank you! I knew there had to be a better word to | describe it but all I could think of was "exemplary" and | that didn't feel quite right. | trgn wrote: | Great comment. | | > I always hated how much teachers would drill symbolism | and literary device analysis into you in school but then | I come across threads like this I wonder whether we | aren't focusing on it enough. | | I feel, the inability to treat the glass solely as a | symbol, is more related to the form of writing. | | This sort of confessional writing, it does not tolerate | symbolism well because the author is also the | protagonist. The symbolism of the glass, in this article, | it's more of a protective screen. The author explicitly | writes the glass wasn't really the issue, but then we | never actually learn about all these other things that | were the real issue. Like, dedicate some paragraphs to it | dude, don't leave us hanging! In the writing, he's a | kindly, oblivious man. We get hints that he wasn't. | Disrespect, what's that exactly, that can be downright | cruel, where on the spectrum are we here? Beyond the | glass, honestly, there's nothing. Like, was he rolling | his eyes when she was talking to her. "communication | issues", what's that, did they share meals in silence, or | where they fighting like cats and dogs, but then making | tender love to make up, what's going on?!?! Tell me. The | glass really is the thing here. (Maybe his book has more, | I don't know). For all intents and purposes, yeah, it was | the glass. The reader can only understand their divorce | in vague generalities, and since we get nothing more than | the glass, it feels more like a distraction. Also, like | come on, we need to hear from his ex-wife! | | Symbolism in fiction, functions more like an anchor, | around which the mind can wander, which invites us to | contemplate. And we can, because, honestly, right or | wrong, it doesn't matter. There's less of this need to | get it right, make sense of it. The motives of the author | are just less important, a reader has less of this | curiosity or nosyness, in the sense, that we're tickled | to take a peek behind the curtain. | | I think, if the article were written as fiction, say a | short-story, that glass would be great symbolism, and | there would be less this need to come up with solutions, | or try to pinpoint who was right and wrong, ... But in | that article, I don't know, it feels more like a dodge. | didgeoridoo wrote: | Exactly. I am on the other side of this in my marriage -- my | wife leaves her water glass out (sometimes for days) because | she "might want to use it again". It bothered me, so I put it | in the dishwasher. She didn't like that, so I stopped doing it. | And I got over the fact that there are sometimes six or seven | half-full glasses around the house at any time, because I am | not a petty psychotic who would take something so trivial to be | representative of how my wife does or doesn't respect me. Good | lord. | giantg2 wrote: | My wife put some water in the microwave for tea and left the | room. When it was done, I put the tea ball in it and set the | timer for her. Thinking that she would be back in the room in | a few minutes and the timer would let her know it was ready. | | Instead of thank you for starting her tea, I was told I was | "too controlling". Ok... I guess I won't do nice random | things like start your tea from now on. | pdimitar wrote: | Don't take this the wrong way but after reading several of | your comments in this thread, it does seem that you should | be leaving her. | | That, or start communicating about what makes her get angry | over stuff like this; what makes her feel ignored or under- | appreciated that she bursts when you make a nice and very | cute gesture for her. | | My wife kisses me when she forgets about her tea and I do | it for her. EVERY TIME, no exceptions, she kisses me and | thanks me. | | IMO either start chatting with her to pinpoint the issue | and work on it, or move on. You don't deserve such an | atmosphere, man. You deserve happiness. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | That is lovely...very healthy. The most important words | in a relationship are: 'thank you' and 'sorry'...and they | should be heartfelt and mentioned appropriately. | pdimitar wrote: | Agreed with every word. Being genuinely appreciative and | expressing it -- "thank you" -- and recognizing if you're | being petty or stubborn and expressing it -- "sorry" -- | really did wonders for my relationship. Somewhere at the | ~7 year mark it started getting even better than it was | before that. | xorcist wrote: | Acting as if the tea was the core of the problem here is a | sure way to get nowhere. | giantg2 wrote: | What do you mean? | NateEag wrote: | It sounds to me like your wife's reaction was not | actually about the tea. | | If she described that as "too controlling", that likely | indicates she perceives you as too controlling overall. | | Regardless of the truth of her perceptions, they're all | she has to go on in life, so it's her _perceptions_ that | matter, _not_ the "objective truth" of whether you're | controlling. | | I don't know you or your wife at all - my analysis could | be way off in a lot of ways. | | Whatever the issue here is, though, it's not the tea | itself. There is some negative perception or idea she has | that you triggered when you helped make her tea. I | strongly recommend you try to figure out what's beneath | the surface there. It could be rooted in your behaviors, | or it might go back to how other people in her life have | treated her, or some combination. It could be that she's | a flaming control freak who can't stand anyone doing | anything that seems to her like a threat to her agency. I | don't have enough context to have much of a clue. | | Writing it off with "Okay, not gonna do that again" | internally was a dangerous pattern for me - it led me to | ignore issues for years instead of trying to deal with | them head-on. | | Warning: For me, dealing with these issues head-on was a | painful, difficult road littered with ugly realizations | about both myself and my spouse. Dealing with the pain | and issues now beats waiting until they're worse down the | road, though. | | I found Marshall Rosenberg's _Nonviolent Communication_ | extremely helpful in learning to dig into what 's under | the surface of incidents like this one: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication | nvusuvu wrote: | I have the book open on my desk right now. I really wish | I could have read it sooner in my marriage, like before | my marriage. Would have made for a lot less bumpy road. | But we are in a better place now, almost 20 years later! | :) | nvusuvu wrote: | Its not just the tea. She's got needs that aren't being | met. Best advice is to reflect back what she has said to | try to understand what needs of hers aren't being met." | Perhaps to your wife you could say the following 'Are you | feeling angry because you have the need for more say in | our relationship? | xorcist wrote: | A nice person making tea for you is never a problem for | anyone. | giantg2 wrote: | That was my impression too | nvusuvu wrote: | Marshall Rosenberg said ' Anger is the tragic expression | of an unmet need.' | atq2119 wrote: | Just brainstorming here, but perhaps it was tea that she | wanted to prepare herself, and the problem may have been | that you "muscled your way into" a course of action that | she wanted to be hers. | | Your analysis of the situation is problematic when you | write: "I guess I won't do nice random things _like start | your tea from now on_. " It was _your wife_ who started the | tea-making process, not you. To somebody who already feels | sore about this kind of thing, it may feel as if you 're | taking credit for her action. | | Of course, normal people in a normal situation don't react | in the way that your wife did. As others pointed out, there | are almost certainly more issues in your relationship and | your wife likely reacted this way because your behavior fit | into a larger pattern that she is unhappy with. | | Also please note, you absolutely cannot draw the conclusion | that she doesn't want you to do nice things for her in | general. | giantg2 wrote: | I asked her for more info, but she couldn't elaborate. I | don't think it was about her wanting to put the tea ball | in (the tea was already in the ball from my cup, and she | could put in how much honey or sugar she wanted when it | was ready). | | The conclusion was mistated. I meant I just won't make | her tea unless she asks. If it make her made and she | can't tell me why, then I'm just going to avoid that | situation. | metadat wrote: | I'm not going to give you specific advice, as that would be | controlling (tongue in cheek / bad joke, sorry), and you | also haven't specifically requested any. However I do feel | compelled to share some of my own experience. | | In my last LT relationship, I was accused being controlling | and the relationship was totally, impossibly screwed. This | is a very serious accusation, and they were interpreting | attempts to be genuinely nice as "controlling". I am | actually pretty flexible and easy going, but no matter what | I did or changed, there was always some other new way in | which I was "being emotionally abusive". | | I'm now in a new relationship, and a few times I've pre- | emptively apologized to my partner about similar actions, | because I was concerned about them being interpreted as | controlling. I was floored when she responded with | indifference, saying she always appreciates my efforts and | that I don't need to worry. | | Having a partner who "gets you" and appreciates what you | try to do for them has been earth shatteringly beautiful in | my life. Empathy unlocks the best parts of life and the | human experience. I know I'm extremely fortunate to have | eventually gotten to where I am, and couldn't be happier | with her. Soon I should probably ask if she'll marry me, | advice on this would be welcome :) we are 9 months in, see | each other every day and never fight, it's always | collaborative. | | Anyhow, the conclusion is: | | It's always a good idea to ask many questions if you're | being told you are wrong a lot, in any relationship | (private life as well as work life). Sometimes the real | issue may turn out to have nothing to do with you, after | all. | em-bee wrote: | did you talk about it afterwards? being "too controlling" | is a very serious accusation and points to something | deeper. don't just dismiss her complaint but try to | understand it. also try to explain to her in what spirit | you made the tee for her. | | you think you were doing a random nice thing, she felt you | are controlling, so clearly she didn't feel you did | something nice to her. | | this makes me think about the book "the five love | languages". | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages | | the idea is that we each have different ways in which we | express and perceive love. so for you random acts of | kindness are one way, but your wife may not be aware of | that. i'd talk to her about that. maybe read the book | together or at least talk about the different ways to show | love and what you each prefer. | giantg2 wrote: | "did you talk about it afterwards?" | | I tried. She simply said it was controlling and couldn't | explain it further. | all2 wrote: | Take the signal from this thread, there are deeper issues | at play. | The-Bus wrote: | Plus, they protect you in the eventuality of an alien attack. | Make sure you keep a bat around too. | NhanH wrote: | I missed the joke. Which movie is this? | [deleted] | BoppreH wrote: | Signs (2002). | ceejayoz wrote: | I still want an explanation as to how the aliens in that | movie managed to miss that 70% of the planet is covered by | a deadly poison, and that it literally falls from the sky | in most places. | [deleted] | Jiro wrote: | There's the theory that the aliens are really demons and | it's not water they're vulnerable to, but _holy water_. | ceejayoz wrote: | A kid is filling cups with tap water to drink. | | At what point is a priest blessing them all? | BoppreH wrote: | The main character is a former priest. I don't remember | any explicit blessings, but maybe being in a (ex-)priests | house is enough. Or they were blessed when the | protagonist found his faith again. | | Or it was the daughter, who was constantly referred to as | "angel". | brewdad wrote: | My in-laws had their house blessed by their priest | shortly after moving in. They do the same with their | cars. Perhaps a house, properly blessed, provides the | necessary protection? | snapcaster wrote: | Because it was _holy_ water that damaged them because | they are demons not aliens in the movie. There is | actually no scene in that movie of a spaceship or | anything that indicates it's aliens | ceejayoz wrote: | There's no scene of a priest blessing cups of a kid's | drinking water, either. | scoutt wrote: | I'm pretty sure there was lights above in the sky at some | point. And there is also the bird that hit an (allegedly) | invisible alien ship. | KineticLensman wrote: | > Plus, they protect you in the eventuality of an alien | attack. | | Except when the aliens are ransacking Earth for its water. | See the documentaries V [0] and Battle: Los Angeles [1] for | more on this. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(1983_miniseries) | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle:_Los_Angeles | kingcharles wrote: | And Oblivion: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblivion_(2013_film) | dr_dshiv wrote: | Sounds like a dream... | [deleted] | xtracto wrote: | I am not so sure. In my case, my wife is the "messy" one: Opens | a can and leaves the lid in the kitchen table, leaves used | clothes all around the bedroom and bathroom, etc. We've been | married for 14 years, and the first years it was a constant | struggle for me to _try_ to change her behaviour. We even have | gotten to the point of raising the divorce card in discussions | related to this. | | But, fast forward to today, I learned not to care. I learned | that the decision is easy: Either I accept that she is like | that, or I get out of the door. I am free to go whenever I want | (as we don't have kids), and after meditating over that choice | I've realized that those "bad" things don't really matter. | After accepting that, I became happier and less "confrontative" | with her. | globular-toast wrote: | That's because you love her. The author's wife did not love | him. | 88913527 wrote: | Sorry to be solutioning here, and I'd imagine you've already | tried this after 14 years, but sometimes changing habits can | be solved with things like buying an extra laundry basket. | It's seems like a small thing, but these adjustments can | provide the accessibility that make it simpler to meet in the | middle. In the kitchen, we keep a mini-waste bin on our | countertop for used coffee grinds. It works for us. | hallway_monitor wrote: | Exactly. Although GP's solution of learning to live with | this particular habit is great and necessary, changing the | environment is almost always necessary to change behavior. | Always look so see what simple change will encourage the | behavior you want. | brimble wrote: | 1000% this, it's my default solution for most things. I | always make sure "change the environment" can't work before | I go to "change behavior" (mine or others') | | Trash accumulating somewhere? That spot needs a trash can. | | Clothes? That spot needs a hamper/basket. | | Spot in the yard keeps getting messed up due to walking or | cars going off the driveway there? Put down some stone. | | Behavior modification (for some sorts of things, anyway) | should be a last resort because it probably won't work, and | requires ongoing effort. Fix the environment, and it's | done. | bee_rider wrote: | Mostly agree, although: | | > it's with the other person that was bothered with something | so minor...usually these minor things are excuses that cover | deeper problems. | | seems to point the blame at the other person. Really the | marriage was probably screwed for nebulous confusing reasons, | they both could feel it without really being able to express it | coherently, so they fought proxy battles over dishes and other | chores. | trelane wrote: | It's interesting to contrast this divorce story in The Atlantic | with another: | https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/12/divorce-p... | weakfish wrote: | That story felt... obnoxious. It seemed like the woman in the | story destroyed her life and her kids for a sense of novelty, | instead of working with her husband to fix the problems she | felt in her own emotional space. | fareesh wrote: | Dishwashers have not really caught on in India. I wash my plate | or glass in the sink immediately when I'm done. I've done this | for my entire life and I find it strange that people postpone it | for later. Why would you? | frontman1988 wrote: | Maids are cheaper than dishwashers in India. | acuozzo wrote: | 1. It's far easier to populate a dishwasher after feeding e.g. | a family of four than it is to immediately wash all of the | utensils, dishes, bowls, pots, and pans. This task is usually | delegated to one member of a household in the US. | | 2. "Contrary to popular belief, the dishwasher is designed to | be more efficient than the way most of us handwash dishes. | According to Energy Star, certified dishwashers use less than | four gallons per cycle. The sink uses four gallons of water | every two minutes. But just how many dishes do you need to make | the dishwasher a more water efficient choice? In a recent | study, Cascade found that the average person spends 15 seconds | handwashing a dish. In that time, the sink uses half a gallon | of water. That's why running your dishwasher with as few as | eight dishes is all it takes to save water." | charles_f wrote: | Laterally relevant, I once left a company for this exact reason. | Tons of little things making life impossible - no way to push for | your ideas, admin BS for no good reason, CEO wanting to be Steve | J a bit too much, meetings at 8:30AM (with multiple kids, it's a | challenge), a few bad apples, pixel-perfectness, etc. All stuff | that, one by one wouldn't matter, but overall made my grind my | teeth sufficiently for me to leave. It was very hard for me to | explain well _why_ I didn 't enjoy work, as all these seemed | trivial and unimportant and made me feel like a dick for leaving. | Overall I think the underlying reason was that things were a | certain way and there was no way of influencing them whatsoever. | | Looking back I think the problem was also partially with me not | accepting smaller things ; but there is such a thing as death by | a 1000 paper cuts. | aidenn0 wrote: | After reading the comments, I have come to the conclusion that | either HN commenters are bad readers, or the author is a bad | writer. Perhaps we can also fault the Atlantic headline writer | (though I should point out that the <title> tag is different from | the headline in the article itself, and using that instead of the | <title> tag for the HN post might have reduced confusion). | | It seems something like 1/3 of the comments are coming up with | reasons why "it's not about the dirty dish" when the author | repeatedly makes this same point in the sub-headline and | throughout the article. In at least one point where a comment | reply violated HN guidelines by stating that the commenter | clearly hadn't read the article, the original commenter stated | that they had, so it seems unlikely to me that it's just people | commenting on the headline itself. | | Given that the author blames his divorce on poor communication, | perhaps this shouldn't surprise me? | [deleted] | jelliclesfarm wrote: | I would walk away too. It is not about the glass. It is about | 'not being heard'. It is highly disrespectful. It is about his | upbringing and a peek into his entire attitude towards others. It | is also about his parents marriage or other marriages he has | witnessed..and how he is trying to mimic it..because that's what | children do..internalize and imprint what they witness. I am | reminded of Philip Larkin's "This Be The Verse". | | I don't give marriage advice to young girls, but if I were to..I | would tell them to run..not walk away..if the potential mate | cannot clean up after themselves. | | To me, it's a ginormous red flag if a full grown adult is | messy..can't make the bed..doesn't pick up after themselves, | leaves dirty dishes all around. | | There is also a cultural caveat to this. I am Indian and boys are | coddled more than girls(in my generation). A man who cannot take | care of his mess screams mommy issues. There are other cultures | too where boys are more prized than girls. I suspect it is not so | much in the west. It seems like all kids here are raised by the | state in public schools. I have some other thoughts but it's best | I keep them to myself. | | My first thought was to suggest that no one should be taking | marriage lessons from someone whose marriage has failed. The | author includes himself as well when he says 'this is how well | intentioned people fall apart'. That is laughable to me. This is | a passive aggressive dude who shouldn't be married in the first | place. She was honest in expressing her expectation and he | wasn't. | | My second thought is that all marriages are short lived. When | children are born, couples become child rearing partners. These | partnerships last as long as the children are alive and mostly | children outlive the parents. | | Many marriages fray when parents become empty nesters or when | tragedy strikes. And this is absolutely natural and necessary for | sanity of human beings. The expectation of long perpetual | marriages until death do them apart is macabre and the seed for | future co dependency issues. | | Renegotiating marriage terms every 3-5 years is the one of the | ways to maintain healthy marriage partnerships. Marriages(long | partnerships) and monogamy are not compatible with human nature. | If that's the desired outcome, there has to be an external force | acting upon it continually to maintain integrity. | | As far as 'the little things' are concerned, it is no different | from what one may experience with room mates. I would recommend | putting everything in writing and if possible, have separate | rooms and/or bathrooms plus a shared bedroom. But that doesn't | make marriages natural either. Long successful marriages are not | one long partnership..it is a series of multiple short term | contracts negotiated between partners. | js2 wrote: | A lot of folks are misinterpreting this article, or just using it | as a jumping off point to get something off their chest. | | This article is not literally about the dirty dish. It's not even | about compromise. Rather, the article is really about having | healthy communication with your partner. | | The author's wife was trying to communicate to him: "when you do | X, I feel like Y, and it hurts me." | | But he wasn't _hearing_ it. Not really. Now maybe his wife wasn | 't communicating as effectively as she could. But the author | seems to indicate that she was and that he could have done more | to recognize what she was saying and to empathize with her. He | didn't get it, and now he clearly regrets it. It's too bad a | healthy relationship didn't come out of that, but sometimes | there's just too much damage. | | My wife and I have been together for 33 years, married for 26 of | those (we met in HS). I'm extremely fortunate that she's | empathetic, compassionate, and has the patience of Job. Because | it turns out that for a large portion of our marriage, I behaved | like an asshole. She's not confrontational, while I thrive on it. | We had a rule never to let a day end angry at each other, but | mostly due to faults on my side she wasn't always heard because I | wasn't open to listening to her. This built a lot of resentment. | It came to a head years ago, but we worked through it and our | relationship is healthier than it's ever been. | | "You're not wrong Walter; you're just an asshole." | | The hard work in a relationship isn't compromise. That's table | stakes. The hard work is communication. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | We are always told "Accept your significant other - do not try | to change them." Why does not that apply here? | twh270 wrote: | It's more "don't try to force change on them". If you think | you're going to 'make' your SO stop smoking, watch movies | with you, or wash the dishes, you're approaching it the wrong | way. | | Communicate. Express what is happening and how it is | affecting you, in a way that doesn't place the blame on them. | (Also, they have to be mature enough not to hear it as blame. | Both can be difficult, and just about impossible when your | emotions are worked up.) | | Then you talk about how to solve the problem. Not in a "your | behavior is a problem, how do we change it" fashion, but in a | "it's us against this problem" fashion. | | In the article, he says "the existence of love, trust, | respect, and safety in our marriage was dependent on these | moments I was writing off as petty disagreements". Instead of | recognizing and respecting her complaints as legitimate -- no | matter how minor -- he dismissed them, and thus told her | "Your needs aren't important to me". | | As he also learned, petty disagreements become major problems | when not dealt with. You either take care of them early, when | they're still easily tractable, or you wait until they've | festered and become a Major Problem. And then they're really | difficult to fix. | usefulcat wrote: | There's an enormous difference between asking a person to | change _who they are_ versus _how they behave_. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | True. But as child wrote, 'If I just sit around and say | everything is "important", does that mean I get to have it | my way all the time?' | usefulcat wrote: | If being asked to put a glass in the dishwasher is an | assault on one's identity, then so be it. But such a | person is probably also ill-suited to marriage or any | similar relationship. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | You're missing the point. That's one instance. Marriages | are made up of thousands of these instances. Are you | going to change your behaviors for all of those? Because | I have, and it is tiring. Resentment builds on both | sides. | brewdad wrote: | Exactly. You continue to change until finally you reach a | breaking point and the relationship is destroyed. | Alternatively, you change on some things, push back on | others, and try to reach compromises when you can. If | your partner refuses to accept anything other than | "victory" in every conflict, hopefully at least you learn | this before you've sunk 20 years into the marriage. | antiterra wrote: | > The author's wife was trying to communicate to him: "when you | do X, I feel like Y, and it hurts me." | | Too often for me, I have tried to figure out a solution to a | problem, when someone was just trying to let me know how they | feel. | | I think there's some sort of an analogy around a leaky canoe. | | Like: Is the person hoping for a friendly wave, some hints on | stopping the leak or for you to get into the canoe and help | bail the water out? | js2 wrote: | > Too often for me, I have tried to figure out a solution to | a problem, when someone was just trying to let me know how | they feel. | | That's likely not uncommon among the readers here, and | something I do as well. But I think just realizing that I do | it has helped me to stop doing it so much. | loudtieblahblah wrote: | communication and compromise and all that stuff is a two way | street. I mean this in romantic relationship, society, work | relationships, just...everything. | | We've come to accept the one who professes "hurt" must always | be bowed to. And at first this makes sense. We SHOULD be | empathetic to other's pain, suffering, annoyances and | irritations and we should try our best to smooth out relations | and get along. But this dynamic creates a power imbalance. The | one who complains, the one who is slighted is now given control | over those they claim slight them. And this power is often | abused. | | This is the "two way street" part. It's trying not to offend | when you speak..but being CHARITABLE when you listen; meaning | you interpret the words/actions of someone in the best possible | manner, give them the benefit of the doubt. | | Maybe he worked hard, had moments of stress and liked the dish | by the sink? Shouldn't she just let the little stuff go? The | point is... if it's always one sided, always one person not | letting it go, or always one person not being empathetic to the | condition of others.. it's bound to fail. | | The whole "you're not wrong but you're an asshole" can go for | the one slighted as much as the one not-intending-to-but-doing- | so-anyway slighter. | | My biggest problem about the author isn't even the content - | but the whole thing is phrased the way it is for clickbait bc | he's trying to sell a book. | | My point is... relationships are about mutual-ism Mutual-ism | that exists without having to keep score. | js2 wrote: | > My biggest problem about the author isn't even the content | - but the whole thing is phrased the way it is for clickbait | bc he's trying to sell a book. | | I choose to take the author in good faith: his relationship | fell apart, he learned something from it, and he's sharing it | as a way to help others avoid the same mistake. He's owning | his part of the failure. Maybe his wife made mistakes she | regrets too. That's a different article for her to write. | | I mean, sure, capitalism, everyone wants to make a buck. But | I just don't seen any value in interpreting and commenting on | this article cynically like that. The article only contains | value if read in good faith. $0.02. | throwawayboise wrote: | I can pretty much guarantee that the wife did not say "When you | leave a dirty dish by the sink, I feel like you won't do a | simple thing that you know will make me happier, and that hurts | me and causes me to doubt that you would do anyhing for me that | required more effort." Instead, she just griped about the dish. | Men are not that perceptive unless they've already been | educated about this. Women need to be explicit about how they | are feeling if they want to be sure that the men are getting | the message. | | Edit: I'll add, after a moment of reflection, that it's | possible that the wife herself did not really understand the | reason why the dirty dish irritated her so much. So all that | occurred to her to do was complain about it and dig in her | heels. The real reason might be that she feels doubts about her | husband's commitment to her, and that manifests in being angry | about dirty dishes. | | So often we are taught that men and women are not different, | but they are. This could be taught in high school in a personal | relationship unit in health class. But it isn't. To the extent | it's discussed, it is mostly focused on physical abuse. Mothers | can also teach it to their sons, but I'm not sure many do. Mine | certainly did not, and I had to learn it the hard way. | Twounwhe wrote: | I will not venture a guess as to whether the author's wife | articulated her feelings and needs clearly because I do not | know either of them. | | However, I can say that in my own life, I have been quite | explicit about how I was feeling multiple times. In my own | words: " _When you {seemingly insignificant thing} that I 've | mentioned bothers me, it makes me feel like you don't care | about my concerns, and only care about yourself. That hurts | me, and because I've already mentioned this, it makes me | doubt that you have any concern for my feelings._" (Somewhere | around the dozenth time, append " _or my wellbeing._ ") | | Even so, it usually took repeating half a dozen times or more | before my significant other exhibited any reaction beyond | dismissal (i.e. moving past "It's just a cup. It shouldn't | bother you."). This happened in three separate LTRs. | | Obviously my anecdote doesn't prove anything... except that | "women need to be explicit about how they are feeling" is | insufficient (though necessary) in at least a non-zero % of | communication. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Even so, it usually took repeating half a dozen times or | more before my significant other exhibited any reaction | beyond dismissal (i.e. moving past "It's just a cup. It | shouldn't bother you."). | | At least you actually repeated yourself half a dozen times. | Many people would throw a fit about "you're not listening" | before then. | op00to wrote: | Each person must be responsible for understanding, taming, | and ultimately mastering communicating their needs and | feelings to be a part of a constructive marriage. It's not a | male/female thing - that's a distraction. It's a personal | responsibility thing. Be responsible for your own happiness | by advocating for yourself in a clear way. | | Or you'll end up divorced over glasses by the sink. | felipesoc wrote: | He dismissed her feelings, she did communicate that it annoyed | her but he thought "it shouldn't annoy her, it's really not a | big deal". He tried to reason about her feelings from his own | and came to the conclusion that he was right and she shouldn't | feel the way she did. And that kind of thinking surely doesn't | stop with dishes. He must have done that on all aspects of | their relationship | vlunkr wrote: | > She knew that something was wrong. I insisted that everything | was fine. This is how my marriage ended. It could be how yours | ends too. | | I think this is the important piece of the article. It | highlights the lack of good communication. | parentheses wrote: | Thanks for sharing this. I feel like what you're describing | could be my family 20+ years from now. I applaud you for | changing for your spouse and hope I can be so wise to listen in | these moments. