6 ms·

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

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?
      - apatters 10y ago
        Asking something here with genuine interest: I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated. My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? My ethical question is wouldn't a society based on this principle create inequality through winners becoming bigger winners, because they're the ones who can most afford to give stuff away without expecting a return (whether it is money, emotional energy, or anything else)?
- pluma 10y ago
  Her husband is the better partner because she wrote the article. Based on her own self-deprecation I would guess that he has quite a few character traits that make him just as if not even more of a "bad partner". It's one thing to poke fun at yourself talking to your dogs and passing out while leaking from both ends, it's another to list your spouse's character flaws when they're not relevant to the story. Saying either of them is the better partner based on this article is like touching an elephant's trunk and insisting it's a snake.
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).

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?
    - apatters 10y ago
      Asking something here with genuine interest: I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated. My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? My ethical question is wouldn't a society based on this principle create inequality through winners becoming bigger winners, because they're the ones who can most afford to give stuff away without expecting a return (whether it is money, emotional energy, or anything else)?
pluma 10y ago
Her husband is the better partner because she wrote the article. Based on her own self-deprecation I would guess that he has quite a few character traits that make him just as if not even more of a "bad partner". It's one thing to poke fun at yourself talking to your dogs and passing out while leaking from both ends, it's another to list your spouse's character flaws when they're not relevant to the story. Saying either of them is the better partner based on this article is like touching an elephant's trunk and insisting it's a snake.

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).