7 ms·

You're missing the parent's point. It's not about whether you are married with kids vs a bachelor; it's about having a healthy relationship as husband and wife

You're missing the parent's point. It's not about whether you are married with kids vs a bachelor; it's about having a healthy relationship as husband and wife (with or without kids). The author does not have a healthy husband/wife relationship to me. Based on what she wrote - it's all about her and her husband is along for the ride. > But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should.... He acts like he doesn’t even notice that I should be locked away forever and ever in some bad, drafty place that serves only American cheese. She knows she's not doing a lot of things she should as a wife, but then she writes about how she appreciates how he falls in line. It sounds like he's a way better husband than she is a wife. That's not healthy and might not be sustainable. > You and your spouse are slogging through the slop of survival together. And it’s romantic. Mark my words. That's a fairy tale rationalization.

jacobolus 10y ago
Wait, what? You can determine that this woman is a bad wife on the basis that she spends a few minutes talking to her dogs when she first gets home? Give me a fucking break. * * * Edit: Calling herself mentally unstable and suggesting that her partner should chastise her and that she deserves to be locked in American cheese hell for being a dog lover is obviously a joke. As for running sick to the bathroom, passing out, cracking her ribs on the bathtub on the way down, and spewing bloody diarrhea all over the floor... that doesn’t make her a bad spouse, only a sick one. I’m sure her husband was far more concerned about her health and safety than he was about cleaning up shit, and I’m sure she would do the same for him.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  I didn't say she was a bad wife; just that he sounds like he is a better partner. > That’s when I notice my husband. He missed Mommy, too. But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should. He doesn’t smirk. He doesn’t roll his eyes. I am clearly unstable, but he makes no sounds to this effect. Instead, he hugs me and smiles and says, “How was your day, baby?” He acts like he doesn’t even notice that I should be locked away forever and ever in some bad, drafty place that serves only American cheese. > My husband was not happy about this scene. But he handled it without complaint. Did you read the article?
  - rosser 10y ago
    The husband is the "better partner" because he indulges his wife's idiosyncratic way of greeting the dogs? And why shouldn't he be unhappy about finding his wife passed out, with cracked ribs? Should he be complaining at her for having been sick and fallen? Because, as far as I can tell, you seem to think she did that just to inconvenience her poor, long-suffering, hen-pecked husband. It's life, dude. Shit — sometimes literally — happens. Keeping score over that kind of thing is a pretty much guaranteed ticket to misery, IMO.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      She wrote an article about "What Romance Really Means After 10 Years of Marriage" and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband. Unless I'm off, she didn't say "But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should" because she thought that's an normal response to her dog greetings; but rather because she knows he's chop liver with regard to attention.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - mverwijs 10y ago
        I agree with omission of "what she did for her husband". But aside from that, as my ten years are coming up, with two kids, I found the article spot on. Life is a mess. Find someone that is willing to handle the mess with you. I believe that people reading this article /before/ getting married and having kids, and agreeing with each other that they see the world in likewise fashion, will end up staying together in a solid and constructive relationship. Having the " traditional" view of romance that Hollywood portrays is more likely to end up in divorce.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        >"and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband." If you act out of self-aware point scoring you'll never understand why. Also, the woman is being self-deprecating throughout the whole article, did you not notice that?
- adrienne 10y ago
  There is literally nothing a woman can write that dudes on Hacker News won't figure out a way to criticize.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    You can replace the words "a woman" with "someone" in your sentence and it's still true. The amount of frontpage articles without negative comments is probably zero. And it's not all misogyny, a lot of people just can't appreciate the differences between other peoples way of thinking and theirs.