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Thanks for writing this. I have a question for you, since my | marriage ended for reasons similar to this author's. Why is the | wife's desire more important than his? In other words, why must | the husband live the way the wife wants and compromise is not | acceptable (especially if they share cleaning responsibilities) | -- compromise could look like "sometimes I do it her way, | sometimes I do it my way." Why can't a partner let go of the | little things and accept that living with another person | (spouse or roommate) means you don't get to set all the rules | on how both of you live? | | We are always told "Accept your significant other rather than | trying to change them." Why does not that apply here? | rout39574 wrote: | Translated into a slightly different venue: if partner A's | sense of order is jarred by laundry near, and not in, hamper, | but partner B just doesn't care, then the steady state is A | always cleaning up after B. | | A's happiness depends on a certain degree of order in the | shared space, and B is oblivious to that degree of order. Or | more likely, it requires a conscious exercise of effort to | perceive the degree of order. | | If B is unwilling to make that effort, they are discovering | that they care less about A's happiness than the relative | effort required. Eventually, A figures out how low their | value is, and takes their relationship elsewhere. | [deleted] | op00to wrote: | My partner tends to "ruminate" on making phone calls - | setting up appointments, customer service stuff, etc. I am | on the phone all day for work, so it's no big deal for me | to deal with the calls. | | Sometimes, I ask my partner to make a call. Most times, she | doesn't do it within the agreed upon time period. I either | do it myself, she gets to it E V E N T U A L L Y, or it | doesn't get done. I used to fight about this because it | really isn't "fair" for her to not get this stuff done when | she said she'd do it. However, I realized it just wasn't a | big deal for me to make the phone calls and deal with this | stuff. I'm the one getting pissed over my partner's | inaction, not my partner. | | Since I just stopped sweating it, making the calls when I | felt it was important, and leaving my partner be when the | calls are not important, I'm a lot less pissed off about | calls. I'm sure my partner appreciates not being bugged | over this. | | I guess another solution to this could be getting divorced, | but that really says to me that the husband wasn't really | the problem here and the regret he feels shouldn't be | lodged against his own actions. | robohoe wrote: | Could be your partner's inaction on making phone calls | mean some sort of lack of confidence? | msrenee wrote: | I think you've got it backwards. Whether the glass ended | up in the dishwasher or not didn't matter much to him. It | mattered a lot to her and instead of putting in the bit | of effort, he tried to justify to himself why he | shouldn't have to. | | My husband has a thing about making phone calls. I've got | other crap I put off for similar reasons, but phone calls | are not an issue for me. So when a call needs made and I | have the information needed, I'll do it and save him the | stress. Not a big deal for me at all, but it takes | something off his plate that he doesn't like to do. | gedy wrote: | > A always cleaning up after B. | | (Married 20 years) there definitely needs to be awareness | that A might just prioritize something before B gets to it. | It's not that B would never do it or doesn't care. | Everything is priorities. (I'm talking within the same day | or two, not leaving for weeks on end of course.) | dre85 wrote: | I'm in a marriage and I struggle with this same question. I | sometimes feel like the things my wife cares about are | essentially endless. Like if I bend to "her way" and put | effort into consistently placing the dirty cup in the | dishwasher, next week something new comes up. Then it's the | clothes on the floor of my side of the bed or not hanging my | jacket or not putting my shoes away perfectly in the closet. | At times I get the sensation that it just becomes like waking | on eggshells to constantly mitigate somebody's upsetness of | irrelevant (to me) things. | | I found the article really well written and I think a lot of | people will be able to relate to it. Consideration for our | partners and compromise is a tricky and interesting domain. | I'm realizing more and more that there can be a lot of | complexity behind benign everyday situations like a dirty cup | beside the sink. Like how can a dirty dish even perturb | somebody so much in the first place? Is it related to some | trauma or childhood conditioning? Can it be addressed | somehow? | AussieWog93 wrote: | >Like if I bend to "her way" and put effort into | consistently placing the dirty cup in the dishwasher, next | week something new comes up. Then it's the clothes on the | floor of my side of the bed or not hanging my jacket or not | putting my shoes away perfectly in the closet. At times I | get the sensation that it just becomes like waking on | eggshells to constantly mitigate somebody's upsetness of | irrelevant (to me) things. | | I don't understand the complaint here. It sounds like your | wife is trying to get you, incrementally, to act like a | responsible adult. This is what a good partner does. | | The more interesting question is why you want to remain | living like a slob in a messy environment? | [deleted] | zrail wrote: | When you're hurting someone it's on you to stop before they | decide they've had enough. After that you can work with them | to get what you want in a way that makes sense for you both. | Compromise always comes after harm reduction. | op00to wrote: | When someone is getting hurt by their life partner, they | need to speak clearly and explicitly about what is going on | and what they want. Expecting your partner to read your | mind will end in resentment. Can't reduce harm if you don't | speak up. | msrenee wrote: | The author makes it clear that these things were | communicated to him. No one needed to read anyone's mind. | He just felt like it wasn't a big deal, so he chose not | to change his habits. | eximius wrote: | First, there are no absolutes here. | | Second, its can often be about preference weights. If A cares | heavily about something, and B doesnt have a strong | preference, then perhaps B should take A's preference into | account. | | Now, should A have a strong preference for a trivial thing? | Maybe not. But that doesnt change anyone's preferences and | only breeds resentment. | js2 wrote: | I'm sorry that your marriage ended. | | > Why is the wife's desire more important than his? In other | words, why must the husband live the way the wife wants and | compromise is not acceptable (especially if they share | cleaning responsibilities) -- compromise could look like | "sometimes I do it her way, sometimes I do it my way." Why | can't a partner let go of the little things and accept that | living with another person (spouse or roommate) means you | don't get to set all the rules on how both of you live? | | I don't think the author's relationship failed due to lack of | compromise or at least that's not communicated by the | article. I take the key line in the article to be this one: | "My wife communicated pain and frustration over the frequent | reminders she encountered that told her over and over and | over again just how little she was considered when I made | decisions." | | We don't know anything else about their marriage. We don't | know who cleaned, shopped, did the finances, budgeted, had a | job. All we know is that the author treated his wife in such | a way that she didn't feel respected or heard. | | I also infer that his wife didn't effectively communicate to | him what was really bothering her based on this: "If I had | known that this drinking-glass situation and similar | arguments would actually end my marriage--that the existence | of love, trust, respect, and safety in our marriage was | dependent on these moments I was writing off as petty | disagreements, I would have made different choices." | | Without more detail about the disagreements, we just don't | know whether she told him why these things were bothering her | and he ignored her, or if she just didn't surface the reasons | for her upset. | | We also don't know whether they saw a marriage counselor. | That would be an interesting detail. | | One other point I'd add, with apologies to Tolstoy: "All | happy marriages are alike; each unhappy marriage is unhappy | in its own way." | | Marriages fail for all sorts of reasons. This article is just | one example. The author just wants to warn us: this thing | that seems trivial to you but annoys your partner may be a | metaphor for a larger issue. | yojo wrote: | If it is unimportant to you, and important to her, then | splitting the difference doesn't mean doing it your way half | the time. | | If it instead is important to both of you, then you have a | fundamental problem that you need to sit down and work | through. | | Maybe there is a compromise that will leave both of you | happy. Maybe one of you is willing to try changing. Or maybe | you have an irreconcilable difference and need to split up. | | Honestly if you are both ready to consider divorce before you | change your dishwashing behavior, that's a pretty big warning | sign that things aren't on the right track. | | An example: I don't give a shit about clothes on the bedroom | floor. No one but me and my wife ever sees them. But it | bothers her. It costs me very little to dump the clothes in a | hamper, and makes her much happier. So I put my clothes in | the hamper as much as I can remember to, and she gives me | grace the times I forget. Happily together for 20 years so | far. | gleenn wrote: | He did mention that he would never care to change his | behavior and had two reasons to continue doing it. I guess | that doesn't mean it's the hill he would go to die on. I do | struggle with the same thing, at what point is it something | that's no longer a conversation, you should just change | because the other person decided they cared enough about | it. Having the wife end a marriage over it also seems | ridiculous. If people can't come to realize they are asking | for something silly but it's a big deal to them, that seems | like that partner's problem. If I just sit around and say | everything is "important", does that mean I get to have it | my way all the time? | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > If I just sit around and say everything is "important", | does that mean I get to have it my way all the time? | | This is my question, and i would like to hear from OP, | married 33+ years, on his attitude about this. | yojo wrote: | I entered into my marriage assuming my partner was | negotiating in good faith. If she says something bugs | her, it bugs her. Collectively we can either spring for | Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for her, or I can pick up my | pants after I shower. | | If your partner needs to have their way in all things, | then there may be a deeper trust issue to resolve and/or | they might not be ready for a committed relationship. | | Edit: rereading above I can see it coming off as a little | flippant. At the core I believe we all have things we do | and feel that are not rational. I don't think you can | reason your way out of them. You can't rationally argue | away a feeling. You can do therapy to try to change it, | or you can remove the negative stimulus. | zaroth wrote: | Right, you do this small act of service because _you are in | love_ with your partner. Ideally not even because it makes | her happy, but because it makes _you_ happy to make her | happy. | | The upshot of the article, IMO, is that they were no longer | in love. | | And that lack of love became most apparent by observing all | the tiny _acts of service_ that people in love do for each | other, and people who are merely co-habitating and perhaps | also co-parenting, do not give a flying fuck about and use | as a safe thing to argue about instead of admitting the | truth. | jachee wrote: | When you really, truly _love_ someone, their desires are more | important than your own, _in your own mind, too_. | ricardobayes wrote: | At the same time, the argument could easily be flipped: if one | person truly loves another, the let things like putting a glass | besides the sink _slide_. It is accepting the other person, with | their flaws. If you want to change another person, it's selfish. | Furthest away from love as can be. | steveBK123 wrote: | The glass near the sink instead of in the dishwasher thing I kind | of get - it's like going halfway to solving the problem. If you | want to use a dish again, don't put it into the gray zone near | the sink. Leave it on your desk or the kitchen table or whatever | you were using it or might use it again. If you are done, wash it | or put it in the dishwasher to be washed. Leaving dirty stuff | near the sink is ambiguous - easy to get mixed in with the clean | dishes while you are emptying dishwasher to put them away. | | Mostly it reeks of asking the other partner to finish the job. | I'd wager this guy didn't do the dishes more of than not either. | A lot of men genuinely don't help out around the house and don't | understand why it upsets their wife so much. | | From a gender roles inversion perspective this would be like if | your wife bagged up the trash from the bin and then just left it | next to the bin instead of taking it out. So now you have a dirty | bag of garbage on the floor until someone decides to take it out. | Almost a worse situation than just leaving the bin full. | | Regardless of whether an issue is petty or not, if a spouse | indicates it bothers them for whatever reason, and the other | spouse just basically ignores it, this is a recipe for disaster. | Diesel555 wrote: | I'll just put this here, there is a book which describes exactly | what the author realized too late. It's better to learn these | things things via reading than in retrospect. I realized I have | "Difficult Conversations" many times a day. I wish I had read it | years ago, it's a relationship changer. | | Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most | achikin wrote: | It seems from the article that the real reason is that the guy is | extremely dull. I don't think I could live with a person who | makes bullet-point list of reasons why he has left a glass near a | sink. | StillBored wrote: | Woah, so, its his fault his wife was finding things he does, and | trying to change his mostly thoughtless behaviors all the time? | | Well granted I couldn't see what was going on, but just from the | article its hard to find him at fault if like many relationships | one of the partners is constantly finding faults in his basic | unthinking trivial behaviors. I'm pretty sure that two people | living together can find things about the other person that | irritates them. That is not really a problem unless its willful | (aka he is creating a real problem for the other person, or | intentionally subverting them, etc). The much larger problem is | the person who cannot control their emotions enough to recognize | that the other person isn't doing it willfully and deal with it, | without constantly trying to reprogram the other person. Sure | maybe in a loving relationship both people try to avoid the | behaviors that irritate the other person, but at the end of the | day it seems this is a never ending road. A person can teach | themselves to put the dishes in the washer, or turn off the | light, but frequently this takes time, and sometimes old habits | die hard. And then there needs to be an endpoint, and an | understanding environment in place to succeed. | | So, the constant nagging, complaining and taking it personally | when the other person fails? That isn't the fault of the person | who fails to live up to an artificial and constantly changing set | of requirements. | | The long term result of living like this and trying to constantly | improve yourself to some standard being set by your partner? Its | just going to be intense hatred when ten, twenty, thirty years | later you wake up and realize that you have changed everything | about yourself and they are still not satisfied. | | So, no, unless it was willful, he isn't the one at fault here, | she is for inventing things that bother her, and then getting | upset when he doesn't agree that dishes need to be prewashed, or | placed in the dishwasher individually rather than as a batch, | etc. Because when he lived alone or with his parents it was | perfectly ok to put them next to the sink and reuse them, and | then run the washer when the sink got full, and now its suddenly | not. | | So, frankly he sounds like the lucky one. Lucky she moved on so | he can focus on what he thinks matters rather than trying to meet | this other persons standards and being punished for failing. | aantix wrote: | Those arguing for/against whether the dishes are trivial are | missing the point. | | You always ultimately make the choice whether these demands, | whether too many or not, are worth it. You decide. | | Dan Savage does a brief talk about this titled the Price of | Admission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tCAXVsClw | petermcneeley wrote: | I thought the marriage vows were "till death do us part". | smegsicle wrote: | it's a vow before god not an eula people | PortiaBerries wrote: | brewdad wrote: | When the next time a glass is left out you can see yourself | murdering your partner, it's ok to get out before that event | actually occurs. | hogrider wrote: | This reads really pathetic to me. If that's really why she left | and not simply that she found a higher value male or something | that's just plain crazy and she's doing him a favor. | NortySpock wrote: | "Is this hill worth dieing on?" is a question I occasionally ask | myself. | | Other ways to put it: "Would taking 10 seconds to do this now | make my wife 1% less stressed?" (If so, do the thing to make her | less stressed.) | | "Is it worth starting a fight vs spending the same time just | fixing the problem?" | | "Would spending $COST_OF_THING make my wife happy for a day / | make a fond memory of us together?" (Hence why I encourage my | thrifty wife to spend a bit of money on semiprecious jewelry or | clothes for herself that she enjoys) | | "If I cheap out on $COMMMONLY_USED_ITEM, will my wife and I be | annoyed by its limitations / bad user experience for years?" | | Granted, I am fortunate to be able to pay the bills and have a | little extra for the occasional splurge for my wife. And my wife | is kind and understanding and I love her dearly. But I learned | long ago that doing a little bit extra / spending a bit more for | a quality item pays dividends in reducing friction and annoyances | daily. | | Those daily annoyances add up over time, and not in a good way. | Make yourself aware of them, and then fix them. Cut down on | stressors so you can spend more mental bandwidth on your wife and | kids. | jeffrallen wrote: | Buy flowers. They are pretty. | LegitShady wrote: | > "Would taking 10 seconds to do this now make my wife 1% less | stressed?" | | An addition to this unrelated to marriage - if it takes 10 | seconds, why isn't it already done instead of considering | whether to do it or not? | | I have a personal rule that unless I have another issue that | requires attention right now (like working from home being work | time, etc) If it take 5 minutes or less to do it I just do it | right away and never let myself say 'I'll do it later' because | 1/2 the time you don't do it later, and its easier to just | finish it right away and never worry about it again. | | Dishwasher finish? It takes 3 minutes to put away the dishes. | Now your dishwasher is empty so it takes 5 seconds to put away | dirty dishes. Dishwasher full? take 20 seconds to put in some | detergent and get it started. 3 minutes + 10 seconds means you | never have to deal with dirty dishes on the counter or in the | sink. | op00to wrote: | That works for you. I prefer to plan and psych myself up for | this stuff. Don't expect everyone to want to handle household | tasks exactly on your schedule. | aidenn0 wrote: | I have 1000 things I'd like done that take less than 30 | seconds. I don't have 4 hours to do them all. | LegitShady wrote: | You probably don't. | kaybe wrote: | When you start out, it might be a lot of items. The | question is how often they renew. | jeffrallen wrote: | The other day my wife said, "Ugh, I hate it when you run the | dishwasher during the day, because then I have to empty it | before filling it." | | Sometimes you cannot win. But it's still a game worth | playing: being married is the best thing that ever happened | to me. | LegitShady wrote: | if the dishwasher is full I don't really understand the | point of waiting for night to run the dishwasher...there's | no more room for dishes in it and someone is going to have | to empty it either way, and wouldn't it be better to have | the dishes inside clean? Do you not empty the dishwasher at | all when you start it during the day, and that's the actual | issue? | op00to wrote: | Dishwashers running overnight have been implicated in house | fires. Best not to run the dishwasher unattended! :) | brimble wrote: | > An addition to this unrelated to marriage - if it takes 10 | seconds, why isn't it already done instead of considering | whether to do it or not? | | "I might re-use it" is in the article. It's a matter of | preference, and who's more willing to make A Thing out of it, | not objective right and wrong. I, for one, think dishes-in- | sink (if they can't fit in the dishwasher but it's also not | full enough to run yet, or if it's running, or if it's clean | and you're in too big a rush to empty it right that second) | is worse for a whole list of reasons, unless you have very | limited counter space, but we do it anyway, because I don't | care enough to insist on doing it my way, and my wife does. | Whatevs. | | I do wonder how many quietly-very-slightly-suffering spouses | there are out there, over this exact issue. | Taylor_OD wrote: | This is the cause of the same fight over and over. One side | is annoyed by something that is small and takes little time | to do. The other side says why are you annoyed by something | that is so insignificant? The other side says if its | insignificant to you why cant you do it? | | I've had some version of this argument 1000's of times and | its ended a lot of relationships I had pre marriage. | mswen wrote: | Your comment reminds me of the following. My wife and I have | been married over 30 years now. Our total household is 7 | persons. | | A couple years ago, my wife was complaining once again about | someone using scissors and not bringing them back to their | proper storage place. "How can we have 3 pair of scissors and | none of them are here when I need to use one?" This didn't | bother me but hearing her complain about it did bother me. | After a couple attempts to reason, "it isn't that big of deal | to track a pair down" or "how often do we really use them?", I | decided that abundance was a better solution. I found a 4 pack | of decent scissors for about $12. | | So for $12 dollars I have never heard that complaint again | because even if someone walks off with one and doesn't get it | back right away there are several more. So my wife doesn't | doesn't experience that frustration and it keeps her from | getting fixated on something as insignificant as the location | of pair of scissors. And, I have already decided that if it | happens again I will buy another pack. They are surprisingly | good scissors for $3 each. | | I think my broader point was that we as humans are sometimes | irrational about certain annoyances in life. And, if I can find | a way to spend some money and just solve the issue that is | probably a good use of money. | greedo wrote: | Yet the solution to many relationship problems isn't finding | a solution! | | I'm a sysadmin. When I see a problem, I try to fix it, and | prevent it from happening again. But relationships aren't | servers. Sometimes we see (or are told about) a problem, and | immediately go to fix it. Yet often the problem isn't what we | see. Usually (maybe 99% of the time) problems in | relationships are about communication. Listening. | Commiserating. | | My partner hates it when she tells me about her day at work | and I try to offer solutions to the problems she faces. It's | dumb on my part, she's a grown woman, a professional, and I | have a solution? This behavior on my part is very unhealthy | to a relationship, and I have to fight my natural | inclinations to fix things. | | Instead, I have to listen. Let her talk, let her explain how | it makes her feel, let her talk through how she might solve | it, or let her not think about a solution. Just be there for | her. | | Not easy at all for someone on the spectrum who has a hard | time reading social/emotional cues. Nor for someone who has a | career as a fixer... | DoingIsLearning wrote: | I had exactly the same discussion with my wife and I am | gonna strongly disagree here. | | It's a two way street, yes I need to be open to the | possibility of this being a 'venting' conversation where | she is looking only for support. However, she also needs to | be aware that it is my natural inclination to look for | 'solutions' and that social cues are not my forte. | | So it is also part of the meet me half-way that she clearly | _says_ (not hints) at the start that she is not looking for | solutions but is just sharing/venting. | | I think one of biggest breakthroughs in our relationship | was watching the play "Defending the Caveman" together. It | suddenly put into words everything I was somehow unable to | express in how differently we perceive/process reality. | mswen wrote: | Oh, I totally agree with you. And, there are times when it | is not useful to try to come up with a solution because the | other person just needs to be heard. It is not really about | problem X. The real issue is not feeling heard, respected, | loved. | Aloha wrote: | This is the varying communications styles between men and | women. There was a reddit post from years ago that really | went into great detail about this, it was some of the most | brilliant writing about this topic that I'd ever seen. | | Women want to talk about feelings, and dont necessarily | want help with their problems. | | Men tend to communicate more 'functionally' we tend to talk | about problems we want a solution for - unless we | specifically talk about feelings we're generally looking | for inputs on solving those issues. | khalilravanna wrote: | This is really smart. You're right we often fixate on "the | principle of the matter" instead of just stepping back and | looking for an easy solution and then moving on with our | lives. | Arrath wrote: | I find myself in situations like this myself, but on the | observer's side. Often I swallow the impulse to ask "Well | the problem was solved in 10 seconds, and you've now spent | minutes venting about it, how is this at all constructive?" | to my girlfriend. I've come to understand it is her makeup | to need to vent about things like that rather than solve | the problem and move on. | clarkevans wrote: | Yet, with the easy solution, they got right to the | principle -- "I hear you. You matter to me". | UncleMeat wrote: | My parents did this and it was a great lesson. | | Scissors and cordless phones (prior to cell phones) got left | all over the place. The solution was to buy like 20 pairs of | scissors and have a cordless phone in damn near every room. | Boom. | twfree_ wrote: | phnofive wrote: | The lesson: | | "There is only one reason I will ever stop leaving that glass by | the sink, and it's a lesson I learned much too late: because I | love and respect my partner, and it really matters to them." | | Others have pointed out the corollary - that you can choose to | accept behavior as well as modify your own - but this too seems | fairly indispensable for a long term partnership. | kstenerud wrote: | I've been through a shitty marriage that ended badly. I divorced | her, vowing to never get married again. | | Many many years later, I married a woman who had been through | decades of horrible long term relationships (including one where | he pointed a shotgun at her), and vowed to never ever get | married. | | We both decided to take another chance at it, agreeing that in | our marriage we would communicate everything as soon as possible. | In the years since, we've had two cases of harsh words: One where | she repeatedly did something that upset me and I said nothing | about it, until finally I blew up at her one day. Another, where | she'd been under extreme stress and blew up at me (yeah, we can | be embarrassingly dumb, but hey, we're human). And besides that, | not so much as a disparaging remark. We're together 24/7, never | spending more than an hour or two apart (we're both home all | day). We'll probably end up becoming one of those cute old | couples who still hold hands at 80. | | We make a point of never communicating in a blame-like way. I.E. | "Please can you find a way to avoid doing X? I know it might not | make sense why but it drives me nuts." or "When you do X, it | makes me feel like Y. Can we find something else that works for | both of us?" These turn into discussions to drill down into | exactly where the problem lies, and then figuring out what | changes we can make (one, the other, or usually both) to make | things work better. It's a constant process. | | We're all human, and we all have our quirks. They're not logical, | but yet they exist and we can't change them. Being in a | relationship is about empathy and communication. You're a team, | so you really need to figure out how you can maximize your | collective power. | | When people say "It's about sacrifice", they're half-right. It's | not about pushing yourself into smaller and smaller boxes to | accommodate their large footprint. It's about making some | sacrifices or changes to work around the quirks that the other | person can't change (CAN'T, not won't). You support your partner | where they have weaknesses, and you build up their strengths. | Even if you look at it from a purely mercenary point-of-view, | this makes sense. | | Morale is vitally important. People have their down days, and you | really need to be attentive to that. It's on you to see them | through the down times and make sure they come out the other side | okay. Note: I'm not talking about "cheering them up" (although | that is sometimes a valid strategy); I'm talking about validation | of their feelings. I'm talking about being there, in solidarity | with them in their dark times, even if there's nothing else you | can do to help. It's also important to celebrate their triumphs, | and in general just let them know how much you appreciate them. | | Being in a team (I mean REALLY in a team) is about being | attentive to each others' needs, strengths, fears, and | demonstrating to them that you have their back, no matter what. | If you can't trust your teammates implicitly, you're not a real | team. | [deleted] | BeetleB wrote: | If this couple went to a marriage counselor, the counselor is not | going to say "You're going to lose your marriage because you | continue to leave dishes by the sink". Instead, (s)he will say | "You're going to lose your marriage because of poor communication | - she can't communicate what is bothering her, and he doesn't | have the communication skills to make it easy for her to | communicate it." | | If you've read pretty much _any_ book on communications (not | limited to relationships), they 'll have an example similar to | this. And they never suggest "compromise" as a solution (at least | not until you break through the communication problem). | | This is literally a "textbook" communication problem. | watwut wrote: | I understood the article as saying that she was communicating | her issues, but he considered them minor, nagging and | unimportant difference of opinion. Therefore, he never treated | them seriously, whether by actually changing or by actually | arguing back. Basically, he dismissed it instead of taking it | as issue. | | Here is quote from the article: "Hundreds, maybe thousands of | times, my wife tried to communicate that something was wrong." | BeetleB wrote: | > I understood the article as saying that she was | communicating her issues | | She wasn't. She was at best hinting - again, something pretty | much every communications book says not to do. | | > "Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, my wife tried to | communicate that something was wrong." | | He doesn't go into details, but it's usually one of two | things: | | 1. Nagging over what seems to be minor issues, and he is | supposed to realize that there are deeper issues underlying. | | 2. Saying explicitly that something was wrong, but not saying | what. | | In both cases, she is lacking the communication skills to say | what is wrong, and he is lacking the communication skills to | make the path easier for her to say it. | | He says this: | | > The reason my marriage fell apart seems absurd when I | describe it: My wife left me because sometimes I leave dishes | by the sink. | | The question is, how does _she_ describe it to her friends? I | doubt she says "I left my husband because he sometimes | leaves dishes by the sink." And did she articulate that to | him before it was too late? | watwut wrote: | It sounds like you make up the thing about hinting. This | article does not talk about her hinting and him not getting | hint. And in author other blog post he elaborates that | further about her pretty clear complains - childcare, | chores split and similar. | | > Nagging over what seems to be minor issues, and he is | supposed to realize that there are deeper issues | underlying. | | The deeper issue is that he dismisses her complains as | unimportant nagging. That is not her failure to | communicate, it is his failure to listen. | | > The question is, how does she describe it to her friends? | I doubt she says "I left my husband because he sometimes | leaves dishes by the sink." And did she articulate that to | him before it was too late? | | Yes she did, but he called it nagging and ignored it. I | have no idea what she says to her friends. We have only his | self reflection to go on. Possibly she says something like | "it did not worked out". | BeetleB wrote: | I think at this stage we're stuck with information that's | not clearly provided, and only he can address them. | However: | | > Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, my wife tried to | communicate that something was wrong. That something | hurt. But that doesn't make sense, I thought. I'm not | trying to hurt her; therefore, she shouldn't feel hurt. | | "Feeling hurt" is vague. Feeling hurt is different from | being upset that he dismisses her complaints as | unimportant nagging. Saying that she does not think he | respects her as a result of his dismissals and that it is | causing angst is much better. It's not clear from his | essay if she ever said something like this. She likely | didn't, because: | | > What I know for sure is that I had never connected | putting a dish in the dishwasher with earning my wife's | respect. | | Had she said it, there would be no connection for him to | make. | | > Yes she did, but he called it nagging and ignored it. | | This is not at all clear from the article. He's quite | vague about the specifics of what she said. | locallost wrote: | Heh, I told my wife today that our first big fight was because | she couldn't for two years throw away lemons instead of leaving | them on the counter to collect fruit flies. As with the glass, it | wasn't about the lemons, but something deeper. What that is, is | really dependant on the person and even the relationship. In my / | our case it was about me being very laid back and if somebody | asked me to do something, and it was no big deal, I'd just do it. | And the ratio of things she asked me vs vice versa was about | 10:1. So when she couldn't do that one thing I asked her, and I | really hate those flies, it eventually blew up. | saturdaysaint wrote: | I see the relationship coaches of this stripe all over all sorts | of social media, and I just rarely if ever see insights that | couldn't have been imparted by your average friendly stranger at | a bar. What I mostly see are slightly-to-moderately damaged | people who are articulate and engaging enough to find an audience | of similarly damaged people who their experiences resonate with. | This guy seems fairly innocuous (although this kind of rumination | can also be unproductive!) but you see a lot of people fomenting | bitterness. I would advise anyone I cared about to seek a | credentialed therapist before turning to one of these self- | appointed coaches. | bena wrote: | I get the point of the article and I agree with the overall | conclusion, but I don't agree that it applies in the example he | provided. | | If you are going to go to war over something, make sure it is | worthy of doing so. | | In his example: what is the harm in the drinking glass being | there? Is it occupying space of others? Is it preventing others | from doing something? Is it a burden on anyone? Or is it an | aesthetic choice? | | If it's an aesthetic choice, you need to get over it. | | We have a fairly open house plan. There aren't many choke points. | Except one. There's a corner of a wall that is about 5 to 7 feet | from the corner of a kitchen island. If you are coming in from | the side door, it is the one place you have to cross to get to | the rest of the house. Almost every day, my wife will park her | rolling bookcase right there. | | Conversely, she's pretty lax on where she leaves her dirty | laundry. But it's confined to the area beside her side of the bed | and it doesn't encroach beyond that. I can't really stand having | all that about. My clothes go straight into a hamper. But we both | mostly do our own laundry, her getting her clothes off the floor | is mostly an aesthetic choice. I let her live her life in that | regard. | | "Leaving the glass on the counter is disrespectful to me" is kind | of a toxic mindset. It kind of says "You must conform to my ideas | of acceptable behavior". It's a bit controlling. | em-bee wrote: | the example is irrelevant, what matters is how he reacted to | it. instead of working with her on a solution he preferred to | _agree to disagree_ | BolexNOLA wrote: | Interesting. I remember reading this piece years ago about dirty | dishes and divorce as well. | | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/she-divorced-me-i-left-dishes... | | Same concept more or less. Not saying the Atlantic lifted this, | just funny to see "doing the dishes" at the core of another | marriage discussion. | pcthrowaway wrote: | My relationship just ended for mostly similar reasons (it wasn't | _just_ glasses in the sink, it was a few other things I did that | she considered disrespectful that seemed minor to me) | | I was the only one working and paying for the apartment, her | hobbies, and school, but things like the above would escalate | into long arguments that I would ask to defer. The problem was, I | would sometimes forget details that were important to her if we | postponed an argument for a few days, so she wanted to have them | _now_ and that was disruptive of my work (I WFH, she studies from | home). I might miss an entire day of work because of some minor | thing that exploded into a 6 hour argument, while I was trying to | disengage the whole time, but couldn 't. | | A couple weeks ago I had enough, and decided I needed more | autonomy, and moved out. I didn't want that to be the end of | relationship, but for her it was the end. | | Not sure what my point is, I just wanted to get it off my chest. | Sometimes these seemingly minor things may just be a sign of | deeper incompatibilities. | csa wrote: | If I read this right: | | - lots of arguments about things you considered small | | - issues focused on "disrespect", which is a perception thing | that she had 100% control over | | - needed to resolve issues immediately | | - "resolution", if it happened, took up to six hours with no | option to end on your side | | It sounds like she has some major issues that probably warrant | professional help. | | To be fair, you may have issues as well (e.g., things that are | "minor" to you may be a big deal to most people). | | If you want to resolve this internally, I recommend going to a | relationship counselor/psychologist alone and just doing a | reality check. Make sure you present her side to the counselor | as reasonably as possible. | | You will probably find a few things you could do better, but | you will probably also find that you were being controlled by | someone with major issues. | | Fwiw, I think ending this relationship was a good idea. | pcthrowaway wrote: | She's getting professional help. I have issues also, which | I've been working on. But the things I would think were minor | were maybe not "leaving a water glass next to the sink" | minor, but maybe "forgetting to wash the dishes sometimes" | minor (when the sink wasn't full... also the dishes were my | chore) | | It's not about whether those things are only an issue for her | though, the fact that they are an issue for her still causes | conflict, and was important to me, I just couldn't keep up | with the things she needed in addition to the inability to | resolve conflict quickly, and my work. | eslaught wrote: | In case it helps you in the future, or for other readers here, | let me just add: the symptoms you describe are well past the | point where you probably need to see a therapist to make the | relationship work. | | There are things you can do to fix this. They require work on | both sides, obviously, but it can be done. But unless you have | way more self-awareness than I do, it's not likely that you're | just going to pick them up out of thin air. The good news is, | this is stuff you can learn. | | If you prefer to read a book on this topic, the one I'd | recommend is: | | The New Rules of Marriage | | by Terrence Real | | https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NJL7RS | | But I really do strongly recommend therapy in these situations. | This is the sort of thing where the therapist can help you | figure out whether you both have fault or if one person is | really over the line. And then you're not responsible for | convincing your parter that X thing they're doing is | unreasonable. | kapral18 wrote: | When you are the only one paying for apartment, hobbies and | school, since those "minor" things are out of her mind she has | all the time and energy to ngaf about it and bloat her ego, | manipulate and gaslight you into thinking you are not good | enough boyfriend... husband... father... | | These are classic manipulation tricks of narcissists. | | And the fact that she allows herself to engage in a 6 hour | argument during workdays knowing or not caring that it will | absolutely fuck up your entire focus and ability to concentrate | for days and bring you closer and closer to burnout and not | being able to actually work speaks volumes on how much she | cares about you and what she is after in these relationships in | general. | | She doesn't want an equal she wants a servant. She wants a | slave. Both physically and emotionally. Every second... She | defines the rules of the game and you obey and play. It's a | given. Your whole life with her is her play... | | Ugh... I say F that life. | | You need to celebrate the day you dodged that bullet. Not | everyone has a mental courage to throw those human-sized | parasites out of their lives. | | People can live 40 years blaming themselves for not satisfying | narcissists enough, they reshape their whole identities and | morale in the process trying to shove themselves into a shape | that will hopefully satisfy ever evolving demands of a narc and | never getting satisfied with their lives in the process or | becoming self-enclosed philosophers but in most cases just | plain miserable... | | They finally divorce, while the narcissist will happily jump | onto the next victim berating and destroying the personality of | the previous victim ignoring the fact that that person's whole | life and identity was a sacrifice on the altar of the "wants" | of a literal demon. | | It's a vicious cycle. | | Narcissists should be pariahs in any social circle. Their | ability to deliver huge amounts of damage and mess somebody up | mentally for years is so underrated that I believe whoever | comes in contact with such a person has an obligation to not | only immediately jump out of that relationship but also warn | others about that person. | | Just like coming in contact with COVID you tell others around | you about the danger, you should do exactly the same about | narcissists. | | I wish you all the best and hope now you are more than well | equipped to spot these creatures. | | And don't forget to transfer the knowledge to your children to | break the circle. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >When you are the only one paying for apartment, hobbies and | school, since those "minor" things are out of her mind she | has all the time and energy to ngaf about it and bloat her | ego, manipulate and gaslight you into thinking you are not | good enough boyfriend... husband... father... | | And even "normal" people can slip into this if left with | little responsibility in the household. | ww520 wrote: | Well said. | jb3689 wrote: | > When you are the only one paying for apartment, hobbies and | school | | There are two sides to every story. I could say that this is | what my wife and I do (because it is what we do), but it is | out of convenience and the fact that I'm privileged enough to | be able support both of us. It would be technically correct | for me to say "I pay for your housing", but doing so would be | weaponizing it unnecessarily. In our case we could split | everything 50:50 too, we just explicitly choose not to | because it's burdensome. I can't now use that against her | whenever I want to. | | I'm not saying this is OP's situation, but that it is an | alternative possible read of the situation given the tiny | fraction of detail we've been given. | strwbarie wrote: | Y'all... While I agree that narcissists are extraordinarily | harmful, it's possible OP and his ex partner's communication | dynamic is not indicative of her being a full blown | narcissist. It could be that she felt her partner was simply | non-responsive and a brick wall about her problems, which | extended the argument to six hours, in what was hopefully an | one-time occurrence. Open to being wrong, however. | ww520 wrote: | Argument forced on you for hours of time during work hours | because your partner wanted it now sounds horrible. She is an | entitled narcissist who has no respect for you, your time, and | your work. Congrats on dodging a bullet by moving out. | watwut wrote: | > I might miss an entire day of work because of some minor | thing that exploded into a 6 hour argument, while I was trying | to disengage the whole time, but couldn't. | | In this case, I would congratulate you for dodging the bullet. | It seem to me, you was not _the_ problem in that relationship. | | I am even close to guess she was verbally abusive. And if not, | then actually damaging to you. | planck01 wrote: | If your point of view is how it was then that was an unhealthy | and unequal relationship. Of course it hurts, but you did the | right thing and you will be happier in the long run. | | I've learned for myself to evaluate things as honestly for | myself as possible. If she is any way right, I will immediately | apologise and end the fight. But if I feel I'm right I will say | how it is, even if it is hard to express and not give in. I | will not escalate beyond necessary, but never give in. I will | reevaluate arguments she gives, but only when I'm alone and at | ease. I'm willing to deescalate, without giving in. This works | for me (now). | | If she does not contribute on an somewhat equivalent level to | the relationship in your own measure...run. Relationships | should be mutually beneficial. Don't let others take advantage | of you. | op00to wrote: | I'm sorry you went through that, ending of relationships can be | very difficult. I hope you can find some peace. From how you | describe it, your ex sounds like she doesn't respect implicit | boundaries like "don't argue when someone's working". | | You're very right that what you see is a sign of | incompatibilities. | belval wrote: | Honestly from the description you give, I wouldn't assign blame | but it was probably the right call to break it off. | | 6 hours arguments that _need_ to happen _right now_ are a | pretty big red flag... | em-bee wrote: | an unresolved argument (if it's a serious one) makes it | difficult for me to focus on work. (as a programmer and | sysadmin, being distracted can be dangerous) if it happens in | the evening i also can't sleep. so either way the day is | ruined. | | the solution then is obviously to learn to resolve arguments | in a short time. actually, resolving the argument itself is | not even the issue, but knowing that we still love each other | is what matters. | | so what needs to happen right now is to find a way for both | of us to calm down, maybe hug and kiss and then get back to | work until you have time to discuss the issue later. | belval wrote: | I am very much the same on that part, it's hard to do great | work when you are emotionally all over the place. | sangnoir wrote: | Other people are able to compartmentalize and put it off | until later while going about their day. Having one of | each in a disagreement is like adding fuel to the fire as | both people get angrier that of the other is not | accommodating their approach,and it becomes a _much_ | bigger thing. "Let's fix this now so I can do work" vs | "Let's fix it later, so I can do my work". | watwut wrote: | When this sentiment leads to 6 hour long argument and | partner missing work because of it, then it is beyond | healthy need to finish argument. | scarby2 wrote: | > actually, resolving the argument itself is not even the | issue, but knowing that we still love each other is what | matters. | | So much this. Having been taking classes and reading up on | intentional/effective communication strategies for | relationships one of the key aspects is having a way to say | "i love you and acknowledge your grievance however i do not | have the time, energy or emotional strength to discuss this | now" this can be distilled down to a phrase, maybe just | "pause" or a gesture followed by some kind of display of | affection. | | It's also critical that the other partner respects it. | There's very little that's more damaging and less | productive than continuing to argue with someone who has | mentally checked out. | | My ex would yell at me (red flag) until i just couldn't | anymore, not listen to any requests for breaks (another red | flag) then physically prevent anyone from leaving the room | until she was satisfied (huge red flag) - even if you had | to go to work. | sangnoir wrote: | Non-violent communication[1] is fantastic when both | parties utilize it during disagreements as it helps | prevent escalations. _How_ you resolve differences is | more important than the differences themselves and is | foundational to any relationship. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication | willcipriano wrote: | It wouldn't be a six hour argument if he just said "You are | right, I'll clean up after myself". | lazide wrote: | In my experience? It's never about that, and if there was | nothing to criticize, THAT would be criticized. It's | usually about some fundamental disconnect or unmet need by | one of the parties, and without concerted honest effort by | both to face it, it's going to explode sooner or later. | | The problem being, if they were already prone to spending | concerted, honest effort in facing and talking about their | problems, they would be a lot less likely to be in that | place. | willcipriano wrote: | In my experience it's always about what I'm talking | about. My wife often refuses to clean up after herself, I | tell her "Please pick up the iced tea bottles you left on | the floor" and she goes into a rant about one time 5 | years ago when I didn't pick up a something and engages | in lots of deflection. Then she says stuff like you said | "Your just upset that you have a meeting at work", when | really it's I'd like to not pick up after her. | | Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. | | If your behavior is outside of the social norms (eg. you | leave dishes out for others to clean) then admit fault | and move on. If they bring something else up maybe you | are correct in your thesis but why are you defending | yourself when you are being a slob? | lazide wrote: | Uh, pretty clear her behavior is exactly what I'm | referring to, and yours may be too? | | If you think the behavior you described is just about a | couple iced tea bottles, that is... not likely to go well | long term in my experience. I hope I'm wrong for you | though! | | And the statement you're making there seems to have a | tone of resentment towards her which, unfortunately, is | going to likely be a problem too. | [deleted] | RobertRoberts wrote: | I worked from home for many years (before it was popular) and | I had a family too. This kind of things happened to me and my | wife a lot, hours of arguing while I should have been | working. | | You can work through it, you just have to care enough. We no | longer have arguments longer than maybe 20 minutes now. It | can just be personality types and where you are in life. | | But a valuable person in your life? You work through that | stuff to keep them, even if it's hard. | castlecrasher2 wrote: | >You can work through it, you just have to care enough. We | no longer have arguments longer than maybe 20 minutes now. | | We went through the same. A few years of me getting my head | on straight and not escalating fights so I could | effectively communicate "I don't want to fight about this" | and either "this isn't a criticism, this is something | that's important to me" or "you're right, I'll start doing | that" has made our fighting dry up almost entirely. | lazide wrote: | There are also folks that are suffering from real severe | mental health crisises, and will continue to escalate and | dysregulate over and over again - to their own and others | detriment. | | Having been on the receiving end of this - don't keep | trying to make it work if it gets to this point. Work on | being a grey rock to them (non reactive) until you can | get yourself and others to safety. | | Also don't tell them you're leaving until you have a | viable plan B that they can't find. Kids make it much | much harder, and unfortunately around 2 yrs old is often | when it gets the toughest and this can happen. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I would start billing my own children if arguments lasted | hours. | exolymph wrote: | Or maybe you and your wife don't funge with every other | pair of individuals in the whole world? Some people truly | aren't compatible and make each other miserable. | RobertRoberts wrote: | I think more people give up and quit on compatible people | than we care to admit. Getting along is hard for everyone | under stressful situations. (combined with our own | personal flaws) | AlanYx wrote: | You can't always work through emotional dysregulation | issues (inability to return to baseline after six hours of | argument being one indicator of such issues) by just | talking it out. Sometimes you can, sometimes it's | associated with something more fundamental like a | personality disorder where professional help needs to be | involved. | [deleted] | thewebcount wrote: | I just want to point out that it's not just personality | disorders that can cause this. There are very real | physiological problems that can surface this way, too. | For example, some people have adrenaline issues where | seemingly minor, or even pleasant things (like running | into an old friend at the grocery store), cause a much | larger than normal spike of adrenaline. If the person it | happens to isn't aware of what's going on, they can react | the way their body is telling them to (fight, flight, or | freeze). Sometimes if they're aware of it, they can have | enough sense to take a pause, but it is often very | difficult because the biological response your body has | is so overwhelming. It's as unpleasant for them as it is | for the person who has to deal with their overreaction to | the situation. | zBard wrote: | Wouldn't personality disorders be inseparable from | physiological problems ? Is there any particular | literature/reference you are basing this on, curious. | RobertRoberts wrote: | I have a theory I use that helps me with this, the | "million dollar gun to the head" theory. | | Would either of them stop fighting instantly if there as | a gun to their heads or offered a million dollars? | | If the answer is "yes", then it's entirely within their | control to solve the problem. | | The only people I think that fail this are psychopaths, | and I think those are rare. | AlanYx wrote: | If you don't have experience with people prone to | emotional dysregulation, it's hard to appreciate how it | works, but you don't need to resort to such an artificial | scenario like your gun scenario. People with some | personality disorders can be triggered by seemingly | little things into anger/rage states for 4-6 hours that | cannot be resolved by talking them out, but if someone | outside the household (i.e., someone who is not their | partner or not their kids) shows up unexpectedly, they | can often immediately control themselves. But the | underlying dynamic doesn't get resolved, and generally | won't be without professional tools that go beyond | conventional talk therapy, like DBT. | lazide wrote: | Yup. Having been on the receiving end of it - she | literally said afterwards she couldn't stop herself. | | Luckily, she was just stabbing the counter and not me. | | My mistake for asking her how she was doing, apparently. | toss1 wrote: | To quantify "rare" it seems there are about 1% of the | population are psychopaths [0]. A quick search came | across a number of refs to that number, but IDK if it is | multiple studies, or just one a long time ago that is | amplified through time. | | [0] https://psichologyanswers.com/library/lecture/read/60 | 1609-wh... | makeitdouble wrote: | > need to happen right now | | This is usually the result of the argument never happening | otherwise. | | I've been on the other end, trying to bring a subject for 10, | 20 times. But it's a big enough issue that when it's brought | up the other party feels they "need more head space", "not | ready now", "need to get rid of some other stuff first". | | This probably means I'm not reading the room well enough, but | thing is, the other party doesn't come back to the discussion | table when they're ready to talk it out. | | So at some point you come to the conclusion that timing | doesn't really matter, and except if their parents are | literally on their dying bed, you'll have to plow through | their circumstances if you ever want that discussion to | happen. So we ended up with a 3h hour cry and sob discussion | in a parking lot after buying toilet paper. | cycomanic wrote: | I'm the opposite of the OP, I really hate to not resolve | problems straight away. My partner is the opposite she needs | to avoid the immediate conflict. I think there is a balance | to be had, the issue with just walking away from the | discussion is that it feels to the partner like they are | being stonewalled. The other thing I noticed is that I needed | to get over the attitude that I pay for things so I can have | higher expectations. | | We went to couples therapy and the communication strategies | we learned really and while we still have arguments they tend | to be much more productive, but it requires work. | jahewson wrote: | Good for you! Arguments measured in hours are a sure sign to | GTFO. | zwkrt wrote: | It's never really about the dishes. The dishes are just a thing | in physical space. That isn't to say that you can't be | Disrespectful with dishes or that one or both people's behavior | and expectations regarding the minutia of the kitchen isn't | unreasonable. But fighting about dishes is really good | indication that there are more fundamental underlying schisms | in the relationship that should be addressed. | | In my personal experience both in my own relationships and | viewing the relationships of others, I feel like the domestic | partner can often feel trapped and/or unfulfilled. It's easy | for the breadwinner to say "I bust my ass all day and I make | all the money so that we can have this life", but the other | partner in this arrangement becomes totally at the will of the | breadwinner. The breadwinner could change jobs or decide to | move or divorce and continue working, but the domestic partner | is totally effed. It isn't an equal partnership unless the | domestic partner truly feels agency. And until that point this | underlying resentment will come bursting up like new islands in | an archipelago, until the situation is resolved or dissolved. | | Edit: the sibling comment regarding narcissism is also worth | reading! I don't know your situation. Labeling someone as a | narcissist is a nuclear option because it means you don't | really see them as fully human anymore, but it can be | appropriate if you have a large body of evidence. | munk-a wrote: | > It's never really about the dishes. The dishes are just a | thing in physical space. | | I'd clarify that sometimes it is actually about the dishes. | As someone with ADHD being in a living space with clutter | slows me down and perpetuates more clutter. My solution to | that is to never generate that sort of clutter - it leads to | a destructive cycle I've identified in myself. | | If the person I'm sharing space with starts that cycle, I | suffer from it and can't escape it without external | intervention - hence, yea, sometimes the dishes literally are | the focus (I mean - this pattern can be repeated with other | household tasks, a laundry basket full of clean un-put-away | laundry will grow over time until it's falling over the sides | and periodic tasks like taking out the garbage require | extreme vigilance to stay on top of, corners can not be cut). | | But the physical space does effect our mental space, and | looking around your sanctum sanctorum and seeing nothing but | todo lists will erode mental health. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | When you agree to live with another person, you agree | (whether you realize it not) to also live with each other's | habits, cleanliness norms, organizational norms, | waking/sleeping schedule, and many other details. Being a | dictator, trying to change the other person, is not going | to end well. Accept the person you are living with rather | than trying to change them. | op00to wrote: | If dirty dishes trigger you, then you need to make sure the | dishes get done. You are the principal person responsible | for your own well being. You shouldn't force someone to do | your bidding simply because you're triggered. I say this as | someone who suffers from severe anxiety, and has to work | very hard to not bully my family around to accommodate my | anxiety. | dragonwriter wrote: | > If dirty dishes trigger you, then you need to make sure | the dishes get done. | | Eliminating a net source of dirty dishes is an efficient | way of doing that. | | If you want to be in a relationship with someone, and | they are triggered by dirty dishes, you might need to | consider _their_ needs in order to realize _yours_. | munk-a wrote: | A healthy relationship involves giving and taking - it | isn't bullying to have certain occasional needs. Nobody | on earth is perfect, we all come with some quirks - | because we only have one pass through life it can be | difficult to tell what's reasonable and what's unfairly | demanding, those making demands a third party would call | unreasonable are often blind to it themselves... that | said most relationships will compromise on arrangements | either partner needs to operate healthily. My SO happens | to suffer from absolutely atrocious migraines that can | take them out for weeks at a time - I am flexible for | accommodations on this point and they're flexible on my | own needs, even if the exchange is uneven it may still be | desirable to stay in a relationship that adds a lot to | your life in other ways. Each individual needs to make | the decision that's right for them. | | On the topic of your anxiety, if you discuss it with your | partner there is a good chance that through communication | you'll become better at functioning as a unit then you | could on your own. | elzbardico wrote: | Be glad you are free from this abuse. | erik_landerholm wrote: | Been married for 20 years almost...we never fight. We both do | things that aren't optimal, but we give each other the benefit of | the doubt, we talk about everything, we don't step on each | other's areas of responsibility, we don't speak harshly to each | other and we are best friends. I can't ever imagine being in a | the situation described above. I mean all the individual things | happen to us leaving dishes, muddy whatever (we have 5 kids...so | the noise alone), but so what? It's all in how you both handle | everything. We've never found it hard to exist together. | | I think the biggest thing is we never speak harshly to each | other. If we aren't exactly kind we apologize, but we never speak | to each other or our children in ways I hear others do all the | time. That is the love killer. | Ishmaeli wrote: | Same. 23 years and I don't mention it often because it feels | like bragging, and we certainly didn't do anything to "earn" | our relationship. I think it was just dumb luck that we fell | into it and happen to be so compatible along so many lines. | | But it always baffles us whenever we spend time with another | couple (including our own parents) and they are so short with | each other. As you say, harsh. | | We come away from those gatherings wondering, is this really | how people live? Seems to be. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | 7 years here ( we lived together for a few more ). We do fight, | but it appears to be on a semi-annual basis since we do talk | about what bugs us about the other person fairly openly ( there | is a fine line being truthful and hurtful ). | | The simple reality is that I genuinely have a hard time | accepting existence without her around. Since that is the case, | some things have to be ignored for the sake of 'peace at home'. | It goes both ways. I myself am not perfect. | xtracto wrote: | I love seeing elderly couples. If you get into the house of old | folks couples that have been married for 30 or 40 years the | "peacefulness" you perceive in their relationship is great. | They have learned that nothing really matters. A broken glass? | some mud in the house? a stack of books/magazines in the floor? | Who freaking cares? They have each other and they have had each | other for 30+ years and they have each other until they die. | Arubis wrote: | It's never about the dish, or the coffee mug, or whatever. It's | all about what raw spots that dish rubs up against, probably from | long before your marriage began. If you or someone you love is | finding themselves disproportionally hurt or irritated by small | behaviors and habits--yes, of course, find ways to shift that | behavior, but please also consider counseling or therapy. There | may be far greater depths of healing available than merely | changing a single behavior. | waferthin wrote: | When I flatted back in the day, it became apparent that different | people have different 'cleanliness thresholds' and that too high | or too low compared to everyone else was going to be bad news. | Luckily my wife and I have similar levels, and neither of us | would see a glass by the dishwasher as some morbid sign of a lack | of love. But lots of people would and do apparently, and I'm not | surprised. | gotaquestion wrote: | ITT: armchair therapists whom I suspect have never cohabitated | with a partner for multiple years. | | Sincerely, | | Armchair HN therapist | snakeoil wrote: | If you took care the dishes she would find sth else to complain | about. It is usually a deeper issue that is expressed in whatever | minor plausible thing it finds around. You don't need clean | dishes to expresses your love in a relationship that is built on | mutual undertanding, respect and eventually love. | blunte wrote: | There's really a lot in this essay, and I'll forget or get before | before I provide all the commentary I might want to. | | > But she never did. She never agreed. | | Your rights end where mine begin. And by that, I mean "my | intolerance trumps whatever your opinion is". | | That means the most flexible people, often the most rational, | have to accept the intolerance and lack of flexibility of others | to coexist. | | I don't like my kitchen counter cleaned with a rag that becomes | dirty upon first use and then adds bacteria on multiple following | uses. I would rather the counter keep only the germs it currently | has. Or better yet, I would prefer it be cleaned with a fresh | towel or even light detergent and very hot water. | | I don't like the toothpaste bottle to be buried in a basket under | my wife's nightly consumables, such that when I go to bed later I | have to dig through a lot of stuff to find the toothpaste. I | would rather the bottle be left on the counter where both people | can find it. But that bottle on the counter is a no-no. So I | bend, but it pushes me a little more away every night. | | > It was about consideration | | I do not believe that consideration was the issue with TFA's | wife. TFA had valid reasons for leaving a glass on the counter. | Wife lacked consideration and pragmatism. | | As an alien to earth, I realize my perspective may be warped. But | it makes sense to me. | | And as such, I think the problem with most relationships is | ignorance and lack of ability to reason. | | Reasons people feel how they feel: | | - there is a practical time/money/pain cost between the | alternatives | | - there is a habit which is hard to change | | - there is a behavior with no forethought and no post-evaluation | | Some things have assessable costs. I could come up with any | number of examples, but one very silly example would be parking. | If I choose to park behind someone on a driveway instead of | beside or on the street, it will take the starting and moving of | my car (time, fuel, and minor wear and tear cost) to move my car | out of the way so they can leave. Now in the larger | consideration, perhaps there is no side-by-side room, and the | street option is risky. Then it's a matter of risk balancing and | personal time cost. | | Some things are just habits, often learned from our upbringing. | Someone who grows up with a particular scarcity will be extra | sensitive to waste on that resource. Even when the resource is no | longer restricted (what's the right word I'm looking for?), the | habit remains. "Don't use so much water!". "Yes, but it takes 60 | seconds for the hot water to reach the faucet, and proper washing | requires (debatable) water temperature." Or "nothing should be | left on the counter", so the toothpaste goes into a bin beneath | many other things. So whomever comes next to brush must dig for | the toothpaste. Amusingly (passively-aggressively) my solution to | the toothpaste problem was to buy a freaking lot of them and get | a new one each night, allowing them to pile up. | | Finally, there are just behaviors we learned as kids before we | had reason. Some things must be done a very specific way, and | other things can be done any way. Unfortunately, two people from | different families will have different combinations of specific | and any. Then it comes down to realization of the behavior and | rational analysis of the pros and cons, and perhaps then the | alternatives. | ay wrote: | It's very simple. If something is minor for you but your partner | prompts you extensively that it triggers them - change yourself. | | The willingness to listen and change yourself is what signals | your love. Because everything else is much easier. | [deleted] | raldi wrote: | "I like leaving my glass by the sink, but I know you really | hate it. Tell you what, I'll stop doing it (which is not a | concession that it's wrong) as an act of love for you." | | Then they express gratitude, and before you know it, you'll get | a favor like that back on something you really care about. | ceejayoz wrote: | This. It's like small withdrawals/deposits into a savings | account. Take out $1 at a time a whole bunch of times without | topping it up and the account winds up empty, even if there | weren't any massive withdrawals. | Biologist123 wrote: | Niiice. | trelane wrote: | > before you know it, you'll get a favor like that back on | something you really care about. | | That is not at all guaranteed. Personally, I'd by surprised | if it were commonly correct. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | This is easy to get wrong. She says "X bugs me". But to me, X | should not have been a big deal, so it doesn't register with | me. Maybe she says it again, and I still think it's no big | deal. Finally we reach the point where she's crying, and she | tells me " _X really bothers me_ ". And I realize: "Oh, yeah, | she's told me that before..." | | So, you know, be smarter than I've been. When she says that | something bugs her, don't filter her statement through what | bugs you or through what you expect to bug people. Instead, | _listen_. | ay wrote: | If a person says something bugs them and you don't react it | is a reflection of you not caring about what they are | feeling. Repeated non-reaction: mightily so. | | Saying "i love you" is easy. Making these little sacrifices | on your ego that show the other person you care about them | can be much harder, but shows your feelings much more. | | However: there must always remain a perception of fairness in | the relationship. I am very intentionally not saying "the | equal amount of sacrifice" because the dynamics are different | for everyone. | smackeyacky wrote: | What if you are being triggered by the incessent whining over | something trivial? That's emotional abuse. I wouldn't put up | with that, this kind of stuff needs perspective. | | The only thing I got out of the article was that he was married | to a control freak who liked to keep them off balance all the | time. | ay wrote: | If you are triggered by anything it is something you need to | ask yourself why. And why you are with that person then, if | they are triggering you. | | With some (minor) exceptions, what people are getting in | their relationships is at least 50% result of their own | choices, and not owning that only prolongs the effects. | Taylor_OD wrote: | I cant think of worse relationship advise than be with | someone who never triggers a negative response in you. | ay wrote: | Some people are into shibari. And some aren't. And both | are okay. | | Edit-add: also, I think "being with a person who never | triggers a negative response in you" is just plain | impossible. On some days I trigger a negative response | with myself :-) | | But based on my limited experience of two 10+ years | relationships, I can say life is so much easier and fun | when you have less things to disagree about. | | But I also acknowledge that this is how I am wired - for | some, fights are stimulating. Hence my initial reply with | shibari. There exist rather interesting pathways to | happiness. | Taylor_OD wrote: | Something that is trivial to one may be very large to | another. There is a whole slew of reasons why but just | because one partner deems something trivial the other may not | agree. Some things may objectively be trivial but we are a | complex species. The flip side of this argument is that if | its so trivial for one, why don't they change the behavior | for the other who deems it non trivial? | smackeyacky wrote: | Because this kind of behaviour is endemic in emotional | abusers. There will always be something else that annoys | them. Emotional abusers look for weaknesses and exploit | them mercilessly. They don't really care about the issue | and will move on to something else, ad infinitum. | | This is the very reason why you _never_ give a bully or a | narcissist a single inch. What they are trying to do is | keep you off balance, make you walk on eggshells and create | a bubble of control. | | If it's genuinely something that is causing a problem that | is completely different from the typical | needling/whining/unnecessary argument escalation over | trivial bullshit that an emotional abuser will mete out. | notacoward wrote: | > If something is minor for you ... change yourself. | | On the one hand, I think this can lead to ruin in its own way. | It cedes all ground to the most neurotic or controlling | partner. It breeds resentment in the one who has to make all | the concessions. Instead, I would suggest that these conflicts | should be resolved explicitly and deliberately. Sometimes that | will lead to one person reminding themselves to put the glass | in the dishwasher. Sometimes it will lead to the other person | reminding themselves that it doesn't matter. Either way, as | long as it's a resolution that is mutually agreed and balanced | with all of the other minor concessions that each is making, I | think it's OK. | | On the other hand, a variant of this is a good rule even in | non-intimate relationships. If something takes you trivial time | or effort, and means a lot to someone else, DO IT. Even for a | total stranger. It increases the total "good karma" (but | without the moral weight) in the system. Sooner or later, if | enough people keep doing it, some of that will come back to | you. Something that might have seemed onerous becomes less so | because of someone else's minor generosity. IMO the fact that | this isn't a common habit, that it's even discouraged by the | dominant "everything should be strictly transactional" dogma | (ignoring actual results from game and complexity theory), | degrades life a bit for everyone. | | P.S. Lest anyone claim I'm being inconsistent, _changing | yourself_ is hard. It 's not a minor effort, like taking one | moment to do someone a small favor. They're very different | scenarios. | ay wrote: | Absolutely agree with your caveats! I forgot to mention the | "perception of fairness" that is another useful component to | a long term balance. And - communication, communication, | communication. Unfortunately the latter is often suppressed | by the everyday pressures until it's too late. | captaincaveman wrote: | 'Change yourself', 'just be yourself', no one can decide what | the duck to do! | | Do you keep changing yourself to meet their every whim, maybe | they should just let it go, it's just a glass? | ay wrote: | Why would you be with a person you aren't willing to change | yourself for ? | captaincaveman wrote: | I'm not saying there shouldn't be flexibility, it's give | and take, but there clearly should be some limits. So | blanket advice of change what your doing to satisfy all | minor complaints isn't great advice in my opinion. | bluefirebrand wrote: | On the opposite side, if you don't like something that your | partner does, and they don't seem to think it's a big deal, | maybe take a step back and re-evaluate if it's really something | that you need to be bothered by. | | If it is actually a problem, then yes, insist on it being | fixed. If it is actually minor, maybe adjust your expectations | and get over it. | | After all, that's also a form of listening and adjusting | yourself. It's important to know that in relationships you | can't expect to get your way all of the time, and that you | don't automatically get your way just because you're the one | with a grievance. | ay wrote: | My biggest takeaway is you can never really "insist on | getting it fixed" without the damage to the relationship. You | can state how it is important to you, explain why, and hope | that the partner initiates the change to themselves. There is | a subtle difference between the two; "push" vs "pull", if you | will. | justin_oaks wrote: | I've heard it said as "Love requests; it never demands" | em-bee wrote: | what needs to be fixed is the disagreement itself. it | doesn't matter how the issue in question gets fixed, but | you need to come to an amicable solution. | | this is only possible if both partners respect and care for | each other and are willing to listen and support each | others needs. | | in the article when the author says that he'd want to agree | to disagree he was not respecting his wife. he was | basically saying: you are wrong, but i don't want to fight | over this. that doesn't help. you need to work it out until | there is an actual solution that both can agree with. | | once you have solved one problem like this, it opens the | door to approach more problems. i think it helps to start | with smaller problems where the actual outcome doesn't | matter. like it doesn't matter who gets their way with | putting away the dishes. what matters is that each partner | gets to share their feelings about the issue and that those | feelings are being respected. | ay wrote: | I frame it as "the perception of fairness in the | relationship". | MisterBastahrd wrote: | "My wife left me because she's either ridiculous and unwilling to | compromise on trivial shit, or incomprehensibly dense" is a much | shorter and more succinct than an entire book, but I guess they | don't pay people for that. His articles all read as pathetic | blame-porn aimed at satisfying the egos of women, while | pretending to be advice aimed at men, and even though his only | skills are apparently being someone who got divorced and wrote a | book about what he believes to be his failings, somehow that | qualifies him for paid counseling sessions? | | "I blew my hand off with a firecracker and that makes me an | explosives expert, buy my book" is a suitable parallel here. | | Yes, I know, it wasn't "just" the dishes. Neither of them | actually wanted to be married to each other, they just wanted a | live-in sex partner. | greenonions wrote: | Maybe this is too personal, but is your relationship with your | partner strong? Frankly, my guess, just by your attitude | towards this innocuous article, is no. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | It's not an innocuous article. He's literally tried to build | a career out of being divorced. | | Know why my relationship with my SO is better than yours? | Because we talk like actual human beings, compromise, don't | fight over trivial bullshit, respect each other and their | spaces, and don't always have to be right because it's a | partnership not a dictatorship. | | Maybe try that out, see how basic common sense works for you. | em-bee wrote: | the problem wasn't the dishes or any other issue. the problem | was that he preferred to agree to disagree instead of coming to | a compromise. that's pretty dismissive. | | that doesn't mean it's all his fault, but we don't know what | her attempts to resolve the issue were. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | This might come as a shock, but compromise isn't simply | "doing what she wants you to do, when she wants you to do | it." That's not a relationship. | | This wasn't a pile of dirty dishes. It was a drinking glass | that was going to be reused. Maybe she comes from an upper- | middle to upper class household where everything got put away | at all times, but where I come from, you don't waste | dishwater on something you're going to reuse anyway. | | It's one thing if they pile up. It's quite another if there's | a cup or two on the counter that you are using. | em-bee wrote: | you are still missing the real problem. it does not matter | that it's just one cup. what matters is that you are | refusing to accept that this is bothering her. you need to | find out why it bothers her and work out a compromise that | you both can live with. | | * compromise isn't simply "doing what she wants you to do, | when she wants you to do it.* | | right, but neither is ignoring the problem. | | with small things like these sometimes the only way is that | for some issue you defer to your partner, and for other | issues your partner defers to you. | | if one partner is always getting their way then there is a | problem with the relationship. and you'll need to work that | out. stop arguing about the cup and start listening to each | other. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | No, I'm not missing anything. It's a ridiculous and | childish thing to get upset over. Of all the other | possible things that they could have disagreements about, | THIS is something that SHE should have let be, because it | does no harm to her and he has a rational explanation for | it. | | It is literally picking shit to be upset over for the | sake of having something to hold over your partner's | head, and an indication that one or both of them was too | emotionally immature to be married in the first place. | [deleted] | mihaic wrote: | One big issue I rarely see mentioned is how much worse modern | society is for long-term couples, in many ways. While this | doesn't give us any direct actionable advice, accepting it | reframes the struggle of the couple against the world instead of | just the classic "work on yourself", and that can lead to better | cooperation. | | Some other things being harder before ironically maybe us better | at accepting that sometimes situations end with nobody getting | what they want, and learning how to reach "good enough". | perpetuummobile wrote: | I struggle with this myself. At the risk of sounding | misogynistic: How come it's always women who can't deal with | these "minor irritations"? I've never heard from any of my male | friends complaining in this tack. | grumple wrote: | You're really just wrong. If this is your lived experience, you | need to understand that the majority of the world has minor | conflicts like this all the time. Get out, make friends, go to | college and see the circus that is random roommates. When I | lived with roommates, there were constant complaints about this | or that. X never does the dishes, Y never changes the toilet | paper roll. All the time. All men. I've had a lot of friends | and seen them have similar issues with roommates or partners. | | In my current relationship, I used to complain about my partner | never doing the dishes. I eventually stopped giving a shit | because I realized I created most of them and it really wasn't | much more effort to do a few more. And generally just realized | the way to fix most problems is to just fix them. | perpetuummobile wrote: | Feel free to downvote but please tell me why I am wrong. I | legitimately struggle with this as is obviously clear from my | tone. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | 1. It is not 'always women'. Men are also rankled by such | things. | | 2. Women have to deal with the pressure of feminism. For | example: I like to cook. I love feeding people and don't | think of it as chore that oppressed women, but I have friends | who will not cook(and I know they don't hate cooking) because | they have to make a feminist point. | | 3. I grew up in India and there is a very vibrant food | culture. To be able to cook well is a feather in the cap. It | is not so in the states and after I moved here, I was amazed | that even those who absolutely loved cooking back home were | acting like kitchen work was slavery. | | 4. Again from an Indian immigrant perspective: There is a | weird resistance to obtaining hired help in America. Even | middle class homes have hired help in India. These days, even | in the states, Indian households will pay someone to help | with laundry or cutting vegetables for cooking or just | household help. | | After apps like Nextdoor etc have come up, it's easier to | find help. Interestingly, the house help is often other women | in the same neighborhood who want to make a few extra bucks. | But I don't think it's about the money as everyone is usually | in the same social strata in any neighbour hood. It's about | company. | | 5. Women need female company. We are just slightly different | looking female apes. Women need to be social with those they | don't compete with..and girlfriends are always competing. | It's hideous living 24/7 with men. In nuclear families, there | are no other female figures. I grew up with a large extended | joint family. We had 3-4 generations of women under one roof. | There is an age based hierarchy. | | 6. Contrast that to modern nuclear families with only one | adult head female. For working women, it's worse because they | have to go to work and compete with both men and women. There | was clear division of labour and enough people to carry out | the tasks in my large joint family. | | 7. Speaking for myself and specifically about kitchens: The | kitchen is my domain in my house. It is a matter of control | because it is a matter of pride. Because I am the one who is | cooking, if I don't have a kitchen that is organized, I can't | do my job properly. I expect the knives, glasses and cutlery, | spice jars and plates to be where I expect them to be...when | I cook I am not thinking, I am 'reaching' for that familiar | nook where I expect to find the salt or the spoon. Cooking is | fast and involves heat. I don't have time to scuttle about | looking for things or dinner would be burnt. | | It is the same with a chef in any professional kitchen. My | 2c. | em-bee wrote: | the problem with hired help is that is severely reduces the | privacy of your home because you always have someone around | who is not family. depending on your culture this can be a | serious dampener on things like intimacy in your | relationship. | | my understanding is that in india you don't even show | intimacy in front of your children, so this part is very | much limited to your bedroom. which means the hired help is | rarely going to be a problem. in western culture intimacy | is more open, and any stranger around becomes a disruption. | | it is also a cost issue. i don't know about the US but | hired help in europe is a lot more expensive. in germany | for example you'd even have to pay for their insurance so | the average middle income family simply can't afford it. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | I have never heard display of intimacy being connected to | the decision to employ hired house help before. I am | revisiting this just to register my marvel at the | perception dreamed up about india in the rest of the | world. East and west, they will never meet. I am going | with the assumption that you were sincere, but this gross | generalization can be construed as a little odd. I never | imagine how the westerners are intimate or conflate that | to regular way of life even though I have lived in both | sides of the cultural world. Thanks once again for | opening up my mind to acknowledge the differences between | the east and the west. | em-bee wrote: | you are right about the generalization. i should have | worded that more carefully. it just seemed to fit as a | good explanation for the difference. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | Define 'intimacy'. | em-bee wrote: | intimacy is very different culturally. but generally it | is any physical interaction with your partner. | | to give you an example, i have heard from an indian | friend that they would not touch their husband in front | of their kids. no holding hands, hugging or kissing of | any kind. i don't know if that is common in indian | culture. i am not trying to generalize. | | the point that matters is that i feel very restrained in | how i act when our housekeeper is present. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | It seems like a generalization. India has 1.4 billion | people. | | House help isn't around 24 hours/day. Just like you | wouldn't be intimate with your partner in front of your | boss, I guess it's the same with someone you employ? | olyjohn wrote: | I mean, I live alone and just pay someone to come in once | every two weeks. You don't need someone living there full | time. Just outsource some of the major chores. Folding | laundry, scrubbing toilets and tubs, cleaning the floors. | Cleaners bust through that stuff in a couple of hours and | then you've got all your privacy back. | em-bee wrote: | with kids the primary help needed for busy parents is | actually making dinner. and laundry gets done every other | day. the result is that the helper is around every | evening which is the main time the family is at home. | Taylor_OD wrote: | You're wrong because you've bucketed half the global | population either because of your blissful ignorance or | because your personal anecdotal, likely very limited data and | sample size, supports your belief. | perpetuummobile wrote: | I'm sorry but I'm not blissful about it. Women bad ha ha... | not. | | What else do I have to go by than my own personal | experience? Self help book? You have no idea what weight my | sample has given the constant emotional and physical abuse | I have to deal with. | Taylor_OD wrote: | You asked to be pointed out where you are wrong, and then | you argued with the responses given. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Upvoted and you're right. Have a nice day! | cassac wrote: | I think it's just different things for minor irritations. For | me it's the never being ready on time. | | When I say I'm ready to leave, that means I could be in the car | in 30 seconds. When my wife says she is ready to leave, that | means she's ready to start getting ready to leave. I've learned | just to pad 20 minutes into departure times. | GeoAtreides wrote: | Boss, you also have your glass issue. We all have a small minor | irritations that we just can't shake off. You're lucky your | partner, for some reason, isn't poking your particular minor | irritation. Or, maybe, your partner did poke it and you told | them to stop and they stopped. If they continued you too | would've left like the author's wife. | acuozzo wrote: | Have you really never met a guy with OCPD? | greenonions wrote: | As a counter question: why do men not recognize that these | simple tasks make women feel loved and respected? | | My own father is the perfect example of a man who cannot deal | with these minor irritations. My mother complies with his | requests and their relationship is maintained. | | If you read the article, it's not that the irritation is minor. | Of course it's a very small task. The issue is that the (often | male) partner never chooses to act differently for the sake of | their partner. If it isn't difficult to do the task, why don't | you just do it? If your wife asks you to put the dishes in the | dishwasher, why don't you just do it? It's not hard and will | make her happy. | | Obviously some people will have very unreasonable | standards/requests. However, I think it's more common that one | partner repeatedly refuses to do anything differently for the | sake of their partner, argues about it, and then wonders why | their relationship is so bad. | funcantor wrote: | You've been in plenty of relationships, enough even, that you | can make the claim that "often male" partners are not able to | tolerate minor irritations? | grumple wrote: | What is this, slut shaming? I'm a man and not the person | you replied to. I've had close to a dozen long-term | partners and many more short-term ones. This is not | uncommon in the western world for men and women. | | Everybody gets annoyed by something. Men and women. Couples | fight. Most of them a lot. Shit, in my apartment building I | hear them fight all the time. | stuckinhell wrote: | My husband and I had one of our first major fights over fruits | and newspapers. I'm a bit of a packrat, and he is someone who | embodies minimalism. I let fruit rot a bit in the kitchen, and | kept a lot of newspapers, magazines, and other "junk mail". | | Eventually one day he flipped out over them. We have come to an | unpleasant compromise. Once a month, he gives me a week notice, | he's going to throw it all out, and then he does. I've come to | accept it, since there isn't much he gets bothered by | otherwise. | orlovs wrote: | "It isn't the mountain ahead that wears you out -- it's the grain | of sand in the shoes" | nineteen999 wrote: | Two people too stupid to invest in a dishwasher, and to get on | with life. | amznbyebyebye wrote: | There's always going to be a glass issue. Communicating the | issue, being open to listening, knowing what to let go and what | matters is what makes or breaks things. There's no algorithm to | this, relationships are founded on love, which is an emotion that | has little to do with intellect or logic. So for these things | ultimately love is the answer. | snvzz wrote: | I'm surprised nobody is questioning the decision of marriage. It | is a really bad deal. | nbevans wrote: | One wonders why he didn't just get a dishwasher machine... Very | cheap solution compared to divorce! | Taylor_OD wrote: | I think you're being glib but the article mentions a | dishwasher. | motohagiography wrote: | So strange to read this as marriage hasn't really registered as | thing for me in several years. I'm not sure what the case for it | today is. Reading about guys saying if only they had been less of | themselves, they might have avoided getting left just leaves me | with a bad taste. I'm of the mind that we should take | responsibility for our own happiness, and explicitly give others | the opportunity to do the same for themselves. | | Controversially, if there is one thing I have found people live | to regret most it's apologizing. It has taken a while to | articulate, but I think apologies are a broken concept because | they are what we offer transactionally when we are at a | disadvantage, they're an unsatisfying, forced declaration of kind | of moral bankruptcy and submission, which is the exact opposite | of what someone who loves you wishes for you, or wants from you. | | I consider that what I really mean is, "I took this specific | thing for granted and what I mean is I don't take it for granted, | and thank you for it." Acknowledging and thanking someone for | what you recieved from them adds value to a relationship, whereas | an apology just asks to write it off. The same may be true for | promises as apologies are mainly an artifact of breaking them. | Taking responsibility for our own happiness and converting | apologies into recognition and thanks before uttering them seems | a lot more sustainable and likeable than being introspective and | trying to change and compromise. Maybe I'm out of touch, but | something about the article rubbed me the wrong way. | ggm wrote: | Some lessons are very hard to learn after the event, the author | is right that it's better to learn these ones up front. | dazc wrote: | Be blind to his/her faults is generally good advice, so long as | they are minor irritations. | brudgers wrote: | Disrespect is not minor. | j79 wrote: | When my wife and I started dating, we stumbled across this | video which I like to recommend to friends and family: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tCAXVsClw | | The speaker talks about the "Price of Admission" when it | comes to relationships. | | We consider these "minor irritations" as the Price of | Admission :) | ramses0 wrote: | I've recommended that video to near 100 people, it's so | heartfelt and insightful. | ggm wrote: | Kinda Tao of the ietf: try to meet expectations and be | accepting of failure. But dude, if she says dirty dishes by | the sink won't fly you should listen. 30 years of that can | break anyone. One of the colditz pows said the way a guy | asked you to pass the salt for 5 years straight could be semi | fatal | andreyk wrote: | "Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, my wife tried to communicate | that something was wrong. That something hurt. But that doesn't | make sense, I thought. I'm not trying to hurt her; therefore, she | shouldn't feel hurt. ... There is only one reason I will ever | stop leaving that glass by the sink, and it's a lesson I learned | much too late: because I love and respect my partner, and it | really matters to them." | | wow.... this isn't a marriage lesson, it's a basic human | etiquette lesson. Listen to what someone is telling you and try | to see things from their perspective. At least the author does | call out their own immaturity with respect to this: | | "I think I believed that my wife should respect me simply because | I exchanged vows with her. It wouldn't have been the first time I | acted entitled. What I know for sure is that I had never | connected putting a dish in the dishwasher with earning my wife's | respect." | cycomanic wrote: | The communication strategy that saved our relationship is not | to talk about what the other does or doesn't do, but instead | talk about how some things make you feel. For example: "when | there is a glass on the sink I feel like I'm feeling | undervalued..." the other than needs to first acknowledge how | the other feels "I hear that you feel undervalued..." before | giving their argument. | | It sounds very formulaic but it really helps to deescalate the | situation. It's much more difficult to escalate a fight if your | partner says they are hurting. | usefulcat wrote: | This is good advice. I would only add that it can sometimes | be difficult for a person to know how they are feeling or | why. You have to know how you're feeling before you can | meaningfully express yourself as "when you do X I feel Y". | op00to wrote: | Yes, that's where people must take personal responsibility | for their own happiness and put the work in to understand | and master their emotions. It's silly to assume that | everyone is just born able to effectively manage emotions. | op00to wrote: | > "Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, my wife tried to | communicate that something was wrong." | | If you try to communicate something hundreds of times and it's | not getting through, it isn't the recipient that is at fault. | cloudier wrote: | Exactly. If you intend to throw a ball to your dog but | accidentally break a vase as a result, does your original | intention absolve you from the consequences of your actions? | krona wrote: | As though the thoughts and feelings of another person are as | predictable and consequential as the laws of physics. I wish. | cloudier wrote: | I agree that the thoughts and feelings of other people in | general are difficult to predict. But a person you marry is | often someone you spend a lot of time around and hence | whose thoughts and feelings can be predicted to some extent | - because you see them in different situations, then see | their reactions and talk to them about their thoughts and | feelings. | | In this specific case, the author denies that the | consequences existed: | | > But that doesn't make sense, I thought. I'm not trying to | hurt her; therefore, she shouldn't feel hurt. | steveBK123 wrote: | Yes this is classic human psychology. | | I did a bad thing - well I didn't intend to do it, so I'm | still good/right. | | Someone else did a bad thing - they are a bad person. | | I should be measured by my intents, not my actions or | outcomes. | | Others should be measured by their outcomes, because | thats obviously what they intended. | watwut wrote: | If someone complains a lot and often and typically about | same set of thing, it is pretty easy to guess they are | annoyed about that set of things. They feelings are no | mystery, they feel bad about thing they complain about. | | The unpredictable thing here were consequences - that she | will act at her feelings eventually instead of just | experiencing them. And it basically what he writes about in | the article, that she eventually figured out her feelings | don't matter to him and interpreted situation as such. And | then it was too late to fix anything. | [deleted] | beckler wrote: | About 10 years ago, I had a internship at Newell Rubbermaid. As | part of the experience, the entire group of interns across all | the brands got to have lunch with the CEO and basically ask him | anything we wanted. | | At some point, someone asked about his biggest regret. We all | expected some business blunder, but he said that he was offered | an executive position by Kraft to lead their Asian segment, and | that his wife really did not want him to take the job because it | would require them to move to that region. He regretted not | listening to her, because it ended up being the catalyst that | dissolved their marriage. | | We were all stunned silent, and you could tell that he was | genuinely remorseful and so vulnerable in that moment. There are | only a handful of moments in that internship that I vividly | remember, but that was by far the most impactful one. | outside1234 wrote: | Almost all of us that get to 50 have a life lesson like that | that boils down to "Optimize for the people involved, not the | machines and systems." | jimkleiber wrote: | I appreciate you sharing this. | | Reminds me of a class I took at the University of Illinois, it | was a seminar in entrepreneurship for engineers, if I remember | correctly. | | I believe a CEO of a $100M+ company came in and gave a speech. | His first slide had a PowerPoint, on which he put something | like, "3...2...1." Then he said, "3 wives, 2 divorces, and 1 | heart attack. That's the real cost of entrepreneurship." I've | remembered it ever since. | nradov wrote: | Mark Cuban had a different perspective when he was younger. | | "I went through girlfriends (who threatened) -- 'It is your | business or me,'" the Shark Tank investor recalled. "And I | was like -- 'What is your name again?' It was just non-stop." | | https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/shark-tank-star- | mar... | | I'm not endorsing that comment. I just thought it was | interesting to see how a notable entrepreneur approached | relationships. He did later get married after achieving | financial success, and presumably knows his wife's name. | blunte wrote: | It's a question of what you live for and where you find | your worth. If you live for other people, and you find your | worth in them, then you will direct your path accordingly. | | If you find your worth from within, or perhaps from without | in a very broad sense (making something big that the world | needs/wants/admires), then 1:1 is not so important. | pmoriarty wrote: | _a CEO of a $100M+ company came in and gave a speech. His | first slide had a PowerPoint, on which he put something like, | "3...2...1." Then he said, "3 wives, 2 divorces, and 1 heart | attack. That's the real cost of entrepreneurship."