    - adrienne 10y ago
      No, it's not all misogyny, just a great deal of it.
      - tankenmate 10y ago
        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Whether you consider stupidity to be a form of misanthropy (or through polarised lenses misogyny); well...
      - pluma 10y ago
        Based on the demographics in the tech sector I would the majority of HN readers are male. Based on the overall distribution of sexual preferences in humans I would wager the majority of those is heterosexual or has a strong heterosexual leaning when it comes to romantic relationships. In other words, for the majority of them their personal frame of reference for relationships is their own experience as a man in a relationship with a woman. So when reading about or discussing heterosexual relationships they're most likely going to empathise with the man and project any negative experiences they had onto the woman. That's not misogyny, that's sampling bias. Also, given the prevalence of certain character traits in tech workers, I am far more inclined to believe the people projecting all kinds of bad things onto the author are merely showing a lack of awareness of implicit subtext (e.g. the author exaggerating her own flaws and politely omitting any flaws of her partner).
nl 10y ago
She's explaining what romance is after ten years from her perspective. She can't say what her husband finds is romantic because she isn't her husband. She knows she's not doing a lot of things she should as a wife, but then she writes about how she appreciates how he falls in line. Exactly. Isn't it interesting that the things she could do better are minor things like greeting her husband before her dogs, and he indulges these foibles. Perhaps he has no foibles she has to indulge. Or perhaps she is wise enough not to air them in a public forum? It sounds like he's a way better husband than she is a wife. It sounds to me like she appreciates her husband a lot.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I'd love to read his perspective on the relationship as well. Personally the dog thing would drive me bananas.
  - pluma 10y ago
    It depends on your own personality, really. There's a difference between a habit in your spouse you might find annoying sometimes and a habit that will prevent you from sharing a happy relationship.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  It's definitely just from her perspective but that's not how it's written. The title doesn't say that. She says "mark my words" later. She notes that she's an advice columnist. Also... > But once you’ve been married for a long time (my tenth anniversary is in a few months!), a whole new kind of romance takes over. So I disagree; she's not just telling her story. She's trying to tell a narrative that this is how it is and that it's romantic. That being in the slog and not investing personal time in the husband/wife relationship is romantic. Everything she described could occur between two good friends. She writes nothing about how a wife might do her part to keep the romance going. She just describes how her husband keeps her version of romance going. There are two sides to everything. Just recently I was out with a bunch of guys that have been married 15+ years, all with kids. 5/6 of them basically complained about not being appreciated (gratitude/attention/sexually) and being unhappy. Their wives are completely consumed by kids and they're not putting enough time and attention into the husband/wife relationship. It's sad. Just because you hit 10 years doesn't mean it's going to be sustainable for both parties. You don't just fall in line with the slog, esp. with kids and call it romantic. It takes hard work and great communication for the husband and wife to have a healthy, romantic marriage. Sometimes you have to say your needs/expecations aren't being met and you want to find a way to meet them despite the slog of everyday life. I'll agree with the author that women see romance differently than men; that's precisely my point. I have a problem with the author pushing advice about keeping the romance alive in marriages that doesn't consider both parties. Both parties either have to see eye to eye on their definitions or understand the other side's perspective. I know that if I do extra chores around the house, my wife will get turned on and we'll both reap the benefits. If I see her doing chores, that doesn't turn me on. That's how we're wired. But let's not pretend like both sides see it the same way. Men - pitch in more on tasks, be a better team player and indulge the mundane with your partner to be more romantic. I agree with the author here. Men can do more here. Women - author doesn't talk about this at all. Basically it's still the more Hollywood romance stuff. Most men are not going to see romance as the slog she describes. That's an illusion.