_ | | Plenty of people who were never entrepreneurs suffer the same | or worse.. and do so while earning a tiny pittance of what | CEOs make. | | Lack of money causes all sorts of additional stress on | families as well... including health issues from not being | able to afford health care, or only getting poor quality | healthcare, or not being able to afford preventative care, | eating poorly, living in dangerous/polluted areas, not being | able to afford to send your kids to college, not being able | to afford vacations, etc.. | | Not to mention the stress of being treated like shit or | replaceable cogs by the people above you in work environments | that are unhealthy or unsafe. | | CEOs have it easy. | joyeuse6701 wrote: | Yeah but the (insert suffering in group) had it tougher | than (out group). We can always compare and find someone or | something that has it worse. What's the point in bringing | it up, that we can't feel sorry for someone who has | suffered because someone else has perhaps suffered more in | our estimation? | | No one has nor should have a monopoly on sympathy. | watwut wrote: | I mean, moving whole family without consent of partner indeed | tend to break relationships. Not being able to take major | promotion do cause resentment too, but damm, if my partner | moved me to region I don't want to, I would be pissed. | Johnny555 wrote: | But still, I can't imagine not being willing to move to any | first world country that my senior executive spouse got | transferred to -- as a senior corporate executive they've | have a ton of resources at their disposal to make the move as | easy as possible. | | I have a good job that I like, but if my wife told me her | company was moving her to Japan for a while, I'd jump at the | opportunity. | watwut wrote: | > I can't imagine not being willing to move to any first | world country that my senior executive spouse got | transferred to -- as a senior corporate executive they've | have a ton of resources at their disposal to make the move | as easy as possible. | | I can see it easily. After move, all your friends and all | your life are far away. You have to change habits, | language, adjust to different culture. You are very likely | to be super lonely most of time. And you loose actual | support network where you live. You can get some paid one, | but that is something different. If she worked or had other | ambitions (entirely possible she did not), those are likely | gone after the move. | | Many people like and have build their lives. And many if | not most don't want to uproot and change everything. | bcrosby95 wrote: | It's impossible to answer in a vacuum. | | We live where we live because we're 10 minutes from my | wife's two sisters, my wife's parents, and 3 cousins our | kids love to play with. Generally, I think the only way | we're moving is if they move first. Because my wife's whole | family is here. And she spends multiple days per week with | them. As do our kids. | | The idea that she should be supportive of me tearing her | away from this support structure is questionable. | | Obviously if something came up we would discuss things. But | I don't expect her to like it. Even if it involved a pay | raise. Even if it involved moving somewhere she would love | to live. Because these people aren't there. | op00to wrote: | The idea that a well compensated, educated adult can't | survive without an extensive support structure for a few | years is questionable. Hell, I haven't had a support | system at all - my family was actively abusive and | antagonsitic to me, and yet I was able to successfully | build a career, family, and so on. | | It's just as likely codependancy as it would be support. | dwaltrip wrote: | It's not that they "can't survive". Their life just might | be substantially worse. | [deleted] | AussieWog93 wrote: | >The idea that a well compensated, educated adult can't | survive without an extensive support structure for a few | years is questionable. | | Financially, sure. In terms of mental health and feelings | of isolation (especially for the wife, who won't have a | high-flying career to distract her/build new contacts | in), it's absolutely a problem. | AussieWog93 wrote: | >I have a good job that I like, but if my wife told me her | company was moving her to Japan for a while, I'd jump at | the opportunity. | | Do you have kids? What's your relationship with your family | like? How good/irreplaceable are your friendships? | | For a lot of people, dropping all of these things are | inconceivable. I know my aunty was reduced to tears when | her son (who is expecting a baby) moved from Woodend to | Canberra. To her, it meant seeing her grandkids a couple of | times a year rather than spending time with them every | week. | imchillyb wrote: | --silent room-- | | Dumb, snarky, about to be fired, me: "So. What you're saying | is... She's single?" | JoblessWonder wrote: | Valuable lesson for all of those interns that there is more to | life than business. | jl2718 wrote: | Or that life affects your business much more than the other | way around. Mess it up and you'll start failing at everything | for a million tiny reasons. | munk-a wrote: | It's also important to remember that business is far less | important than other aspects of life. | InCityDreams wrote: | Valuable lesson for all of those interns that....there may be | a million other things going on between two people. Unless | you get both sides of the story, you only have one side of | the story. Applies to CEO's as much to janitors. | blunte wrote: | Maybe this is my pessimistic view, but most relationships don't | last. Some of the ones that do last only because of complacency | or discipline (but they arguably should dissolve). | | Conscious memory seems to favor the positives. Unconscious | memory favors the negatives. If you quickly raise your hand | near a person who has been physically abused a child, even as | an adult they may instinctively recoil. But if you ask someone | about their lost relationship, they will often speak of the | great things of their partner, ignoring the (perhaps | incomprehensible or inarticulable) negatives. | | Life is hopefully quite long. Relationships involve 2 (+?) | people. During one's life, one hopefully changes a lot. Picture | vectors in two dimensions. People who pair up are vectors that | cross at one moment (brief) or run somewhat parallel for a | period. Try as we might, adjusting our trajectories, it's | practically impossible to maintain a parallel path without | giving up some or all of our own development. | | So realistically in our modern times, relationships are based | on a period of relatively parallel trajectories. And when the | distance between those vectors becomes to great, it's time to | stop trying to maintain a connection. That involves some | feelings of sadness, but it also offers new possibilities. | MrFantastic wrote: | It's ironic to me when women choose successful ambitious men to | marry and then complain these same keep striving to climb up | the corporate ranks. | nineplay wrote: | It's ironic to me when men marry for any reason besides | wanting a docile helpmeet and then complain that their | partners have real ambitions, opinions, and goals. | beowulfey wrote: | Believe it or not, some people enter enter into marriage as | equals, and view each other as teammates working together and | respecting each other's input into major life decisions. | Diesel555 wrote: | People also change and / or realize what they thought they'd | like turns out to not be what they like. You can't know you | will like a situation until you are living it. | | I think entering a new job is similar, I may think I'm going | to really like the job, but then when I'm actually doing the | job I realize there are things I didn't consider and don't | like it. Luckily, I can quit a job easily. In a marriage - | you have to grow together if you want it to work. | | There is a book which describes exactly what the author of | the article realized too late, it's better to learn it via | reading than in hindsight: | | Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most | taurath wrote: | Marrying someone with ambitions doesn't mean the ambitious | spouse gets full control over where the other partner lives | and the relationships the other partner can have. A | partnership is not a contract to have the needs of one | partner subsumed by whoever happens to be more ambitious. You | don't know what they communicated before deciding to get | married. Strange to not be able to imagine being on the other | side of it | nobodyandproud wrote: | > Marrying someone with ambitions doesn't mean the | ambitious spouse gets full control over where the other | partner lives and the relationships the other partner can | have. | | Not the OP nor GP, but I think the person who sought after | an ambitious spouse is equally responsible for | understanding the trade-offs. | | The term "married to their career/job" was an old term when | I was a child growing up in the 1970 and 1980s. | | That ambition comes at a veey well-known cost. | | I've also read and heard more than my fair share of | dissolved marriages, because the main provider was always | working; but how many spouses are willing to live far | beneath their means, to accommodate for a better work life- | balance? | watwut wrote: | This does not sound like trade off for ambitions. More | like ignoring her strong preference and then being | shocked it turned out to be straw that broke camels back. | jeffrallen wrote: | dijonman2 wrote: | This is a negative comment and does not contribute to the | conversation. | xyzzyz wrote: | Marrying a successful and ambitious 20-something in no way | commits one to be fine with the same ambitious person | uprooting family's life a decade or two later and moving to | the other side of the world. Family is about shared sacrifice | for its well being, and sometimes (in fact, usually) one | needs to sacrifice their career for the family. That's life. | gamesbrainiac wrote: | I can share the converse example. My uncle had a once in a | lifetime opportunity to get training in the US and get a | promotion at his company. His wife did not want him to | leave for 6 months. He did not get the training or the | promotion. He fell way behind his colleagues that did. Fast | forward 20 years, and he was unable to give his children a | good education, whereas his colleagues who got promoted, | did. | | He gets really sad and jaded when he talks about that | decision. | | I put this real-life story in contrast, just to prove that | it's not just about "Always listen to your wife, she is | always reasonable". For the trivial stuff like putting away | your shoes or your socks, fine. But some decisions make a | career and determine the future success of your offspring. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Marrying a successful and ambitious 20-something in no way | commits one to be fine with the same ambitious person | uprooting family's life a decade or two later and moving to | the other side of the world. | | Oh please. The writing was on the wall. If he's playing the | "climb the corporate ladder" game nobody should surprised | when he draws the "manage the Mongolian division" card. | Expecting him to give that up when climbing the corporate | ladder is the life he's chosen is somewhere on the spectrum | from foolish to selfish. | | There's a reason literally every culture has a litany of | proverbs for women about not trying to change their men | (and there's similiar but different proverbs for men). | cheschire wrote: | Why not also examine the decision of the ambitious spouse to | marry someone who may at some point add friction to the | progress? | | Marriage requires compromise on both ends. I don't see the | irony. | ksdale wrote: | Marrying a successful, ambitious man does not, in any way, | mean that a woman should defer completely to every single | career decision a man makes. I'm sure this executive's | schedule was already plenty demanding without the burden of | moving to another country. | dijonman2 wrote: | If the man is providing for the household then I'd argue | that the woman should make every reasonable effort to | support her husband. | | Everything changes all the time without exception. Getting | used to change serves everyone. | msrenee wrote: | Why do you assume the wife isn't working as well? | HelloMcFly wrote: | Supporting one's spouse does not mean acquiescing to | every opportunity afforded the other. Things are a little | different when we're talking about matters of | shelter/food/health, but in this situation we're talking | about an international relocation of an already | successful businessman. He was pursuing personal career | and experience outcomes, he wasn't trying to drag his | family above the poverty line. | | And besides, it's pretty clear HE regrets the decision. | Maybe learn something from the person who lived the | experience. | | > Everything changes all the time without exception. | Getting used to change serves everyone. | | This statement is meaningless. Change in life is | constant, but everything doesn't change all the time. You | weaponize this statement as if to say we - or at least | one spouse - should abdicate their agency in their own or | their shared life. | AussieWog93 wrote: | The thing is, he was likely already providing incredibly | well for the household and didn't need to move the whole | family to Asia. If I pulled some crazy shit like that, | I'd hope my wife reminds me who I'm working for and why. | JoblessWonder wrote: | FWIW, it sounds like she DID move with him and support | him (through a non-"reasonable" request of moving to the | other side of the world.) | | The marriage still fell apart. | nineplay wrote: | She's providing for the household by taking care of | everything in their lives outside of his specific | business functions. | | He should be making every reasonable effort to support | her. | dijonman2 wrote: | Money isn't free. The person earning needs to be | supported. Running a house is work but I wholeheartedly | reject the notion of someone both working and | supplicating their partner. This is abuse. | brewdad wrote: | If you think this story represents abuse, I truly hope | you aren't married and never do. | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | > taking care of everything in their lives outside of his | specific business functions. | | You're just making stuff up. You don't know this is the | case. | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | > a woman should defer completely to every single career | decision a man makes | | You're making a straw man argument here... none of the | comments above say "defer completely" or "every single | decision". | ksdale wrote: | Haha the parent post literally said that it was ironic | that a woman would marry an ambitious man and then | complain about said ambition. The ambition, implicitly, | being wanting to move to Asia for a job. It seems to me | if a woman isn't allowed to complain about moving | continents for a job, she's not allowed to complain about | anything, and this is, therefore, not a strawman. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Yeah, I don't see the straw man there. Signing up for | 55-hour workweeks does not mean signing up for a life in | Asia. | ponow wrote: | Sounds like bait and switch. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Reminded me of The Office. "It's not real until your wife is on | board." | draw_down wrote: | gompertz wrote: | I keep this in mind too when cancelling plans or trips in | order to do 'important' corporate work. The business will | never remember you did a day from now; but your partner sure | as hell will. | a_brawling_boo wrote: | Thanks for saying this. I spent years worried if I took an | hour or two or a day during 'busy' times, and it turned me | into a liar, because I said I do things or be somewhere and | often times I did not because of work. It is always a | 'busy' time. | | It took years, several jobs, and therapy before my eyes | were open. Nobody cares, you are a human and have a life, | if your employer does not understand that you need a new | one. | asdff wrote: | I see my friends do this all the time and I just want to | slap them in the face and tell them to snap out of | whatever trance they are in. They work long hours, they | are no longer making the time to take care of themselves, | or keep up with people they love. They complain how | terribly they hate their situation and how depressed it | is, but they continue working those 60 hour weeks and | bending over backwards to terrible bosses as if that is | how it simply is and there is nothing better. It's making | me depressed just seeing them slide off like this, all | because of these shit jobs they put themselves into. And | its not like they can't find other work either, they have | good experience, but are so beaten down by the current | job that they can't muster energy to commit to a job | search on top of that 60 hour work week. You almost have | to rip the bandaid off and just quit with nothing lined | up. | jrumbut wrote: | It's a challenge to recognize those times that your need | to work constantly is what you want to do (excited about | a technical challenge, avoiding something at home, on an | ambition kick), and your boss wouldn't blink an eye if | you took the week off rather than work 80 hours. | SpaceMartini wrote: | This hit me when moving from a start-up to a FAANG. There | is effectively an infinite amount of work for me to do on | any given day, so at some point I just have to decide to | stop - if I don't, I'll just end up tired tomorrow with | an equally infinite amount of stuff still to do. | [deleted] | Hayvok wrote: | They don't teach you stuff like this in business school, but | they should. | technotony wrote: | Depends on the business school. At INSEAD we had a whole | elective class devoted to personal psycological decisions | like this to get people thinking about what kind of trade | offs they wanted to make. | vorpalhex wrote: | I wish that had been an option for me as a CS student.. | it was hard for me to learn it in the real world where | you get lots of "work hard, play hard" speeches. | idkwhoiam wrote: | I made a decision to not get married because I don't want these | kind of problems and drama in my life. Also, depending on your | country of residence, marriage is probably the worst deal in your | life. | raldi wrote: | This sounds to me more like a symptom, and the underlying | pathology is that this person gave insufficient consideration to | all the little concessions his partner was making on the things | that matter to him, and was certainly not expressing gratitude | for them. | hackeraccount wrote: | Marriage is like kids. What does it expect? Blood. | | I remember a guy who planned to join the Marines when I was a | kid. Every time I saw him he was doing push-ups. All the time. A | neighbor - who was ex-military or maybe even a Marine himself - | told me that was all well and good but had limited utility. If | you go can do 100 push-ups when you go through boot camp they'll | make you do 110. They want blood. | greenonions wrote: | dang wrote: | Please omit hostile swipes from your HN comments, even when | another comment doesn't make sense or feels off somehow. The | swipe aspect only makes everything worse. You can express | your question in a more open-minded way. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | csours wrote: | Listen to human experiences. If someone tells you they are | experiencing something, they are experiencing it. | m3kw9 wrote: | " My wife left me because sometimes I leave dishes by the sink." | can easily spiral out to "you don't give a sht about my feelings, | I'm not heard even for little things requested constantly" and | then it amplifies other little dismissed requests which all come | together and builds up from a mole hill to a mountian | sethammons wrote: | In a relationship, you often get to chose between being right | _or_ being happy. | | A lot of people don't realize this but here it was again. The | author wanted to be right ("my view is correct, glass near the | sink is not important"). The author lost being happy at the cost | of being right since their spouse left. | jgerrish wrote: | Ooh, we could write a ML app to categorize plates and precious | china and recommend a way to pack your dishwasher and like even | provide house-dependent subsets of recommended packing (collect | bonus points!) and this is so fucking magical! | | Am I missing the point? | meerperson wrote: | This seems like a one-sided stopgap to a problem that is | undoubtedly two-sided and it sets a precedent for [the author's | definition of] respect that cannot be maintained indefinitely. | For example, what if you were just about to put the glass in the | dishwasher but the doorbell rings? | | The only settings that come to mind where this level of | "adherence" is maintained are prisons or abusive households where | everyone is in fear of punishment, and where punishments can even | be handed out by the warden for no reason at all. | strikelaserclaw wrote: | This is why a husband and wife should share a core value system | otherwise one person would sacrifice their values for the other | and that also ends up with resentment. | ceejayoz wrote: | > This seems like a one-sided stopgap to a problem that is | undoubtedly two-sided and it sets a precedent for [the author's | definition of] respect that cannot be maintained indefinitely. | | I don't know that it's one-sided. The author may have asked | their spouse to similarly adjust behavior in various ways; if | they were amenable to that, but didn't get a corresponding | response on their own pet peeves, that'd be an imbalance that'd | stew over time. | | > For example, what if you were just about to put the glass in | the dishwasher but the doorbell rings? | | Doing it very occasionally and doing it all the time are likely | to have substantially different impacts on the spouse. | InfiniteRand wrote: | You're right, frequency matters. I also think it matters that | he reacted defensively (at least that's how I read the | essay), rather that just saying, "Okay, sure" and putting the | glass in the dishwasher. It's a token response that doesn't | really mean much, but it's a token that shows some | consideration. | | I think that's why a workaround solution like putting the | glass on a counter out-of-sight would also be helpful. It's | not that the workaround necessarily improves anything from | his wife's perspective (the glass still needs to be cleaned) | but it shows some effort. | nineplay wrote: | I'm the messy one ( and the wife ) in our situation and this | article has made me think about my relationship. | | My takeaway is that I can sit and pout that my partner shouldn't | be overreacting to a glass and I can sit and pout and say why | should I be the one to change, why can't he change. | | Or I can stay married. If I'm going to get caught up in my | marriage being 'fair' I'm going to lose. There have to be times | when I 'lose' because I give in and he doesn't. I have to trust | that there will be times when he 'loses' because he's giving in | when I don't. | | It's that trust that's important. Not each little niggling fight | but a trust that the other person is going to value you over | valuing some abstract concept of fair. If I show a willingness to | overcome my preferences for his sake, then he's going to be more | willing to overcome his preferences for my sake. | | It's easy to get stuck on fair but that turns hundreds of little | things into battlegrounds. | | If I trust that he's a loving caring person than I should be | willing to lose. If I don't trust that, then we're already done. | madrox wrote: | This, I think, is the heart of advice heard so often: "don't | keep score." If balancing our emotional checkbook is more | important than harmony with our partner, we care about | something more than our marriage. I'm no expert, but I think | caring about anything more than our marriage is how marriages | end. | maestroia wrote: | Let's reverse the situation and ask, what did she do which he | considered disrespectful? | | Did he go all passive-aggressive over those items? Did he discuss | them with her? Would she consider changing her behavior, even | minor? | | It takes two to tango. | lloydatkinson wrote: | Get a dishwasher | 1970-01-01 wrote: | That won't solve their issue | chmod600 wrote: | The author still doesn't seem to quite get it. | | The problem is that seeing the dish was one of his wife's primary | interactions with him, and it was a negative one. She doesn't see | him most of the day, I'm guessing, but she still sees the one | glass on the otherwise pristine countertop and knows it's him. It | causes a slight bad mood, which carries over to the time she does | see him, which then puts him in a bad mood. | | The solution is to literally count good interactions you have | with your partner during a day or week. It could be by being | unexpectedly tidy or with small surprises or even just being | excited and happy and lighting up a room for no reason. If that | count starts to average less than one, your are in real trouble. | | What won't work is driving the small annoyances down to zero. | Sorry, ain't gonna work. There's always something to be annoyed | about. | | That being said, if your partner seems to care a lot about one | thing, at least make some effort just because you care. But do it | because you want them to be happy, not to systematically | eliminate possible causes of divorce, because it's not gonna save | you. | [deleted] | SunlightEdge wrote: | I think this is very useful advice. It partly reminds of | laughing therapy. Where people laugh continuously for 2 minutes | (fake laugh). But what can happen is that you start to | genuinely feel happy and laugh. | pshc wrote: | https://archive.ph/t3m62 | holdenc wrote: | Today its glasses of water by the sink, tomorrow it's "you have | to sanitize the car steering wheel after you drive," and | eventually it's "don't get close to me if you walked by the bus | stop." I feel sorry for anyone who has to endure this. | Barrera wrote: | > When we're having The Same Fight, positive intent, or chalking | up any harm caused as accidental, can be just as much of a trust | killer as more overtly harmful actions. It doesn't matter whether | we are intentionally refusing to cooperate with our spouse or | legitimately unable to understand what's wrong--the math results | are the same. The net result of The Same Fight is more pain. Less | trust. Regardless of anyone's intentions. | | It would be very enlightening to also read the article written | from the perspective of the partner. I suspect that partner would | not focus on the glass but the lack of empathy shown by the other | side, and the erosion of trust that causes over time. | raydev wrote: | He covers the lack of empathy pretty well if you read to the | end. | notacoward wrote: | My wife and I wrote our own marriage vows. The first two were | pretty conventional (stay together, share joys and sorrows). The | third was the most important IMO and also hardest to keep. | | "Treat each other's needs and priorities as equal to our own" | | If you don't think it's hard, try it. I don't mean just | respecting each other's time and attention in a general sense, | which BTW I've come to believe is a good rule for all | interactions. I mean treating their habits and preferences and | pet peeves, no matter how silly they seem to you, as seriously as | your own. Also, no double standards _anywhere_ in your life | together. No matter how exhausted or aggravated you are yourself | at that moment. Consistently doing that takes a _lot_ more self | discipline than most people have. I can 't say we've always | succeeded, but after 26 years I'd say it has been worth the | effort. | | N.B. I'm _not_ saying you shouldn 't have your own preferences | and habits and pet peeves. I'm totally not into that "become one | person" thing; my wife and I are in fact pretty notoriously | independent and happy to do our own separate things e.g. at | social gatherings. There _will_ be conflicts between your | priorities and theirs. I 'm just saying that those conflicts | should be resolved starting from a position of equality. | em-bee wrote: | _" Treat each other's needs and priorities as equal to our | own"_ | | i'd go a step further and say that we each are responsible for | each others needs and priorities. at least the important ones. | my job is to enable and support your needs and priorities, and | your job is to enable and support mine. | | your needs are actually more important than my own. | | this of course only works if we both understand, agree and | respect on what each others needs and priorities are. which | requires open communication. | | because if you take advantage of me fulfilling your needs while | you ignore my needs then the relationship will fail. | notacoward wrote: | Can't sign on with that. Subordinating one's own desires to | the other or to the relationship like that isn't healthy, | even if it's mutual, and I'm pretty sure my own marriage | wouldn't have lasted this long if either of us had tried it. | "Two servants" doesn't work. I think O. Henry even wrote a | story about where it leads, and can lead even with the best | of communication. Consciously or no, sooner or later one | person will demand more and - lacking any directive that | would pull things back into balance - you'll have an unequal | relationship. IMO treating each other's needs as _exactly_ | equal, no less but also no more, does provide the necessary | pull toward the center and thus is more sustainable long | term. | em-bee wrote: | fair point. maybe i am seeing things a bit to idealistic. | it depends on the persons character. someone who is not | assertive needs more attention from their partner to their | needs than others. | | it also makes more sense to look at it from the other side: | | if i know that my partner is subordinating her desires for | my sake, then i have an extra responsibility to make sure | that i take care of her needs. | SteveGerencser wrote: | I stopped doing dishes and generally cleaning around the house | years ago. To start, I started in the restaurant business as a | kid and my idea of cleaning a kitchen is wildly different than | hers. While I was in restaurants she was in the USAF having other | people do things like clean. | | After many years of me watching her take everything I washed or | put away out and redo it, even emptying the dishwasher just to | reload it and wash the dishes became a 'normal' thing. I gave up | trying and just leave dishes in the sink or next to it because no | matter what I do, she will redo it. | | I wait till she's out of town and do a deep clean on the kitchen | just so I know it's finally cleaned the way it should be. | [deleted] | simulate-me wrote: | I don't think it's possible to pinpoint why relationships | dissolve. Sure, there is always "something," be it dirty dishes, | a certain habit, etc. But usually, these are context-specific | complaints, meaning the person complaining about e.g. dirty | dishes could be happy in a totally different relationship where | their partner also didn't do the dishes. Ultimately relationships | break down because one or both people stop trying. Caring about | the dishes is a symptom of, or response to, relationship apathy, | not the cause. | DanHulton wrote: | There is a whole other potential article out there that could be | written from the ex-wife's side - "My marriage died because I | couldn't make this one simple sacrifice". | | And I suspect both would just as incorrect, at least by omission. | The glass thing is a useful article hook, but it's unlikely that | it encompasses the sole reason their marriage fell apart. There | is a deeper issue here, about neither side being willing to | sacrifice for the other that likely really lies at fault. | | I like the idea that a really good relationship is a 60/40 | compromise, where both sides are struggling to be the 60. It | sounds like both sides of this marriage were struggling to be the | 40. | [deleted] | 4ec0755f5522 wrote: | The wife's article would be called "I told him everything I | needed but he still thinks it's about the dishes". | david-gpu wrote: | _> a really good relationship is a 60 /40 compromise, where | both sides are struggling to be the 60_ | | Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but in my experience | feeling that you are doing most of the compromising can easily | lead to resentment. Looking at things as a zero-sum game in | which you are either compromising or getting things your way at | a certain ratio is intrinsically competitive. | | In my opinion, both in marriage and in other social settings, | relationships grow stronger when both feel that they are | working together towards a common goal that satisfies all | parties. This takes more work than a simple "your way or my | way" approach, but it leads to all parties feeling seen and | heard (because they are!). | [deleted] | jancsika wrote: | > I like the idea that a really good relationship is a 60/40 | compromise, where both sides are struggling to be the 60. It | sounds like both sides of this marriage were struggling to be | the 40. | | I'm picturing a therapist helping a refugee from Objectivism by | suggesting to "compete on making the greater compromise, within | a threshold" because that's easier to explain to them than | cooperation. | jrm4 wrote: | I'd take this even further. Sometimes it's 50/50. Sometimes | 60/40, Sometimes 100/0. You just have to comfortable with | that's how it is. | cjohnson318 wrote: | The Gottman Institute did a lot of research on the effect | of accepting bids (putting the glass in the sink), ignoring | bids (leaving the glass out), and rejecting bids (throwing | the glass against the wall and arguing), and they | determined that accepting a bid added one feeling dollar | (my term) to the bank account of your marriage (my | metaphor), while rejecting a bid took five out, and | ignoring a bid took like ten or fifteen out. | | TLDR: Ignoring someone, or causing them to feel ignored, is | more painful than intentionally being mean to them, because | even that is a form of acknowledgement or attention. Also, | you need to keep putting feeling dollars in the bank | because you never know when you're going to have a huge | fight, have your partner check the balance, and decide | there's no reason to keep going. | jrm4 wrote: | Broadly, this is a GREAT point. I wonder if the author | ever let loose with a loud "Why the f** do you think this | glass is so important? It's _objectively_ stupid and you | 're being ridiculous! Get over it, it's just a f**ing | glass!" | | Not for the truth of the point or being correct, which is | impossible to determine, but for the generation of what | comes next. | vxNsr wrote: | Personally I'd rather lose 100% of the disagreement some of | time (i.e. 50%) than part (40%, 50%, 60%) of the argument | every time. | jrm4 wrote: | I mean, you have to go to the classic point of rhetoric | here. Do you want to win all the arguments, or do you | want to have your way? Strategically losing arguments, or | even just "lots of admitting when you're wrong (and also | subconsciously reminding and modeling the fact that it's | okay to be wrong)" is worth so much. | photochemsyn wrote: | Ideally a partnership is a 'the whole is greater than the sum | of the parts' situation. It should be a win-win for both | partners. If both partners have to 'make sacrifices' then you | have a 'the whole is less than the sum of the parts' and in | that case, the only reasonable thing to do is to chuck it all | out the window and start over. | | The 'trial period' in a relationship should be a time frame in | which both partners try to figure out if they're in a win-win | situation or not. | | Incidentally, this is why economic collapse at the societal | level leads to so many divorces. Yes, that sounds | transactional, but that's the reality of marriage, it's as much | an economic partnership as it is an emotional one. Not | necessarily a great idea for everyone, too. | thesuitonym wrote: | That was the bulk of the article... The glass wasn't the | problem, it was indicative of greater problems. The author even | says ``A dish by the sink in no way feels painful or | disrespectful to a spouse who wakes up every day and | experiences a marriage partner who communicates in both word | and action how important and cherished their spouse and | relationship are.'' | | They had communication issues, but it wasn't anything huge, it | was all small cuts like the glass by the sink, or the socks | casually left at the foot of the bed, letting the trash bin | overfill... All these little things that display a casual air | of thoughtlessness. | Dobbs wrote: | This isn't about the dishes. The dishes are just a symptom of | the unequal divide of emotional labour in most relationships. | Even in relationships where both parents work full time more | often than not the majority of the mental and physical burden | of running the house tends to fall onto the woman. Of course | this isn't an absolute, but it does tend to hold true. | | You can see this at the outbreak of COVID where many women had | to step back from jobs because they suddenly had a massively | increased load of child care that by default fell onto their | shoulders. | | The article is about someone coming to the realization of the | ugly situation they are putting their spouse into, one that is | extremely common. Don't try and devalue that by turning it into | a "both sides" debacle. | giantg2 wrote: | "Even in relationships where both parents work full time more | often than not the majority of the mental and physical burden | of running the house tends to fall onto the woman." | | I'd love to see the data on this. | cassac wrote: | This is of course anecdotal, but I find many people (of all | genders) like to complain when people don't do it the way | they want, and when they can't micro manage, they get | upset. If you just want it done then delegate. If you want | it done YOUR way then YOU have to do it. | | For example my wife always makes it sound like finding | shoes for the kids is the same as planning a trip to the | moon. If I say I'm going to get them shoes she says I can't | be trusted. I don't care, the kids don't care, but boy does | it stress her out every time their feet grow. | brimble wrote: | Guys make up for it by doing the majority of the household | tasks with the highest likelihoods to kill or maim the | person doing it. | | (Mostly joking. But only mostly.) | Dobbs wrote: | If you look around for things about "emotional labor" or | "unpaid labor". | | For example I found this from around 2014, it isn't | strictly about dual income households, but there is data | out there for that: | | > Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time | on unpaid care work than men. | | Source: https://www.oecd.org/Dev/Development- | Gender/Unpaid_Care_Work... | giantg2 wrote: | Any source for US or other developed countries? And of | course the dual income is important too. | | Of course in developing nations or other scenarios with | stay at home women will see them doing more unpaid work. | I'd imagine it's similar for a brief time in developed | countries when women leave the workforce to have children | too. | | At least in my experience it seems division of overall | labor is generally equal for the relationships I have | seen. | sjostrom7 wrote: | https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/24/among-u- | s-c... | | https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/25/for- | america... | | https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main- | househ... | | Anecdotally, I have a fairly progressive friend circle | and I still think, between talking to different halves of | a given hetero couple, it seems like the man tends to | exaggerate how much he does around the house, how much | childcare he does, how self-motivated he is to do so, | etc. When asked, these men will enthusiastically agree | that the split should be even when both partners are | working, but walking the walk is understandably tougher. | These patterns don't disappear within a generation, | unfortunately. If I only spoke to the men, I'd have the | same impression you do. | giantg2 wrote: | So, for link number one... I guess we have to define if | we are measuring work by hours or by tasks completed. | It's possible that some of those men are cooking as many | meals but that they spend less time doing it. Secondly, | and more importantly, that article is about only a single | area. I want to see overall breakdown of all the | work/chores. The article hints at women working fewer | paid hours. That's an area that should be more thoroughly | investigated, as whoever is working fewer hours at a job | is more likely to be doing more chores to contribute | equally. | | For the second article, it seems to be self-reported | perceptions and not actual measurements. Again, it only | deals with limited categories. Of course if we are | looking at chores that are traditionally "women's work", | some of that bias may carry over. Likewise, handyman | work, appliance repair, mechanic work, paperwork, yard | work, etc that are traditionally "men's work" are likely | to still have more men than women saying they spend more | time on that. | | The third article is more what I was looking for. It's | still perception based but it takes into account a wider | array of tasks. It also shows how working status and | income play a role. It also backs up my theory that the | bias extends the other way on the traditional "men's | work" portions. | | So we aren't going to see that grey line hit 100% in | every category, and for good reason. Specialization of | labor leads to efficiency. So task assignment or self- | assignemnt will go to the person who is more interested | in or better at that task. I would have liked to see an | overall category to see how close the overall chore and | work breakdown would be to 50/50. That's really the meat | of the issue - equally contributing, even if the | underlying tasks are divied up. Otherwise, we can cherry | pick tasks like mechanic work or dishes to fit whatever | narrative we want. | david38 wrote: | Not all full time work is equal. I'll bet whoever has the | more draining job cares a lot less about the household. | em500 wrote: | The marriage lesson that I learned, not too late, is to hire | domestic help pretty much as soon as we could afford it. | Dobbs wrote: | If resources are there then yes I definitely agree. It | makes a major difference in quality of life, particularly | for myself and my partner who both struggle with ADHD. | kraftman wrote: | I think there are two seperate issues. One is the dishes, and | the divide of labour. Of course both of those should be equal | in the way that both people deem fair. | | The second is about respect and attitude and empathy towards | your partner. It's about remembering that something is a | bigger deal to your partner than it is to you. I like to look | after my electronics so they'll last a long time, my wife is | less careful with them and sometimes that bugs me, but I know | that it's just not on her radar the same way its on mine. If | it gets bad we discuss it and try and reach a compromise. The | same goes for loads of other things too: if you go into it | assuming the best of your partner not the worst you'll have a | completely different relationship, and different discussions | about how to solve the problem. | david38 wrote: | It's not an unequal divide in emotional labor. He is doing | what he sees fit, but she requires much more. | | If I'm content to live at level 10, so do level 5 work, I'm | not being lazy. If she requires living at level 20, she will | then need to do level 15 work. | | She will view him as slacking off, but in reality, he isn't. | They just have different standards. It is no more correct for | her to force him to level 20 as for him to force her to level | 10. It's simply an incompatibility that they didn't consider | when marrying. | lhorie wrote: | Yeah, gonna have to agree with you here. The guy appears to | be downplaying his role by trying to make it a narrative | about glasses by the dishwasher, but if you were to hear the | wife's perspective being boiled down to "I am not your maid", | that would put things in a very different light. Then, it's | not about glasses or socks or messy storage spaces or how | inconsequential any of those seem to any particular person, | it's about who has to pick up the slack and why. | | If anyone here is a guy finding themselves siding with the | guy in this story, one way to "see things from the other | side" is to imagine a scenario that is traditionally reversed | in terms of gender roles. For example a scenario where your | partner leaves hair clogging the bathtub and you have to | clean up after them every time. And go buy drano and get | dirty plunging the drain for 5 minutes every once in a blue | moon. After repeatedly complaining about the issue for over a | decade. "What do you mean I never clean up, I do my best to | try to remember to do it. It's not a big deal. The pipes | being old aren't _my_ fault " they say every time. Be honest | and tell me your immediate armchair solution isn't to bail | out of that relationship. | lubesGordi wrote: | No, it's always the person who isn't communicating their | wishes and building up resentment over time that is at | fault. If they were communicating their wishes and the | other person was saying no, I'm not doing that, well then | that's something different. | | If you say, 'this is important to me' and I don't naturally | see it as important, it's my job to take your perspective | into account. If I actually care about you, this is a non- | issue (I don't want you to suffer!). If a million things | are 'important to you' and you need everything done now, | well then there's reasonableness issues there. These issues | can get sliced a million different ways and its the | emotional intelligence matchup (or corresponding sacrifice) | of the two parties that's going to decide which way it | goes. | cgriswald wrote: | The problem with the marriage was that he ignored all these | things that were various levels of important to his wife | rather than take the opportunity to show her that she was | important to him. | | Unequal division of labor could explain _why_ the dishes were | important to her; but that 's not in the article and it's not | what the article about. | | I think an unequal division of labor is largely orthogonal. | In my failed marriage, I carried the greater burden by far. | Yet it was my ex who had the thought "you don't do X, so you | don't love me." | chasingthewind wrote: | I don't think you're using the term "Emotional Labor" in the | usual sense [0] | | "Emotional labor is the process of managing feelings and | expressions to fulfill the emotional requirements of a job." | | I do see people broaden the meaning of this term to mean | almost anything that women do above and beyond a fair split | of work, but I think your argument would be clearer if you | just to it as the unequal divide of "housework" or some other | term. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | I think the correct term here is "Cognitive labour" not | "Emotional Labor" | | https://behavioralscientist.org/how-couples-share- | cognitive-... | | https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/what-is-the-mental- | lo... | | In other words if I actually do put the dishes away and | take the trash out, _but only when asked to_; then my | partner would be within their rights to tell me to grow up | and do the necessary when it obviously needs doing, to stop | being passive and share some of the "Cognitive labour" of | worrying about the to-do-list. | | And if I don't even do it when asked ... well then I'm just | adding to their cognitive labour. | nine_k wrote: | I'd say that the whole "can't put dishes into sink for years" | is but a tip of an iceberg, and the main part of it is "can't | be bothered to pay attention for years". I suspect that such a | breakdown in communication must be felt pervasively, but can't | be described as easily, and likely most instances are too | intimate to disclose publicly. | | If a bridge is under unsustainable strain, a single rivet | failure can lead to a catastrophic collapse of the whole thing, | even though everything just looked okay a moment ago. | charles_f wrote: | That's not what I took out of the article. I took out that the | glass by the sink is just the token symptom for one of the | 10000 ways that the author ignored stuff that made his partner | fumed, representing an underlying lack of respect, and | ultimately left. He mentions it as the real reason: | | > It was about consideration. About the pervasive sense that | she was married to someone who did not respect nor appreciate | her. | vmception wrote: | Another thing many couples miss is positive reinforcement. | | Many people fall into the trap of ignoring the desired behavior | and chastising the undesired behavior. | | Because the desired behavior is _so_ normal and benign to one | party. But its clearly not to the other party. | | If the glass was in the dish washer or washed and put away, I | could imagine many couples experiencing no conditioning towards | repeating that behavior. | zrail wrote: | Yep. I regularly thank my partner for the work they do to | keep the house running and they do the same back for me. It | genuinely helps me feel more connected to them when we | recognize and show appreciation for the things that could | absolutely be considered automatic. | raydev wrote: | > but it's unlikely that it encompasses the sole reason their | marriage fell apart | | And he says as much in the article. It's frustrating to read | all these comments that are clearly written without reading the | entire thing! | snarf21 wrote: | Divorced and looking back, the root cause of this (in my | experience) is a lack of empathy. Love is easy to come by while | empathy requires walking in someone else's shoes. I understand | this Same Fight because I lived through that. It is _never_ | about that thing, it is about not being seen. As the author is | processing his divorce, it is good he sees that there is value | in doing something selflessly. However, I can 't help but | wonder if he isn't missing the forest for the trees. Maybe this | man truly doesn't care about order/structure/cleanliness in any | area of life, but I have to imagine there is at least _one_ | area that they are meticulous about. Whether that is his tools | in the garage, his golf clubs, his home theater setup, etc. | Would he have reacted in the same "... in the grand scheme of | things, does it really matter?" nonchalance if his wife started | leaving screwdriver in the bathroom and hammers in the living | room or if his golf clubs were thrown on the floor under bags | of trash? It feels like he stopped after he learned the first | lesson examining his divorce and didn't finish. | | I think a lot of people would be well served to make a simple | list of the life tasks that each partner currently performs. | Then (where work schedules are possible), switch for 60 days. | Anyone can grab groceries one day and it is no big deal. Force | the other person to plan weeks of meals, keep the pantry | stocked, etc. shines a bigger light on the unseen work and | value each partner is providing. I learned this lesson the hard | way and am better for it. Empathy is hard won and we need more | of it. Apologies to my ex-wife for not being the person I | didn't yet know I could be. | giantg2 wrote: | "Force the other person to plan weeks of meals, keep the | pantry stocked, etc. shines a bigger light on the unseen work | and value each partner is providing." | | If my wife were doing this, our grocery bill would double and | it would all be frozen dinners and takeout. I'm not sure I | trust her to do safety critical mechanic work either. So | maybe switching isn't great for some tasks. | | Edit: It seems people disagree. Why? All I'm saying is that | not everyone is suited to doing all tasks and that switching | for some of them might not work or could even be dangerous. | powerslacker wrote: | Funnily enough, randoms on the internet seem to think they | know your wife better than you do. | | I agree with your position, not everyone is suited for | every task. In my house, there are certain chores that only | I do because I'm the only one capable. On the other hand, | there are certain chores my wife won't let me near because | I'll make an absolute mess of things. | | I think a good number of people on this site have swallowed | a tad too much equality propaganda. Individuals are not all | the same and they don't all have the same capabilities, | instead individuals complement each other with their | diverse skills, views, personalities, and natural talents. | lhorie wrote: | Isn't that kind of the point, to show to the partner that | you have expectations for how certain things are done in a | certain way for a certain reason that they might not have | had an appreciation for. | | It can in fact be an avenue to dig into the deeper | communication issues, e.g. if there's a pattern of | downplaying expressed concerns or assumptions without | actual communications, it's gonna surface real quick if the | partner ruins a power tool (or the non-stick pan, or the | monthly budget, or whatever) if they don't follow certain | rules. | giantg2 wrote: | Sure, for small stuff that makes sense for a one or two | time experience. They recommended 60 days. Eating | preprocessed frozen diners for two months could be | unenjoyable to one party and not the other. They might | not care about the added cost too. So it could work if | they try to stick to the rules. If they just don't care, | then that might suck. | | Then for the car issue... even one large mistake could | cost thousands or lead to death. If they are supervised, | then maybe that could work. But that would at least | require enough extra time to allocate 2 resources to the | same task. | lhorie wrote: | Yeah, the way my wife and and I go about rotating tasks | usually has one person explaining/hand-holding to | whatever degree is appropriate precisely because damaging | goods isn't a desirable outcome. As an exercise, it can | still surface issues even without full on cold turkey | switches, e.g. does one tend to forget/downplay/skimp | things that were already covered previously, is the | communication actionable/respectful/unambiguous/etc, do | complaints surface verbally, does the taught person | actually take away any lessons they didn't | know/consider/appreciate before, etc. | | For example, the junk food example doesn't need to | literally put you in the red, it can just lead to you | complaining the food is crap and hopefully imparting that | food not being crap is important to you. | aliswe wrote: | Voting system is unforgiving. | bee_rider wrote: | She would probably also outsource that mechanical work to a | mechanic, just like you'd outsource the cooking work to the | microwave/freezing company. Although, by outsourcing this | work, you'd both have a little bit more free time. It might | be a worthwhile experiment just to try for a month, if you | can swing it. | giantg2 wrote: | You don't understand, I already do the shopping/cooking | and the mechanic work. Outsourcing costs a lot of money. | Plus, if the point of switching is to appreciate the | labor of the other person, then outsourcing defeats the | purpose. | | My point is, some tasks may not be equally suited for | both people in the relationship. | bee_rider wrote: | Ah, ok. I thought you were providing one example where | she normally does a task that you'd do poorly, and one | where you normally do a task that she'd do did poorly, to | set up a sort of symmetrical example. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Plus, if the point of switching is to appreciate the | labor of the other person, then outsourcing defeats the | purpose. | | Locating, finding, and managing interaction with | appropriate help is labor, too. | | And it's often a better way of getting the job done, even | if the immediately obvious monetary cost is higher. | giantg2 wrote: | "Locating, finding, and managing interaction with | appropriate help is labor, too." | | But not the same kind. And really it's minimal once you | find a good shop. | | "And it's often a better way of getting the job done, | even if the immediately obvious monetary cost is higher." | | How so? If I can save $500-2k on maintenance costs every | year, that's significant. | dragonwriter wrote: | > But not the same kind. And really it's minimal once you | find a good shop. | | Yes, that's an important time efficiency. Expending more | effort on the same results is not a virtue. | | > If I can save $500-2k on maintenance costs every year, | that's significant. | | Yes, but possibly less significant than the other | benefits you could bring the partnership by _not_ | spending time on that. | giantg2 wrote: | "Yes, that's an important time efficiency. Expending more | effort on the same results is not a virtue." | | It's not the same result though. One costs a lot of | money, the other costs only a little. Your statement only | makes sense if someone has a bunch of spare money laying | around. | | "Yes, but possibly less significant than the other | benefits you could bring the partnership by not spending | time on that." | | That's a moot point since my wife works during most of my | off-hours. But I'm curious, what are these other | benefits? | ngc248 wrote: | Totally agree... different people are suited for different | things | orwin wrote: | You should learn to cook new dishes together. To each their | own, especially in their own home, but cooking have | inherent value itself for multiple reasons, and teach a lot | of soft skills. And cooking together is great, if your wife | agree to let you be slow and let you mess up. If you have | kids especially: some of my best memories are my parents | learning to cook weird asian dishes and fail or succeed | together. | giantg2 wrote: | I enjoy cooking new stuff. She's completely uninterested | in learning. | aidenn0 wrote: | It's funny, my wife has literally zero interest in | learning computer programming in any way. I found that a | bit odd, as I'd like to at least learn enough about | anything she spends more than, say, 20 hours a week doing | so that I can nod in the right places when she complains. | Talking with my friend group, nobody found it even the | slightest bit odd. | | You say your wife has no interest in cooking and | everybody loses their mind. Doubly ironic because I would | wager on HN, people are probably better programmers than | cooks, on average. | trelane wrote: | > I would wager on HN, people are probably better | programmers than cooks, on average. | | I don't know if my cooking or programming skills are more | insulted. ;) | brimble wrote: | Most people find programming brain-meltingly dull. | Socially, we're _much_ closer to accountants than the | real professional class--lawyers, doctors, and the | professional-adjacent groups like professors--and also | closer to accountants (and not the fun kind, like | forensic accountants) as far as people 's interest in | what we do than, say, mechanical engineers or aerospace | engineers or biologists or pharmaceutical chemists or | whatever. May not be true in certain _very_ tech-oriented | cities like SF where everyone seems to be connected to | software (I dunno) but it is everywhere else. | | Shit, lots of programmers find it dull, too. It just pays | a lot and is pretty fuckin' easy, so they get over it. | | (incidentally, I'm pretty sure the social-class thing is | why programmers struggle to get basic professional | respect and perks like a goddamn office and not being | micromanaged, even when our pay is sky-high--those are | _social_ perks, and we don 't rate them, mostly) | giantg2 wrote: | "people are probably better programmers than cooks, on | average." | | Maybe. I think cooking is just a different type of | programming, with neat hacks, syntax to follow, etc. | Garbage in, garbage out is especially applicable too. | | Also, who is losing their mind over my wife not cooking? | | I believe everyone who eats should know how to cook at | least a few basic things. Just like anyone who wears | clothes should know how to wash them. Etc | em-bee wrote: | _If my wife were doing this, our grocery bill would double | and it would all be frozen dinners and takeout._ | | that's pretty dismissive. do you know this from experience? | have you tried it? that's the point. not the outcome. does | your wife understand the effort you go through? does she | respect that? does she want it? | | the point is not to train each other to be equally suited | to every task, but to better understand each other. | | if you are both happy with the arrangement as it is then | you don't need to do anything, but but if one of you is | unhappy about the efforts of the other then it may help to | bring these things to light. | giantg2 wrote: | "do you know this from experience?" | | Yes. She doesn't/can't cook. When she shops she buys only | the most expensive name brands. She buys only | frozen/instant/pre-made meal items. | | "does your wife understand the effort you go through? | does she respect that? does she want it?" | | She sort of understands, but impossible to completely | under the circumstances. She sort of respects. She does | not want to cook. | | "if you are both happy with the arrangement" | | For the most part, yes. | [deleted] | Cerium wrote: | Years ago I learned this lesson about marriage while on a trip | in South Western China. I joined a tour group to see a mountain | for a few days. My party was six and the van sat eight, so the | driver got another couple to join us. They were fascinating. We | learned over meals together that they were an arraigned | marriage. At the time I had extremely negative views around the | practice, thanks to growing up in the USA where we celebrate | our freedom to choose the perfect partner. From them I learned | a new facet of love and saw something beautiful in their | relationship. They entered marriage knowing they would have | differences to solve together. They solved those differences | and developed a great relationship. | | After that encounter I changed my mental model of finding | someone to marry from finding someone perfect for me to | arainging my own marriage. By that I meant that I wanted to | find someone generally compatable but also willing to work | together. It turns out I found that person on that same trip, | and we have now been married for 7 years, but that is a long | off topic story. | | For sure, each side needs to always be trying to compromise | more than the other. | qiskit wrote: | > At the time I had extremely negative views around the | practice, thanks to growing up in the USA where we celebrate | our freedom to choose the perfect partner. | | For most of american history, "arranged" marriages were the | norm and was based in communal, religous and practical | realities. The disneyified idea of marriage is a modern PR | invention primarily to get more business activity. Just like | the idea of proposing with a diamond ring. It's amazing how | easily and quickly media can change minds individually and | collectively and alter history/culture. | cma wrote: | > For most of american history | | I see some things saying it was common among certain | immigrant groups before 1900 (it doesn't say whether it was | a majority): | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage | | Now that it is 2022 though we're closer to 1900 than 1900 | is to the enactment of the constitution, so even then I'm | not sure it would be most of american history unless maybe | going colonial or pre-colonial (or are talking north+south | america). | bombcar wrote: | This is a very important lesson - the chance of finding a | "perfect" partner is vanishingly small if considered in the | normal view - but the chance of finding someone who is | willing to work together is higher. | | And most marriages are "arranged" in some way or another, we | just like to pretend that random chance plays little part and | somehow we've got it down to a science. | billmalarky wrote: | There is no such thing as the "perfect" partner if the | definition of "perfect" means "perfect compatibility." | | Even if there were perfect compatibility (which would | really just be extending solipsism to one's relationship), | the only constant in life is change. Thus one might be | "perfectly compatible" with another person in a small | snapshot of time in which they enter into a marriage. Then | every single day and every single change threatens that | compatibility. It's a fragile house of cards to build a | longterm relationship around. | em-bee wrote: | you have to continuously work on the relationship to keep | each other compatible. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I can't recommend this book enough on the topic. TLDR Women | are more picky then Men in the courtship marketplace, and | finding a partner with matching values is most important to | growing and staying together. People expect a fairy tale, | when they're signing up for a job (relationships require | work and effort). | | A quote from the author 10 years post publishing: "I think | the book is really, ironically, about having higher | standards about the things that matter, like the character | qualities, generosity, kindness, reliability, and not | getting so hung up on things like, you know, whether you're | going to go on a second date with a guy because of how he | dressed." | | https://smile.amazon.com/Marry-Him-Case-Settling- | Enough/dp/0... (Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. | Good Enough) | | https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23687614M/Marry_him | | The Atlantic piece that was the genesis for the book: https | ://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/marry-h... | | https://jezebel.com/lori-gottliebs-marry-him-was-always-a- | ca... | | EDIT: @300bps (HN throttling, can't reply directly) Indeed. | The book covers exactly this (census data for the dating | marketplace and the dynamic between genders as age brackets | tick upwards). The market is great for women 21-30, and it | rapidly declines after 35. You can borrow the book from the | Internet Archive with the library link I tossed in this | comment for more context. | 300bps wrote: | I first want to say that I cringed reading the entire | original article. | | But I want to address something you said as well, "TLDR | Women are more picky th _a_ n Men". | | This is highly age-dependent... On _average_ : | | A 21 year old woman on a dating site _has_ to be picky. | She 's getting constant messages from men anywhere from | 18 years old to 100 years old. | | A 40 year old woman is still a bit picky on a dating site | but is starting to realize that things are vastly | different than they used to be. | | A 47 year old woman is generally willing to date just | about anyone that messages her. Or she's given up on | dating. | metadat wrote: | This is an over generalization, every person is different | and has their own quirks and preferences. | | The hot take you've presented is useless at best, and | possibly even harmful to view people from such a single | dimensional lens based on their age. | 300bps wrote: | What's unfortunate is that I can literally emphasize the | words _on average_ and use words like _generally_ and | still get the accusation that boils down to, "but not | everyone is like that." | | If you think my opinion is useless, the most likely | reason is because you have little to no experience with | the topic. Are you in your 40s? How many 47 year old | women have you dated? | metadat wrote: | Well, I'm within a year or so of being forty. I've have | been on about 75 dates over the last two years with women | aged 29 to 50s. | | IME, often the desirable ladies in their forties have | been those who stayed in a dead end relationship for | (way) too long. If someone has never been in an LTR by | the time they're 35, they were always quite odd and I | learned it's a good idea to double click and ask | questions to learn what might be going on there. | 300bps wrote: | _Well, I 'm within a year or so of being forty. I've have | been on about 75 dates over the last two years with women | aged 29 to 50s._ | | Huh, the first version of this comment before you edited | it said: | | _Yes I 'm in my forties, have been on dates over the | last two years with about 50 women aged 29 to 50_ | | Another comment from you in this same story says: | | _Soon I should probably ask if she 'll marry me, advice | on this would be welcome :) we are 9 months in_ | | Congratulations on dating about 50, I mean about 75 women | in about 15 months. Also congratulations on regressing in | age! | | Since you explicitly solicited advice in your other | comment - I think a man in his 40s (or almost 40) would | be insane to propose marriage to a woman he's dated for 9 | months. | metadat wrote: | I'm 39, upon re-reading my post I didn't want to be | dishonest. And tbh, it was probably more than 75. An epic | quest full of interesting people and good learning | experiences to discover what is actually out there! But | alas, this isn't my primary account - so I try (and | happily fail often) to keep it vague. Not that big of a | deal either way in the end. | | > Since you explicitly solicited advice in your other | comment - I think a man in his 40s (or almost 40) would | be insane to propose marriage to a woman he's dated for 9 | months. | | Haha, thank you! Because of previous trauma, I am also | hesitant to rush anything. Then I also have my sister | (who just had a baby last year) whispering and telling me | to just have a kid with my gf, even if we aren't married. | I think she's just baby crazy at present, or perhaps she | really does hate me and is playing the long game :) | | p.s. Not that you asked or that it's really any of my | business, but I'll try anyway: One pattern I've noticed | in our exchange is you seem to get a bit hung up on the | small details. My interpretation is that you are probably | a really great engineer, of the sort I enjoy working with | the most (seriously). Just don't forget to zoom out and | view the forest from time to time! | | Sincerely, | | Metadat | samhw wrote: | > A 21 year old woman on a dating site has to be picky. | She's getting constant messages from men anywhere from 18 | years old to 100 years old. | | Putting the rest aside for a moment, I never till | recently knew how true this was. I'm gay(ish) and I had | never been on straight Tinder, so I always brushed off my | friends' complaints as histrionic. A month or two ago I | decided, in a moment of experimentation, to set my Tinder | to 'bi'. I do pretty well on gay Tinder - overwhelmingly | the guys I'm interested in are interested back - so I | expected great things. I got _nothing_. Not a word, not | from a single girl. | | Out of sheer curiosity I matched one time with one of the | enormous acneous beasts who were the only girls to swipe | right on me, and _even she_ didn 't send me a message. | It's wild. If I were straight, I'd be an incel by now. I | know from (very very little) real-life experience that | I'm not that unattractive to (what I'd consider) good- | looking girls, but the online dating apps are seemingly | just a meat market. I struggle to make sense of it all. | giantg2 wrote: | "People expect a fairy tale, when they're signing up for | a job." | | This is worth reiterating. | openknot wrote: | It's important to note that part of the job is to make it | a fun job at the least, and daresay a fairy tale at the | most. | | This includes positive surprises (though care needs to be | taken), thoughtful gifts (especially on Valentine's and | birthdays), and some element of spontaneity. Flirting is | also important. | | Spontaneity can be considered as part of the job, but | it's important to keep it fun to avoid boredom in a | relationship. I've read anecdotes that a faithful but | boring relationship can cause another partner to | unexpectedly break up at the least, or have an affair at | the most. | | I recommend a person to work on making the relationship | exciting instead of breaking it