jacobolus 10y ago

Wait, what? You can determine that this woman is a bad wife on the basis that she spends a few minutes talking to her dogs when she first gets home? Give me a fucking break. * * * Edit: Calling herself mentally unstable and suggesting that her partner should chastise her and that she deserves to be locked in American cheese hell for being a dog lover is obviously a joke. As for running sick to the bathroom, passing out, cracking her ribs on the bathtub on the way down, and spewing bloody diarrhea all over the floor... that doesn’t make her a bad spouse, only a sick one. I’m sure her husband was far more concerned about her health and safety than he was about cleaning up shit, and I’m sure she would do the same for him.

exclusiv 10y ago
I didn't say she was a bad wife; just that he sounds like he is a better partner. > That’s when I notice my husband. He missed Mommy, too. But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should. He doesn’t smirk. He doesn’t roll his eyes. I am clearly unstable, but he makes no sounds to this effect. Instead, he hugs me and smiles and says, “How was your day, baby?” He acts like he doesn’t even notice that I should be locked away forever and ever in some bad, drafty place that serves only American cheese. > My husband was not happy about this scene. But he handled it without complaint. Did you read the article?
- rosser 10y ago
  The husband is the "better partner" because he indulges his wife's idiosyncratic way of greeting the dogs? And why shouldn't he be unhappy about finding his wife passed out, with cracked ribs? Should he be complaining at her for having been sick and fallen? Because, as far as I can tell, you seem to think she did that just to inconvenience her poor, long-suffering, hen-pecked husband. It's life, dude. Shit — sometimes literally — happens. Keeping score over that kind of thing is a pretty much guaranteed ticket to misery, IMO.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    She wrote an article about "What Romance Really Means After 10 Years of Marriage" and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband. Unless I'm off, she didn't say "But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should" because she thought that's an normal response to her dog greetings; but rather because she knows he's chop liver with regard to attention.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - mverwijs 10y ago
      I agree with omission of "what she did for her husband". But aside from that, as my ten years are coming up, with two kids, I found the article spot on. Life is a mess. Find someone that is willing to handle the mess with you. I believe that people reading this article /before/ getting married and having kids, and agreeing with each other that they see the world in likewise fashion, will end up staying together in a solid and constructive relationship. Having the " traditional" view of romance that Hollywood portrays is more likely to end up in divorce.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      >"and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband." If you act out of self-aware point scoring you'll never understand why. Also, the woman is being self-deprecating throughout the whole article, did you not notice that?
adrienne 10y ago
There is literally nothing a woman can write that dudes on Hacker News won't figure out a way to criticize.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  You can replace the words "a woman" with "someone" in your sentence and it's still true. The amount of frontpage articles without negative comments is probably zero. And it's not all misogyny, a lot of people just can't appreciate the differences between other peoples way of thinking and theirs.
  - adrienne 10y ago
    No, it's not all misogyny, just a great deal of it.
    - tankenmate 10y ago
      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Whether you consider stupidity to be a form of misanthropy (or through polarised lenses misogyny); well...
    - pluma 10y ago
      Based on the demographics in the tech sector I would the majority of HN readers are male. Based on the overall distribution of sexual preferences in humans I would wager the majority of those is heterosexual or has a strong heterosexual leaning when it comes to romantic relationships. In other words, for the majority of them their personal frame of reference for relationships is their own experience as a man in a relationship with a woman. So when reading about or discussing heterosexual relationships they're most likely going to empathise with the man and project any negative experiences they had onto the woman. That's not misogyny, that's sampling bias. Also, given the prevalence of certain character traits in tech workers, I am far more inclined to believe the people projecting all kinds of bad things onto the author are merely showing a lack of awareness of implicit subtext (e.g. the author exaggerating her own flaws and politely omitting any flaws of her partner).

nl 10y ago

She's explaining what romance is after ten years from her perspective. She can't say what her husband finds is romantic because she isn't her husband. She knows she's not doing a lot of things she should as a wife, but then she writes about how she appreciates how he falls in line. Exactly. Isn't it interesting that the things she could do better are minor things like greeting her husband before her dogs, and he indulges these foibles. Perhaps he has no foibles she has to indulge. Or perhaps she is wise enough not to air them in a public forum? It sounds like he's a way better husband than she is a wife. It sounds to me like she appreciates her husband a lot.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I'd love to read his perspective on the relationship as well. Personally the dog thing would drive me bananas.
- pluma 10y ago
  It depends on your own personality, really. There's a difference between a habit in your spouse you might find annoying sometimes and a habit that will prevent you from sharing a happy relationship.
exclusiv 10y ago
It's definitely just from her perspective but that's not how it's written. The title doesn't say that. She says "mark my words" later. She notes that she's an advice columnist. Also... > But once you’ve been married for a long time (my tenth anniversary is in a few months!), a whole new kind of romance takes over. So I disagree; she's not just telling her story. She's trying to tell a narrative that this is how it is and that it's romantic. That being in the slog and not investing personal time in the husband/wife relationship is romantic. Everything she described could occur between two good friends. She writes nothing about how a wife might do her part to keep the romance going. She just describes how her husband keeps her version of romance going. There are two sides to everything. Just recently I was out with a bunch of guys that have been married 15+ years, all with kids. 5/6 of them basically complained about not being appreciated (gratitude/attention/sexually) and being unhappy. Their wives are completely consumed by kids and they're not putting enough time and attention into the husband/wife relationship. It's sad. Just because you hit 10 years doesn't mean it's going to be sustainable for both parties. You don't just fall in line with the slog, esp. with kids and call it romantic. It takes hard work and great communication for the husband and wife to have a healthy, romantic marriage. Sometimes you have to say your needs/expecations aren't being met and you want to find a way to meet them despite the slog of everyday life. I'll agree with the author that women see romance differently than men; that's precisely my point. I have a problem with the author pushing advice about keeping the romance alive in marriages that doesn't consider both parties. Both parties either have to see eye to eye on their definitions or understand the other side's perspective. I know that if I do extra chores around the house, my wife will get turned on and we'll both reap the benefits. If I see her doing chores, that doesn't turn me on. That's how we're wired. But let's not pretend like both sides see it the same way. Men - pitch in more on tasks, be a better team player and indulge the mundane with your partner to be more romantic. I agree with the author here. Men can do more here. Women - author doesn't talk about this at all. Basically it's still the more Hollywood romance stuff. Most men are not going to see romance as the slog she describes. That's an illusion.