off, but as evidence that | this is important to factor in, a few anecdotes of people | with this problem are listed below: | | -Thread with humane advice for the original poster: https | ://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1qcomq/anyon.. | . | | -Thread with not-so-humane advice that I personally | disagree with: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/com | ments/oq7so/after_... | | -Final perspective to establish a pattern, with the rule | of threes: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comment | s/67df9t/i_29f... | pdimitar wrote: | It's not. It's BS but it's apparently popular view among | certain audience (maybe Americans?). | | Why are you people so cold and calculating when talking | about feelings? Love and care do wonders and you are able | to work _everything_ out almost effortlessly. I have seen | it in couples several times in the past and I am | experiencing it for over 8 years now as well. With the | right person it works automatically and there 's zero | sense of "sacrifice" there. In 8 years I haven't felt | that I've made a compromise that hurt me or her. None of | us ever felt like they had to cut a part of themselves to | continue being in the relationship. We develop and grow | together. | | I'll never agree to this work-ethic-like expression of | relationships. To me you look miserable for even using | that framework of a language. | pdimitar wrote: | > _People expect a fairy tale, when they 're signing up | for a job._ | | Nope. BS. And I am saying this as a guy with one failed | marriage and now with a super happy one going stronger | than before even, 8 years down the line. | | Stop perpetuating work ethic when it comes to feelings | and partnership, please. Relationships can be beautiful | in literally every way. Maybe just keep looking and don't | generalize because that makes you look bitter. Is that | your intent? | scarmig wrote: | The key is to find someone who is actually attracted to | you. Not in a "oh I guess I can tolerate kissing you" | type of way, but in a "I often fantasize about touching | your body" type of way. | | Mutual sexual attraction makes it possible to develop | that type of relationship, but a lot of the time men in | particular settle for less. | | I strongly encourage anyone who doesn't have that type of | relationship and wants one to break things off. Even if | there's only a 25% chance you think you could find | someone like that, it's worth it: it makes everything | nearly effortless, and the relationship becomes filled | with joy and not drudgery. | pdimitar wrote: | Absolutely! I didn't even look that good when my wife | found me; I had a belly and my teeth definitely needed | attention (and after 32 months of bracers they look | better than those of most people I meet nowadays ^_^). | She _still_ thought I was the sexiest man she has ever | met, and her actions when we were alone confirmed it many | times. | | Without genuine attraction a relationship turns into a | transaction. And it starts poisoning the sides involved. | | I too recommend people getting a bit more courageous and | stop settling for less than what would make them happy. | mise_en_place wrote: | It's not so much work ethic as it is mental discipline. | If you have not mastered yourself when it comes to the | dishes, you cannot master yourself in tough periods of | life, and so on. You have to be present in each moment, | regardless of whether it's doing dishes or having the | best day of your life. | pdimitar wrote: | IMO part of a relationship is to grow and develop | together. If somebody stubbornly decides they are already | as perfect as they can ever be, then the results -- them | being lonely -- are predictable. | | And yep, being present and aware is absolutely critical, | I agree with you. | Stratoscope wrote: | > _@300bps (HN throttling, can 't reply directly)_ | | Just a tip, the throttling only applies to the comment | thread, and I believe it is only a five-minute timeout. | | You can always reply to a comment directly without | waiting for the timeout, by clicking on the timestamp | next to the username. That takes you to the individual | comment page which will have a reply box. | nicoburns wrote: | My pet peeve is people who leave dirty dishes _in_ the sink | rather than next to the sink. This seems to considered the | correct /polite place to leave them by some people. But it means | that other people can't use the sink without first moving your | dishes! | sebastianconcpt wrote: | Oh god... who will tell him? | | She leave him by anything _but_ that. | | That was the tip of the iceberg in a big comfort zone. | | Details do matter, in that point the author is right but the | article is a huge expression of rationalization to cover up | deeper issues. | | If she would be happy to have him, do you think she would f* care | about dishes? She would be proactive and happy to help by | cleaning that herself. And offering to cook and more. | | Sorry but the text is not defensible in any possible angle. That | publication is nothing but a glorification of superficiality | disguised as an allegedly clever insight. | hello_popppet wrote: | > glorification of superficiality disguised as an allegedly | clever insight. | | Captures most of the "news" and other topics on here to be | honest... | rhacker wrote: | This is how I read this. The wife may have long ago brought up | some argument that was "banned". In other words - bread winner | conversations. | | Bread winners often have this trait: I make all the money, and I | can only do that by working my butt off. So you need to take care | of all the other things. No questions. | | This is why the dishes is such a huge deal now: Since the ACTUAL | conversation is banned (by the man) the only thing the wife was | able to bring up is anything that causes her to do MORE work for | him. She now has to wash and put away the glass. It's a problem | not because of that task, but because she got lesson-ed years ago | on the bread winner crap and it's non-stop marriage poison | forever after. | | Every time she sees him spend a few minutes glazing at a window | or "browsing hacker news" (for example lol) or just not doing | anything - that's feeding the fire too - because why couldn't he | help with the unseen tasks she's been given and IGNORED for. | j7ake wrote: | Would this situation have been solved if both partners were | working ? | watwut wrote: | Is there reason to think they were not? I tried to find where | in article he says she was stay at home mom and can't find | it. | glitchc wrote: | Yup, a lot of these dissolutions are over money and control of | the finances. Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes | with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that | feels reasonable. A lot of them get it wrong. | | It's all about dignity and respect really. Take that away from | your partner and they'll resent you, no matter how much pove | there is between the two of you. | steveBK123 wrote: | Yes, in a way I think it's almost easier to have two incomes | and pay for help/services with the excess. | | Even if there is a 2:1 income ratio, each side can feel they | are contributing monetarily and collectively decide what | tasks are worth doing vs paying for. | | I can understand the psychology of both sides - the | breadwinner thinks they are doing their job outside the house | so why is the spouse not doing all the stuff inside the | house. | | Any subset of tasks breadwinner spouse pick up (like dishes | or laundry) they expects a gold star sticker for doing extra. | Meanwhile the homemaker spouse feels put upon for the 1000 | other things they do around the house and dealing with the | kids. | | Likewise this is akin to the homemaker spouse tutored the | neighbors kid for $100/week and then telling the 6-figure | breadwinner that they are also contributing to the families | income. Each side feels correct and like they are going above | and beyond their scope.. | Thlom wrote: | Is it normal in the US that only one in a relationship is | working? I don't think I know anyone where only one in the | relationship is working. To me it feels like the power | dynamics in such a relationship quickly gets really toxic. | Jabbles wrote: | I think not calling it "pocket money" would be a good step. | brimble wrote: | That seems very neutral to me? I'm struggling to think of a | term that's not worse ("allowance") or less accurate. | | [EDIT] It just means money that's expected to be spent, but | not budgeted specifically for anything, and is largely put | to personal discretion without any kind of accounting | expectation--no? Some phrase using "discretionary" might | also work, but that one seems too technical or formal. | defgeneric wrote: | I think you're confusing that with "pocket change" as in a | small/insignificant amount of money. Pocket money can just | mean that you always have money around that can be spent | according to whatever whim or whatever you want to do. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | It does go both ways, however. Just as the "breadwinner" | doesn't get to use their money to diminish the (very | substantial) labor of the other at home, the other doesn't | get to use their labour to assert complete dominance over how | the shared house is used. | | It's teamwork. Having two warring departments in a company is | bad news, so is two adversarial government agencies: there's | a common goal at stake. It's no different at home. | | If you were on a sports team, you'd think carefully about how | a teammate wants the ball, and they'll think about how they | can make it easy to set up for you to execute that pass. | Making a hospital pass doesn't make either of you look | better, and doesn't win the game. | HelloMcFly wrote: | > Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice | dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels | reasonable. | | This to me feels like materialistic pandering. Breadwinners | need to see their spouses as financial partners in a shared | life. | a_puppy wrote: | This is an interesting point of view. I don't know enough about | their relationship to know whether that's what was going on. | But, I do want to point out something else in your comment: | | > She now has to wash and put away the glass. | | No she doesn't. She can just leave it there. She can leave her | own glasses there, too. | | The pressure to keep the counter clean isn't coming from the | husband. He doesn't give a damn how many dishes are on the | counter. It's coming from an expectation of femininity that | she's internalized: "a wife is supposed to keep the counter | free of dishes". The husband isn't helping her meet this | expectation, but he isn't imposing the expectation on her, | either. | | I'm not married, but I see this theme in a lot of fights over | household chores: it's not that the husband expects his wife to | do all the chores, it's that he doesn't actually believe the | chores need to be done. | jacobolus wrote: | > _It 's coming from an expectation of femininity that she's | internalized._ | | This is a sexist assumption which denies the woman individual | agency. One person in a relationship having a higher standard | for cleanliness than the other isn't necessarily the result | of some society-wide conditioning. There are plenty of very | tidy men and more relaxed women out there in the wide world. | And plenty of relationships where both partners are very neat | or very messy. | | When people have different standards, they need to | communicate and work together to solve problems in a mutually | acceptable way. Both "I don't care if we live in a pigsty so | it's all your fault for caring about it" and "everything | needs to be perfectly spotless and you need to contribute | equal time to maintaining the space to my exacting | specification" are one-sided cop outs. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | I've never heard of men complaining about their female | partners being untidy with household things except in the | case where they simply do nothing (and that's rare), is | that common where you are. | | My father did all the washing up in our house growing up, | and mum did most of the cooking, but he never once | annotated me for leaving dirty dishes whilst my mother | regularly would complain. | | Almost every married woman I know fits the stereotype of | being more houseproud than their husbands (I'm in the UK). | | You call it sexist, but it seems to reflect a genuine sex- | based divide. | vasco wrote: | In my relationship it's the other way around so there | goes your theory. | uoaei wrote: | > it seems to reflect a genuine sex-based divide. | | You seem to have an extraordinarily limited and | homogenous social circle. | atombum wrote: | Well let me be a data point to the contrary for you. | metalliqaz wrote: | > I've never heard of men complaining about their female | partners being untidy with household things | | Know him? Of course I know him. He's me. | maweaver wrote: | I am have found that since I started working from home | due to covid, a neat house is much more important to me. | It makes me anxious being in a house all day that is a | mess. And I have become the one who bugs my wife to | please pick up after herself more. | | I wonder if women traditionally spending more time at | home is the cause of this gender difference. | weldedtogether wrote: | Anecdotal evidence as it is, I'd like to vouch for the | fact that I am usually the "mother" in this scenario. | Dirty dishes being left out drives me nuts, especially if | it's overnight. When I wake up and come out of the | bedroom to a clean house, I'm relaxed. Waking up to a | house with dishes still around from the night before can | set a baseline stressed (need to do this still) mood for | a hefty chunk of my day. | | On the other end, my girlfriend doesn't seem to mind at | all. She does when it gets very messy, but the minor ones | don't bother her like it does me. The author's mindset | regarding dishes in the above article does remind a bit | of her as well. | op00to wrote: | My anxiety manifests in similar ways. I "do the dishes" | (or whatever annoying task it is that tweaks my anxiety | in the morning) before I wind down for the night. I take | control of my own happiness. | [deleted] | a_puppy wrote: | > When people have different standards, they need to | communicate and work together to solve problems in a | mutually acceptable way. | | I agree! I don't mean to imply that the "relaxed" standard | is better than the "tidy" standard. But my point is that | the husband was not being hypocritical. He was not | expecting his wife to keep the house to the "tidy" standard | while himself only meeting the "relaxed" standard (which is | what rhacker implicitly accused). | | > This is a sexist assumption which denies the woman | individual agency. | | Yes, I made a generalization. I've never met the man or the | woman involved, so I don't know their specific | circumstances. It would have been more accurate for me to | say something like "it's probably coming from an | expectation of femininity that she's internalized", or | "many women in the US today internalize an expectation of | femininity that prioritizes tidiness". Obviously not every | woman is tidy and not every man is relaxed, but there's a | definite trend towards women being tidier than men, and | that trend comes from internalized gender norms. | | This kind of generalization is very common in discussions | about gender on the Internet. For example, rhacker's parent | comment made a similar generalization, as did your comment | about "rich middle-aged white men" a few days ago. [1] I | don't think my generalization was any worse than those; I | just flipped the genders by making a generalization about | women instead of a generalization about men. | | I think there's a deeper discussion here about "if personal | preferences arise from internalized gender norms, does that | mean the preferences are invalid?" You seemed to interpret | my comment as saying that her preference for tidiness was | somehow invalid because it came from internalized | femininity. I didn't intend that; I think that personal | preferences arising from internalized femininity (_and | internalized masculinity_) are perfectly valid. | | [1] | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977147&p=3#30979367 | [deleted] | k0k0r0 wrote: | Wow. I never considered this before: | | Explaining certain kinds of behavior as the result of | society-wide (patriarchaic) conditioning may be sexist | itself, because it denies the womans individual agancy. | uoaei wrote: | It is generally rude in Western cultures to assume that | someone is being controlled by something outside of their | own volition, ie, to imply that they have less than full | agency. This is most likely borne out of the | Enlightenment era and its emphasis on the ideal of | individuals carving out their own destinies as the | highest moral pursuit. | | I personally think we will have to contend with the | present and future of neuroscience research that | investigates the distinction between which wills are | truly free and which are conditioned on past experiences. | | All that to say, however, that 'sexist is as sexist | does'. If such language as in GP is used to denigrate the | position of the woman in this disagreement by casting her | as a nuisance to be managed externally, then that is | sexist, because she is no longer afforded a voice in the | discussion but is instead reduced to an object to be | manipulated, the primary reason for this being her | gender. | | But I wouldn't recommend trying to close an argument by | saying "Hey honey, I think you've been brainwashed by | patriarchy. Don't you think we should try to challenge | established hygiene and gender norms with this dirty | glass standing as act of protest?" | jacobolus wrote: | You can point out / criticize trends and large-scale | causes without stereotyping people or turning a trend | into inescapable destiny. | scarby2 wrote: | > it's not that the husband expects his wife to do all the | chores, it's that he doesn't actually believe the chores need | to be done. | | This doesn't get said enough. It also not just wife vs | husband - we all have different standards and it's a lesson | that needs to be learned that usually someone isn't being | malicious it's just not easy to force yourself to notice | something if it's fine by your standards but not by your | partner's. | biomcgary wrote: | I have certain expectations how our home should function, | but I don't expect my partner to do the work of meeting | those expectations. I put them on myself. My partner has | certain expectations of how the home should function. They | should put those expectations on themselves. Work toward | shared expectations should be shared. | | I would assert that when one partner works | disproportionately toward meeting the unshared expectations | of the other partner (than vice versa), they are being | exploited by that partner. Society frequently privileges | some expectations over others. Consequently, one partner | often feels disproportionately entitled to work from the | other partner to fulfill their expectations. | op00to wrote: | > My partner has certain expectations of how the home | should function. They should put those expectations on | themselves. Work toward shared expectations should be | shared. | | Three excellent rules for a successful marriage. | avidiax wrote: | > it's not that the husband expects his wife to do all the | chores, it's that he doesn't actually believe the chores need | to be done. | | This is a specific example of a general disagreement on | values. Disagreeing on values is really difficult to resolve, | since people rarely change them, so agreement is often | impossible. | | It's not entirely satisfactory, but if both partners can | recognize the difference in values, respect the other's | position, and act in a way that accommodates but doesn't | acquiesce to one side or the other, then they can live with | the disagreement. | | So for the glass, the husband's position that a glass on the | counter doesn't matter is valid, as is the idea that a clean | counter has aesthetic value. So a compromise might be that | the wife learns to accept that the counter will be dirty | during the day, and they take turns cleaning it at night | before bed. | mhaymo wrote: | I agree with your general point, but I have to add that | that example "compromise" sounds highly unsatisfactory for | the wife. Not only does she have to accept the dirty | dishes, but the simple task of putting them in the | dishwasher immediately has been replaced by the fraught | emotional labour of managing and enforcing a cleanup rota. | I think the OP is right that he should have just taken the | L on this issue, and perhaps on some other standard of | cleanliness she should be the one to compromise. | Goronmon wrote: | _No she doesn 't. She can just leave it there. She can leave | her own glasses there, too._ | | I'm having a hard time following the logic here. | | You agree that at some point someone has to do the dishes, | correct? | | We can assume based on the article that the wife is the one | doing the dishes. So, that means every time the husband | leaves dishes out he is making more work for his wife than if | he just put his dishes in the dishwasher. | scarby2 wrote: | > We can assume based on the article that the wife is the | one doing the dishes. So, that means every time the husband | leaves dishes out he is making more work for his wife than | if he just put his dishes in the dishwasher. | | Not necessarily the reasoning that it may be re-used is | valid, also it may be that he would eventually put it in | the dishwasher when the dishwasher is ready to be run. They | could probably have come to an agreement that there was a | specific spot that one singular glass can chill out (maybe | not even in the kitchen). | avidiax wrote: | I think the logic here is that it does not: | | A) Need to be done now B) Need to be done by the husband C) | A & B | | If it's just a water glass, I'd not be surprised if the | husband intends to (or would) reuse it from its position on | the counter, hence the entire dishwasher->cupboard cycle is | superfluous from the husband's point of view. | [deleted] | brimble wrote: | > I'd not be surprised if the husband intends to (or | would) reuse it from its position on the counter, hence | the entire dishwasher->cupboard cycle is superfluous from | the husband's point of view. | | Indeed. From the article: | | > I might want to use it again. | | I can tell you for a fact my dishwasher would run a whole | lot less than 1/2 the time it does now, if I lived alone. | Like, 1/4 as much. And that's just considering the wife, | not the kids, like my usage solo vs. us before we had | kids, and that's despite some things (dirty pots and | pans) taking up more than 1/2 as much space as they do | with two people. And it's not because I'd be doing more | thorough hand-washing--I'd be doing a lot more re-using | with a quick wipe, or maybe a brief run under the water, | or even nothing at all (for, say, water cups). And yes, | of course they'd stay on the counter (in the sink they'd | get too gross to re-use, and they'd be in the way). | k0k0r0 wrote: | I don't entirely agree with the framing of this comment, but | I'd like to share an expierience which is related. | | A couple of years into our relationship my significant other | finally realized, that if she wants me to do specific tasks | in our household, then thats her desire and not mine. I.e. | that I for example leave "a mess behind in the kitchen" since | I am totally fine with that, and its only her desire to have | a cleaner kitchen, and not some general rule I had broken. | | This lead to a huge change in our relationship. Since then | she mostly starts negotiating rules that we both can agree | upon instead of starting a fight. I am very thankful for | that. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | > she mostly starts negotiating rules that we both can | agree upon instead of starting a fight | | If only more people did this in all walks of life. Rather | than get angry at teammates when they do something that | annoys us, we can negotiate a mutually beneficial working | agreement. We need to have the courage and self-control to | approach these conversations when we see friction, and ask | for compromise rather than demand change. And we need to | have good faith. | incomingpain wrote: | I read this and feel like I'm the bad guy and I don't | understand how. | | I'm the breadwinner. I pay 100% of the bills, excluding the 'I | went to buy potato chips and ice cream' | | I WFH so I also tend to do the majority of chores. Which when I | get burnt out or get sick I don't get as many chores done and | the house goes to shit. Only ending up punishing myself really. | | I also have to 100% of the time decide what's for dinner and | either order or cook it. My partner's incapable of making | decisions. | | My areas of the house(my office for example) are kept orderly | and clean. I try my best to keep the rest of the house clean. | | But when I leave a pot on the stove over night, I'll hear about | it. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | This sounds like the overfunctioning & underfunctioning | relationship pattern. It's not fun to be on either side. | incomingpain wrote: | >This sounds like the overfunctioning & underfunctioning | relationship pattern. It's not fun to be on either side. | | Thanks I'll look into this. Never heard of this. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | Best of luck to you. This stuff is hard. <3 | incomingpain wrote: | Did you ever call it. | | https://eggshelltherapy.com/overfunctioning- | underfunctioning... | | Talk about right on the money. I very much appreciate you | helping me. I have some changing to do. | droopyEyelids wrote: | not necessarily the bad guy but you absolutely have | relationship issues and could benefit from counseling if you | found a good marriage counselor | avidiax wrote: | It's time to ask your partner how they feel about the | relationship, what they value in your contributions, and what | they feel they are contributing, and vice-versa. | | This is a way for you to learn if you are undervaluing your | partner's contributions, or if they think/know that they are | free-riding. | incomingpain wrote: | I hear you and I'm afraid of the answer. I am extremely | conflict averse. | | I sit at the dinner table hoping to talk every night. She's | busy scrolling facebook. Yes sometimes I end up on my phone | as well, but I actively make the effort to be there to | talk. | | >you are undervaluing your partner's contributions | | I am a big believer in legitimate praise and even giving | compliments to strangers. Though obviously stearing clear | of flattery and fakeness. | | Once in a while she does find the energy to do something. I | always notice and say something positive. | aantix wrote: | You have to learn to speak your truth courageously and | divorce yourself from the outcome. | | Going through is the only way out. | | E.g. If you want more talk time at dinner, then voice | that, and state that you will work on being present as | well. To show that that you're in it together. | scythe wrote: | >I am extremely conflict averse. | | Is this you? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Anxiou | s-p... | incomingpain wrote: | The 4 options would make me secure. I genuinely find | other people interesting, I can pull the craziest stories | out of people. People always have an interesting story, | crimes are often involved lol. As for my self-esteem... | my ego is probably a bit too big. | username923409 wrote: | In my opinion, you should reevaluate whether or not your | current relationship is worth continuing. Everything | you've written so far sounds like your wife is simply a | parasite. Just being blunt because it sounds like you're | being too hard on yourself; going through married life | caring for the equivalent of an adult child the entire | time is not something anyone should be expected to do. | | Feel free to just think of me as some internet a*hole, | but I'm just feeling terrible imagining myself in your | position. | incomingpain wrote: | >Feel free to just think of me as some internet a*hole, | but I'm just feeling terrible imagining myself in your | position. | | Nope, I appreciate the advice. From another post I think | I discovered the approach. No splitsville needed. | zaroth wrote: | Or here's a different theory. Maybe this couple weren't actually | in love anymore and just didn't want to come to terms with it, | because there was a confounding variable, namely, a child. | | It's not the toothpaste cap. You can argue about the toothpaste | cap all you want, but really, truly, it's not the toothpaste cap. | chacham15 wrote: | > I now understand that when I left that glass there, it hurt my | wife--literally causing pain--because it felt to her as if I had | just said, "Hey. I don't respect you or value your thoughts and | opinions. Not taking four seconds to put my glass in the | dishwasher is more important to me than you are." | | I think that here lies the issue. Is this the only way that you | show that you value their thoughts / opinions? If so, the problem | was never with the cups. If not, then this is how you comfort / | reassure your partner and not "lets agree to disagree." From that | place you have a conversation where you both figure out how to | best make the both of you happy. E.g. "we'll get a | special/specific cup which looks like it belongs in this area and | you can leave it here as long as its empty and only use that | cup." There are always various compromises that can be made as | long as you have that conversation and are both looking for the | best for each other. | mason55 wrote: | Yeah I think the cup is just a symptom of neither of them being | able to step into the other's shoes, but it's hard to diagnose | without a larger picture. | | The husband could have said "I understand that this is a small | thing that really bothers you and even though I don't | understand, it's clearly an asymmetrical thing in terms of my | effort vs. your being bothered, so I will put the cup away." | | The wife could have just as easily said "I understand that this | cup bothers me more than you think it should, if you're really | that deadset on not putting it away can we find some other way | to compromise?" | | But who knows, maybe she tried to explain that to him a bunch | of different times and even when she was saying "it's not about | the cup it's about not feeling listened to" he still just heard | "it's about the cup" | Dobbs wrote: | It isn't just about respect. It is about you leaving work for | your partner to do even though you could have done it yourself. | This is about emotional labour and the uneven divide of | household jobs. | mason55 wrote: | There's a whole spectrum, from misalignment on the proper | state of the house, to the feelings of respect, to the | increase in household jobs for the other partner. | | If the husband puts his cup by the sink at night, then picks | it back up again in the morning, and finally after a few days | it ends up in the dishwasher, then you'll never convince him | that it's mismatched emotional labor, because in his eyes the | cup didn't need to be put away. | | If you try to tell him that it's not fair for her to put his | cup in the dishwasher every night and his response is "I was | going to use the cup again tomorrow" then the conversation | will never make any progress. | | No one is right or wrong in a conversation about whether it's | ok to put your cup by the sink at night and then pick it up | again the next day. It's just one of those things in marriage | that you need to agree on how it will be, based on effort vs. | how much one partner is bothered. And then stick to the | agreement while giving your partner some occasional leeway. | captaincaveman wrote: | But I don't think in this case he said there was uneven | divide of work. Also he wasn't leaving work for her to do, he | did the work just not on her schedule, it was the wife who | had the issue of the glass being there until end of day. | globular-toast wrote: | Your wife left because her feelings changed. That's all there is | to it. End of story. | | Of course, this is completely unsatisfactory to a man. Men | torture themselves trying desperately to think of the _reason_ | why her feelings changed. Was it that thing I said 2 years ago? | Would it have been different if I did a thing on that one morning | 6 months ago? Surely if I can figure out why this happened then | there will be a solution. | | But not everything is a problem that can be fixed. | | She left you because she felt like it. You just have to accept | it. There is no reason and there's nothing you could have done | differently. It sounds callous, but once those feelings are gone, | it's no more callous than you not being in love with any of the | other women on earth. | | Men and women do not feel love in the same way. No woman will | ever love you as deeply as you love them. This is the sad reality | of being a man. It's getting tough out there, guys. | [deleted] | ianferrel wrote: | My wife and I have found what is (I think) a good way to resolve | many things like this. When we have a disagreement about | something, we stop and ask each other whether this issue is | important _to each of us_. If we both think it 's not important, | then we just agree not to talk about it anymore. That's the | "agree to disagree" case. | | If it's important to one of us, then we just do that. I don't | have to _agree_ with her that it 's important to do it her way. | If I don't really care what happens when I'm done with a glass, I | do the thing she wants. The hard part of this is letting go of | "being right" and just doing the thing that's important to your | partner even if you don't think it _should_ be important. But you | really can decide to do this. | | Only if it's important to both of us do we have to keep arguing | about it or figure out a compromise. Those issues are luckily | rare. | JasonFruit wrote: | An accurate title might be, "A dirty dish by the sink can | _reveal_ a big marriage problem ". That is, a succeeding marriage | includes strategies to deal with such things, and provides | compensations for minor issues that can't be resolved, but a | marriage that can't resolve them and does not offer sufficient | compensating value will fail. | belfalas wrote: | Reminds me of this comic - "You should have asked!" - great | illustration of these dynamics: | https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/ | epicureanideal wrote: | The most important marriage lesson is: don't get married. The | person you marry is not the person you divorce. You can lose a | huge amount of money battling it out even if YOU bend over | backwards to be reasonable. If you want to flip a coin to see if | you lose ten years of earnings, then marriage is for you. | phendrenad2 wrote: | It's worth it though. Consider the single male life. You will | have no friends, because your male friends will all get wives | and girlfriends, who will dissuade them from hanging out with | you, the weird bachelor. You will be seen as weird at work | because all of your coworkers will be married, and people don't | like an outlier. | | So the cost is high, so what? You could get divorced, lose half | of everything you own, and have to pay ((your salary) - (her | salary)) for the rest of your life. But what's the point of | money if not to buy experiences? | frontman1988 wrote: | You can be unmarried and be in a relationship. Marriage is | bondage. It's primarily a feminine desire of women to seek | stability for their offsprings. Men are better off having | multiple partners and having shorter relationships. Also as | the weird bachelor you don't have to hang out with your | coworkers, there is usually far more exciting company | available. | phendrenad2 wrote: | I'm but a layman when it comes to interpersonal | relationships, but it's my understanding that society puts | pressure on people to get married. So while yes, in theory, | you can be in a relationship and not married, in practice | the social pressure will eventually push you, or, much more | likely, the other person in the relationship, to want | marriage. So your only recourse is to jump from | relationship to relationship and break them off each time | an ultimatum is reached. Breaking off relationships takes | an emotional toll on people, so it's not a viable strategy | for many people. | 62951413 wrote: | It's factually correct though you need to replace "can" with | "will", especially in states like CA. Make no mistake, the | discrimination is systemic. So it's not just you who is unlucky | and you won't find a loophole just because you're clever. | | And it's all fun and games until you're about 40. At which | point a man needs a family to take care of. So it's the most | existential catch 22 situation in your life. You cannot win but | you have to play. | whateveracct wrote: | You actually can win..love exists.. | whateveracct wrote: | what a pitiable existence | tomp wrote: | Buy a dishwasher. Best investment ever. | phendrenad2 wrote: | Think of all the wear and tear on the dishwasher because you open | and close it every time you use a dish or glass. I'll bet | dishwasher manufacturers are pleased by this sort of thing. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | As an engineer, the much worse scenario is dirty dishes sitting | in the sink while the dishwasher is considered "full" but is | actually at some fraction of its capacity. | jayski wrote: | Im 99% sure the wife in this story used the glass as an excuse to | get out. | | If youre happy with the life youve built together and love your | partner theres no way you leave it over something like this. | | I dont buy the "it shows disrespect" argument. | | Shes going to be with somebody else in a years time. | | But when youre in a bad situation and the other person isn't | giving you a good reason to leave sometimes you have to get | creative. | | Ive done it, and its been done to me. | kelseyfrog wrote: | The real nugget of truth is found a quarter of the way into the | article. | | > I'm not trying to hurt her; therefore, she shouldn't feel | hurt. | | The author correctly identified the underlying dysfunctional | belief[1], but fails to address it head on. Instead he finds | ways to thematically "care more". | | > I could have communicated my love and respect for her by not | leaving tiny reminders for her each day that she wasn't | considered. | | While, not untrue, without addressing the root-cause ie: the | dysfunctional belief, there will continue to be an underlying | friction between the internally held belief and the behaviors | he wants to perform. This can work in the short-term, but only | by confronting the dysfunctional belief can a long-term change | be made[2]. Presumably there were many other manifestations of | his dysfunctional belief in his marriage that were not listed | but which played out in similar ways. | | 1. From this list of dysfunctional beliefs apply to more than | only parent-child relationships | http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/dysfunctiona... | | 2. Based on only the information available in the article. | Inferences based on a limited amount of information are always | subject to what the author reveals and no more. | causi wrote: | Yes. I've seen far more "looking for an excuse" divorces than | not. | rajin444 wrote: | Definitely this. The writer (and many commenters here) are | missing a very important distinction. Changing yourself is good | and healthy but only when you want to. Changing for somebody | else is toxic and will not work. | | Marriage is a partnership, not a series of trade offs (in | practice it will look like this, but it cannot be seen as | this). Both sides should be grateful for the changes they make | for one another as well as respect one another when they can't | change. In the case of the latter, it takes two people who | believe in committing to one another no matter what. If two | people marry without committing to the idea of a life long | partnership it's not going to work. | | * Major Marriage Crimes excluded, sometimes people do change | and there's nothing you can do | mkoubaa wrote: | I don't agree with the last point, it's somewhat culturally | charged. In many cultures a marriage that isn't intended to | be permanent is normal. | trelane wrote: | What cultures? | glitchc wrote: | Bad behaviour always needs a rethink. Change from bad to good | behaviour is always painful and unwanted. By your logic no | one should change their bad behaviour because they don't want | to change. | | The id and the superego have to be in balance. | usefulcat wrote: | There's a big difference between changing _who_ you are and | _how_ you behave. | | If a person considers being asked to put a dish in the | dishwasher as an assault on their identity, they're certainly | entitled to feel that way but they're probably also not well | suited to marriage or any similar relationship. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | > Im 99% sure the wife in this story used the glass as an | excuse to get out. | | I'm 99% sure she would never even mention the glass if you | asked her why she left. The author said his marriage "... bled | out from 10,000 paper cuts." The glass was 1 minor thing | amongst far too many things. | [deleted] | hn_user82179 wrote: | He digs into his marriage a lot more in later blog posts: | https://matthewfray.com/an-open-letter-to-shitty-husbands/. I | don't think she used it as an excuse at all, but he's more | using this one frequent occurrence as a metaphor for the | marriage. | giantg2 wrote: | To be honest, it feels like a lot of the descriptions of the | volumes on that page are strawmen or cherry picked bad | examples. | | Nobody gets divorced for leaving a dish by the sink. They | might get divorced because they just don't do anything around | the house (aka unequal distribution of work/chores). | aidenn0 wrote: | In TFA he says it wasn't about the dish. He also strongly | implies that it's not about not doing things around the | house. It was that for all things that he considered | unimportant, he treated as unimportant. Even if his wife | said they were important to her. | | To him, a single glass by the sink was no big deal if there | was no company. She didn't want the glass by the sink. Him | refusing to even consider a compromise here was | communicating "what you think is important doesn't matter." | | My wife is one of those people that thrives on a regular | bedtime schedule (always go to bed at X PM, every day). I'm | the sort of person who goes to bet at 9pm one day, 2am the | next, but I always get up at the same time. | | So far, all good. | | However, she _really_ wants me in bed next to her if we are | both home. I think this is silly. It was a constant fight | for a while until we had a couple of good talks about it; | she sleeps just fine with a light on, so I can have a book | or a laptop[1] in bed next to her and be awake as long as I | want and she is perfectly happy; me being a voracious | reader am also pretty darn happy with this. Also, had we | not talked this out, this solution would never have | occurred to me; I can 't fall asleep with a light on in the | room unless I am seriously sleep deprived. At first I was | reading only e-books on my phone to not disturb her, but | when I mentioned that to her she said "oh I don't mind a | light on." | | Perhaps in the author's example, if he thought he might | want another more water before running the dishwasher, | there might be another place he could put his water glass | that his wife would be fine with. Maybe she'd even be happy | to check there and put it in the dishwasher before running | it! Maybe he'd have just had to come to terms with "We got | 12 glasses at at our wedding and there's only 3 people in | the house, so I can just get another glass." We will never | know because these conversations just didn't happen. | | 1: The laptop I reserve for emergencies only; I really | don't want to do anything even slightly work related in | bed, if at all possible. | openknot wrote: | Yeah. I selected a few of the volume descriptions to | abstract the principles he was trying to communicate. | | Overall, it sounds like the divorce was unexpected and out | of his control, so he's trying to reassert control by | nitpicking his faults and using emotionally charged, self- | critical language ("I was a shitty husband"). | | Some make sense (and all likely contributed). However, Vol. | 9 and 11 were strong indications that that there were | broader issues than neglect. In specific for Vol. 9, his | spouse wasn't willing to respect his want for alone time, | implying a compatibility issue. | | -Vol. 3, don't be neglectful to your spouse at a party: "I | was at a party and I had a tiny crush on the married | birthday girl, and I watched her husband ignore her all | night (and already knew him to be a less-than-ideal | partner). The whole scene made me sad because it reminded | me of how I used to treat my ex-wife." | | -Vol. 6, remove some of the burden of decision-making: "You | can destroy your marriage by trying to be "nice." By | letting your spouse make all the decisions. You think it's | a nice gesture, letting the other person have their way" | | -Vol. 8, don't roast/mock your partner so much: "What | starts at an early age on playgrounds, turns into a | relationship killer in adulthood. Men using jokes, sarcasm | and mockery to belittle their wives and girlfriends both | privately and publicly." | | -Vol. 9, wanting alone time is neglectful (I disagree and | don't think it's a "guy" thing; it's very possible to be in | a relationship with an introvert who gets the need for | alone time): "Guys like "Me"-time. Maybe everyone does. But | a lot of time when husbands and fathers do it, it looks and | feels to his wife and children like he isn't interested in | them or that he'd rather spend time alone than with his | family. " | | -Vol. 11, fixing a marriage is about working on yourself | (it's plausible, but it sounds one-sided): "I think married | couples who are sad and angry about their lives and | relationships make the mistake of trying to "fix the | marriage." They spend all their time trying to figure out | how "we" can do things different, and how the other person | can make changes to make life better. But I think people | need to work on themselves to fix the marriage. To look | inside themselves and figure out how they can be their best | self." | | General neglect was a major driver, but there were other | bigger issues. The lack of respect by his spouse for his | alone time is a major one, like in the full Vol. 1 article | [0], where he says a major failure was choosing to see a | televised once-a-year major golf tournament instead of | going for a picnic in a park because she loves the | outdoors. | | If he actually skipped the tournament to go out, it's also | likely he would have become resentful (even if he had the | best intentions); bottled up, this can cause issues down | the road. On the other hand, his spouse ended up as a | person who was resentful, which did lead to issues down the | road. He suggests the solution was to suppress his own | wants, but a better solution would be to find some way to | compromise, because both wants are important. | | It's also concerning that he's then offering paid | divorce/marriage counselling, when I don't think he's | qualified (to his own admission of lack of formal | credentials). | | [0] https://matthewfray.com/2013/07/03/an-open-letter-to- | shitty-... | brimble wrote: | I'm pretty sure people absolutely do get divorced because | they disagree about how to handle _several_ trivial things. | | Those can be insidious. To the one annoyed by the status | quo, it can feel like the other person doesn't care about | them. To the other, it can feel like their partner's trying | to micro-manage a bunch of little things that barely even | matter, and that they're "losing" because they find fewer | of their partner's habits irritating enough to make a stink | over. | hn_user82179 wrote: | Oh, 100%. I think the author just picks out specific | examples because it's easier to visualize that than general | unequal distribution of work. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | Wait! There is a book. This article is a sales pitch. Read it | as fiction. If it's interesting enough. He is monetizing his | divorce. Well..that's one way.. | openknot wrote: | He's also selling services in "relationship coaching and | divorce support coaching." | | For what it's worth, I do think he's being genuine, and | sounds motivated by the want to spare others from his | suffering. However, I just don't think he's qualified, | because his solution seems to repeatedly be to care more | for your partner without compromising (in excess, this can | lead to a well-documented trait by clinical psychologists | of "codependency," where one can never do enough for their | partner). | | There has to be a balance between your interest and your | partner's; it's unhealthy and not noble to completely | sacrifice your own self-interest for your family's. A | person ultimately miserable can't support others, and there | is also inherent value in enjoying the opportunity to live | for yourself. | rajin444 wrote: | Reading that is wild...does he think he'll be able to bear | the burdens his wife couldn't? He's trying to change himself | for his partner when he needs to find a different partner. He | comes off as having lost all respect and confidence in | himself. | openknot wrote: | I read the article and felt sad. There's a lot of | emotionally charged language (repeatedly: "I was a shitty | husband"), but stripping away that language, his main point | is consistent with his Atlantic article. Namely, that while | he tried to be a good husband for the 'big issues' (e.g. | never cheating), he was neglectful for the little things, | and didn't give her enough attention or care. | | My interpretation is that the divorce was somewhat | unexpected as there were no major issues besides the | 'little things,' but he largely feels that the divorce was | out of his locus of control. He's then compensating to | assert that it really was in his control, and also severely | criticizing himself with emotionally charged language for | letting the divorce happen. | | Given the information at the time, I don't think the | divorce was avoidable. If anything, the ex-spouse at least | has an iota responsibility to identify the feelings of | neglect, rather than pointing out the neglectful habits | without reflecting on why she was so bothered them. | | It would be healthiest for him to let it go, and find | happiness elsewhere in life (e.g. with another partner and | pursuit) and move on as much as possible (though it's hard | as he has a kid). It's hard to see him really make the | divorce part of his identity, the point where he publishes | a book about it, writes in The Atlantic, and even offers | divorce counseling services at the end. | tbyehl wrote: | Also the original blog post is much better than the condensed | original link. | | https://matthewfray.com/2016/01/14/she-divorced-me- | because-i... | usefulcat wrote: | > But when youre in a bad situation and the other person isn't | giving you a good reason to leave sometimes you have to get | creative. | | Why is it necessary for the other person to _give_ you a | "good" reason to leave? Why not just be honest and say "this is | not for me, I'm leaving"? | daveslash wrote: | And sometimes when you're in a bad situation, it's not because | of _any _one_ thing_ , or even a _myriad of things_ ~ sometimes | it 's because _it 's the whole kit and caboodle_. When I was | younger, I found myself on the side of a breakup asking _" What | did I do? Tell me and I'll fix it"_, and I've also been asked | that by someone I was breaking up with. | | Breaking up is hard, for both sides. Sometimes it can be | something singular (e.g. an affair) that can make it easy to | digest, but sometimes it's so vague, it's such an overwhelming | collection of things that span such a great amount of time, | that even trying to enumerate them is a slide backwards. It's | like death by a thousand pinpricks, but there's no clear | indication that things are dead until you're already _waaayyy_ | past the point - like a frog being slowly boiled. | notRobot wrote: | This is very well said, and true in my experience. | micromacrofoot wrote: | The glass is a metaphor, he was treating everything in their | relationship like the glass. | mbrameld wrote: | I think what happens when things like a dirty glass by the sink | get used as the reason for a relationship failing is a little | more subtle and drawn out. Seeing the glass by the sink | probably triggers some repetitive negative thought about the | partner (wtf, why can't they just put the stupid glass in the | dishwasher??), which leads to a gradual shift of one's attitude | towards that person in general. That slowly snowballs as the | slightly more negative attitude comes through in more | interactions and you start getting frustrated by more and more | little things your partner does, which triggers more repetitive | negative thoughts, until you find that you can't stand the | person you used to love. The final reason for the relationship | failing wasn't the dirty glass, but it may have been the | primary catalyst. | mynameishere wrote: | Yes, when a woman is in breakup mode, it's every little thing, | every little thing. She wants out because of A) New lover, of | B) Bored and smells alimony, C) I can't think of anything else. | But she's not going to ask for a divorce for A) or B) so it's | any semi-real problems she can come up with. She probably | wanted to nag the guy into divorcing _her_. Ka-ching. | | Anyway, women will even journal this shit for the lawyer's | benefit. There are guidebooks sold on the matter. | treis wrote: | Projecting a lot, I feel like this guy is just a narcissist. | Kind of making it all about him but in a way that doesn't | portray him in a truly negative light. Also, guessing his ex- | wife probably doesn't want a book about her divorce to be part | of the national chatter. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | [..] Also, guessing his ex-wife probably doesn't want a book | about her divorce to be part of the national chatter.[..] | | This. I was thinking the same thing too. Shouldn't there be a | law against this? | | If I were his ex-wife, I would have sued his sorry ass for | airing marriage laundry. But that's just me. | op00to wrote: | No, there should not be a law about this. What possible | reason would there be for being prevented by law to talk | about your life? When is it OK to talk, and when is it not? | raydev wrote: | Looks like you didn't read the article in full? | treis wrote: | I did. Is there a particular point you're trying to make | here? | raydev wrote: | He explicitly talks about his failures at the end. I | don't think a narcissist would get that far. Although you | did say you're projecting, so maybe this is not useful. | treis wrote: | He talks about his failures in a way that minimizes his | failings. There's nothing wrong with him. If only he knew | this one simple trick then he'd have a perfect marriage! | | Even if his overall thesis is correct, I bet you that his | ex would not cite the glass as the top example. There's | probably much worse stories that make him look like a | giant asshole. | InfiniteRand wrote: | I think a lot of fights (at least based on my experience) are | really issues in how the spouses are dealing with other things | that bleed into a minor dispute, and also how the other spouse | deals with that potential escalation. | | For me and my wife, most our fights are when we are tired or | stressed. When we are relaxed we can more or less shrug off the | little annoyances, maybe saying a reminder that gets some | response, but neither of us care enough about the matter to | pursue it further. | | That's not to say we don't have real disagreements, but generally | we're able to talk real disagreements out to the point where we | more or less respect each other's point of view. | | I think if we were better at dealing with stress, we wouldn't | have any real fights. But if wishes were fishes, we'd all have a | feast | mwattsun wrote: | It's often the little things that determine the course of a | relationship. For example, I took my bike into a shop I hadn't | used before. They fixed the back tire, but failed to place the | cap on the tube. I may seem like a little thing, but stems leak a | bit, so it's important. I'm never going back to them. | [deleted] | erikstarck wrote: | If you haven't read "The Five Love Languages" yet and are in a | relationship, then I highly suggest you do. It might save it | before it's too late. | | And just to make this slightly more startup-related as well: as | team members, we also have "love languages", ways we communicate | respect and appreciation to each other. Sometimes we speak | different languages and don't understand each other. That breaks | the team. | bena wrote: | I'd recommend people don't. Mostly because people read stuff | like that and extrospect rather than introspect. "How can I get | my partner to speak _my_ love language? " rather than "What is | my partner's love language?" | | Everything becomes another tool of manipulation. "My love | language is 'acts of service', so if you don't take out the | trash, you don't love me." That's just straight up emotional | manipulation. | | Whereas it should be "My husband prepares my coffee and oats | every morning. This is how he shows he loves me." | | In the first, it's all about how one can use a concept to get | what you want. In the second, it's about recognizing what's | already being given and what it means. | | There should be a rule, where you can learn about this and | other concepts, but you are never allowed to talk about it with | people you have a relationship with. | jrm4 wrote: | I agree with both the op AND this criticism. It's a pretty | good tool in a relationship toolbox -- and also this | definitely happens. Just don't treat it as gospel. | em-bee wrote: | if someone is using love as a tool for emotional manipulation | they will be doing that already before they read the book. at | best the book helps them to come up with that phrase. but not | reading it won't prevent them from doing it. | | on the contrary, if you both read the book together then you | will both become aware that this is happening and you can do | something about it. | | _There should be a rule, where you can learn about this and | other concepts, but you are never allowed to talk about it | with people you have a relationship with._ | | that sounds just about like the worst idea i have read in | this whole thread today. it is exactly the not talking about | these concepts that will enable the manipulation that you | fear. to avoid manipulation you need to have this knowledge | out in the open. | bena wrote: | I want the knowledge out there, I just don't want it to be | used against people. You can learn love languages, you can | talk about them to people, but you can't use bring it up | with people you're in a relationship with. Especially in a | discussion about your relationship. | | The point is for people to focus on learning rather than | weaponization. | | And it's not just love languages. It's pretty much every | psychological and sociological concept. Bringing them up in | a discussion is almost always an attempt to cut off the | other person's attempt at communication. | | It's like the list of fallacies. No one wonders if they're | making fallacious arguments, they just use it as a cudgel | against other people. | Taylor_OD wrote: | This book is great if you are in a relationship but also if you | are single. It allows you to learn how you receive love. Often | you express love in the ways you receive it which is critical | to understanding if you are struggling to maintain | relationships. | greenonions wrote: | Also recommend this book. It's a simple system to understand | your relationship easier, and it acts as a starting point. | | As an example from the article, if the author recognized from | the beginning that putting the dishes into the dishwasher made | his wife feel loved, he would do so, his wife would be happy, | and he would feel happy, starting a virtuous cycle. | captaincaveman wrote: | I don't think it would make her feel loved though, as in her | view it was the norm, by putting it away you could say she | didn't feel disrespected by him, however, it could also be | viewed as it was her having disrespect of him for his | behaviour ... we of course can only speculate. | js2 wrote: | Share this article with your partner. Ask them: "what are the | dishes I'm leaving by the sink?" | Taylor_OD wrote: | But please don't share this with your partner if you fight | about the dish by the sink. It will come off like you are | rubbing their face in it. | Cd00d wrote: | Why doesn't this article skip down properly? | | I use the space bar to page down on longer articles. But on this | one it scrolls one sentence too far. The scroll doesn't know | about the top banner.... | | Surely I'm not some super rare whacky outlier in this, and surely | the webdevs at The Atlantic are proud professionals - so why | doesn't it work correctly? | | Chrome on Mac. | rednerrus wrote: | I wonder what John Gottman would say? My guess is he would | recommend something like this: | https://www.gottman.com/blog/manage-conflict-the-art-of-comp..., | https://www.gottman.com/blog/two-views-every-conflict-valid/, | https://www.gottman.com/blog/for-better-or-for-worse-conflic..., | or https://www.gottman.com/blog/overcoming-gridlocked-conflict/. | | This is surprisingly, to me at least, a mostly solved problem. | When I started having conflicts with my wife over similar issues | I dug into the research and found that most of this is | surprisingly easy, in principle. In practice it's a lot harder | but reading a handful of books goes a long way. | robaato wrote: | A good therapist is worth it. Over 20 years of marriage, a | variety of issues to cope with between us (kids etc), and | difficulty discussing difficult topics. Currently doing an hour a | month (or so) with a (good for us) therapist, and stuff is | discussed in those sessions that doesn't otherwise get addressed. | Work in progress. | | Worth it... | | (Need to research what is a "good therapist" for both of you - oh | and doing it on Zoom makes it a whole lot easier to fit into busy | lives - some benefits of Covid) | stuckinhell wrote: | Resentment can compound over small things, but I've also found | from my friends failed marriages that physical attraction is big | deal. One or both of the partners let themselves go physically. | | Now we can't stop aging, but we shouldn't lie to ourselves that | physical attractiveness doesn't matter. | | The Halo effect is a real thing. | rhacker wrote: | Well I think that a lot of people that suddenly divorce and | marry younger see the following: | | Wow this new person is stupid, I miss intelligence. | | And often - whoa, she's yelling at me for the same things. It | wasn't the aging that made her this way, it was me. | phendrenad2 wrote: | The thing is, it becomes progressively harder to look good as | you age. And once you start getting out of shape that adds to | the disadvantage. People hit 40 and this combination of factors | causes them to just give up. | retrac wrote: | > One or both of the partners let themselves go physically. | | Exactly. I don't expect my partner to start unbalding. Or to | shake those last few pounds that start haunting us when our | metabolisms slow down. But my God, I _will_ leave him if he | starts wearing stained sweatpants, or adopts the "well I'm | bald on top so that means the rest doesn't need a haircut" idea | that some men seem to get. | carride wrote: | Last year his original 2016 blog post was mentioned as well | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/parenting/marriage-invisi... | dkersten wrote: | I once saw the marriage advice that everybody, no matter how | great their relationship is, should meet with a | marriage/relationship counsellor on a regular basis, because, | that way, any issues the two of you may have gets dealt with | while its still a small thing and is never given a chance to turn | into a big deal. Doing it with a counsellor means you have a safe | space with someone who knows how to deal with issue during which | you can work out problems, before they turn into real problems. | | I'm not married, so I dunno if it works, but it sure sounds like | sensible advice at least. | Arubis wrote: | If you're resourced enough to have access, this is great | advice. It's like doing regular maintenance: you might be able | to do it yourself, but bringing in a professional is a good | idea. | dkersten wrote: | > If you're resourced enough to have access | | Ah, yes, of course. If you can't afford to do it then you | can't afford to do it, although I wonder, given the high rate | of divorce, if a session every so often wouldn't still be | cheaper in the long run even for people who maybe can't | afford to do it every other month. | | > It's like doing regular maintenance: you might be able to | do it yourself, but bringing in a professional is a good | idea. | | That's a great way of putting it. | throw93232 wrote: | The Marriage Lesson today is not to get married. | smegsicle wrote: | women are strong enough to fend for themselves, everyone knows | marriage was just a crutch to keep them complacent | throwaway881818 wrote: | What a painful article. | | Reminds me of my relationship with my mother living with her as | an adult because I got very sick. | | She would fight tooth and nail for an apology over things like | this. Even if it was a minor thing that only happened once. In | the end, she would consistently make me feel like a horrible | person even though I _did_ contribute to helping in the house, if | not perfectly. My emotional hurt was never accepted as valid, but | anything that would trigger my mom was considered huge. It felt | so one-sided. | | I was eventually asked to leave my parents house. As a single guy | with health issues that make getting by tough, the sort of | relationships issues described in this article makes me despair | about ever getting married, even though it is something I'd very | much like. | em-bee wrote: | you can talk about this with your partner before getting | married. it could even be worth it for both of you to talk to a | marriage counselor before getting married. if you are open | about your experience and your worries for your relationship | you will be able to find an understanding partner. | pdimitar wrote: | It always bothers me when people try to frame a relationship as | almost a work arrangement, and discuss it as a transaction that | needs to be optimized. That sounds so cold. | | Marriage / long relationships absolutely do need some compromise, | that is an universal fact. There are some things you just have to | outgrow and admit that your strong stance on them is not at all | important. -\\_(tsu)_/- I didn't feel that to be a sacrifice. It | did, and still does, feel like I grew as a person. | | Another fact: never go to bed grumpy with your partner. And I | really do mean _NEVER_ as in "no but-s". Doesn't matter if you | haven't slept in 50 hours and did 4 shifts back-to-back and now | want to die. No. Go get coffee and water and start talking until | you work it out. Never let negative emotions towards the | relationship grow inside each of you. Never skip important talks. | That is what is I think most important in relationships. | | Is that what most people mean when they say "marriage is work | from both sides"? I hope so because if not then their definition | sounds awfully depressing. But to me it's not work at all; I love | my woman and would throw myself in front of a speeding truck to | protect her. | | Having to communicate extra when we disagree on something does | not _feel_ like a sacrifice at all. It feels like investing in | the relationship to continue thriving. It doesn 't feel like | removing harmful weeds from your garden (chore); to me it feels | like putting even better soil nutrients and richer water on the | plants (nurture). It's chore vs. nurture; to me it feels like the | latter. Sometimes it's both at the same time. | | As some other commenters alluded to, don't look for a "perfect" | partner in the sense of your own bias about what is "perfect". | Life and people have millions of ways to surprise you positively. | Let some more chaos and randomness in your life and you will be | left flabbergasted why didn't you do it sooner. | tra3 wrote: | Me and my wife set aside about half an hour each week to "check | in". I hate to compare it to a stand up, but it's kinda what it | is. The goal is to focus 100% on each other and talk about the | week and do some sort of a "marriage exercise". It's been | immensely helpful to take the "temperature" of my spouse and our | relationship. | | This week, I've been reading "How we love" [0]. I'm only on the | first chapter, but it has resonated with me: | | > Every marriage has nagging problems calling for our attention. | Many people end up thinking their relationship is difficult | because they married the wrong person. But the fact that many | people are on to their second and third marriages proves that no | marriage is tension free. Sometimes our marriages seem to run | fairly smoothly--until we hit a crisis or face difficult | circumstances. Stress always makes underlying problems more | apparent. | | The authors talk about "core behaviours" (such as leaving the | glasses by the sink in the article) that trigger conflict in a | relationship: | | > A core pattern is the predicable way you and your spouse react | to each other that leaves each of you frustrated and | dissatisfied. Some are married a few years before it is apparent, | but sooner or later couples can readily identify the same old | place where they get stuck. Maybe it's the same complaints that | come up again and again without ever getting resolved or a | familiar pattern of fighting, no matter what the topic. | | They then tie in your behaviours to how you were treated in | childhood and I believe (I haven't gotten there yet) help you | understand? alleviate? the sources of conflict. | | > Marriage is the most challenging relationship you will ever | have, and to think otherwise is to live in denial. When you are | with someone day in and day out, you can't hide. Your weaknesses | become quite visible, and old feelings from the distant past are | stirred. The physical nearness of your mate triggers old feelings | as you look to him or her to meet many of the needs your parents | were originally supposed to meet. | | [0] https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Love-Expanded- | Discover/dp/0735... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-13 23:00 UTC)