9 ms·

Been married for more than 20 years now. The advice I give younger co-workers who are just getting married is "You can be right or you can be happy."

tapatio 9y ago
Well put. A couple should be required to read this as part of getting married.
needz 9y ago
That seems a little cynical. Best advice I've heard adjacent to this is to give 60% and expect 40%. If you both do this then everyone ends up with more than they expect.
- tertius 9y ago
  Replace "be right" with "dominate" and "be happy" with "co-operate". That may make it clearer.
jonahx 9y ago
I hear this all the time, and in its typical meaning I think it's terrible advice. If you care about honesty, or self-respect, or your partner knowing you and how you think -- caving in to everything and avoiding conflict at all costs is the opposite of what you should do. If you rephrase it as "Don't sweat the small stuff" or "Don't be petty and stubborn about things that don't matter," then it's perfectly reasonable.
- throwmeaway32 9y ago
  I view my relationship like the stock market, it'll have its up and downs, sometimes I'll be ahead, sometimes the market/she'll be ahead and I'll be down....but overtime the stock market generally goes up so it'll all be fine in the end. My wife tends not to like me describing our marriage like that though :)
  - traviscj 9y ago
    Also channeled Baz Luhrman's "Wear Sunscreen" for a second there.
- hudbuddy 9y ago
  I think you are targeting an argument that doesn't really exist (though I could be wrong). In my eyes, the heart of this argument is to avoid the whole idea of "me vs. you". This falls in line with the last part of your argument, but I think it's worth driving home. Learning to approach arguments with the mindset of "even if I'm right, the best outcome is that we both come out of this altercation with a mutual understanding", is much more important than "winning" an argument, and I don't believe that concept can be misconstrued. As a simple example - maybe you're a woman with an attractive male friend. She knows that her intentions are pure, so why is it a big deal if you go out with him after work? Totally valid. However, it's important to approach the conversation with an aspect of I understand how this could make my partner uncomfortable, so how do I communicate that understanding and alleviate any doubt instead of thinking well, if my partner just trusted me, then this wouldn't be a problem. To that end, it's also important to identify these concerns early on so they aren't given the opportunity to fester as insecurities in the opposite party.
  - jonahx 9y ago
    > Learning to approach arguments with the mindset of "even if I'm right, the best outcome is that we both come out of this altercation with a mutual understanding", is much more important than "winning" an argument, and I don't believe that concept can be misconstrued. Oh yes, oh god yes it can. I'd argue that it's misconstrued often. I think your example is a good one. It is not at all clear to me that "I understand how this could make my partner uncomfortable, so how do I communicate that understanding and alleviate any doubt" is better, though it might be -- everything depends on your goals and values and true feelings about the situation. If you think their discomfort is reasonable, or reassuring them isn't go to make you resentful, then by all means do it. But maybe their reaction, in this particular circumstance, strikes you as absurdly childish. Maybe it deeply bothers you, and your respect for your partner is in peril. Maybe reassuring them would make you lose respect for yourself. If that's the case, you sure as hell better have it out with them. If you fail to communicate how you really feel, you're going to do some serious harm to the relationship. Be generous and understanding when you can, but make damn sure your choice to be understanding isn't an excuse to avoid tough conflicts.
humanrebar 9y ago
I like "a man who loves his wife loves himself". In other words, "you" becomes plural. One spouse isn't right unless both are. One spouse isn't happy unless both are. To the extent that that's not happening, it's an urgency for each spouse to iterate, check in, and innovate until both are right and happy. Even if that's impossible (say, chronic illness) then at least it's a loving team fighting for things that are worth it.
- dnoeu872sn 9y ago
  That's really horrible. It's as bad as "You can't love someone else until you love yourself," and "You're nobody until somebody loves you," and "Happy wife, happy life." All awful sayings. It's perfectly possible for one spouse to love their spouse but not themselves, or to be right when the other isn't, or one to be happy when the other isn't. It's understandable to want to help your spouse to become right or happy or whatever, but a saying like the above is one of those memes that people repeat without fully thinking through what it actually means. And what it means is terrible.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    It's Ephesians 5:28. I can promise you it's not a thoughtless meme that people bat around. I've heard it cited in at least six wedding sermons.
fosk 9y ago
I am not married, and I am in my twenties, and I don't get why people are signing a contract with high termination fees just so they can compromise on everything for the next 4 decades. Somebody please enlighten me, why are we still stuck with this 2000yrs old tribal behavior instead of moving on with a more modern approach? Edit: controversial arguments come with downvotes, but I'd really like to know your opinion on this.
- jonahx 9y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted -- it's a perfectly reasonable question. The two biggest reasons are: people like security and intimacy; and they want to raise a family with someone. You can argue that you don't need marriage for those things, and technically you don't, but whatever alternative you land on (especially for raising a family) will likely be effectively identical to marriage in practice. You can opt out of family and long-term relationships altogether, but you'll be missing out on a central part of the human experience. If the "early termination fees" are your biggest concern, find someone with similar views and get a prenup. Or just stay together without officially getting married. You'll lose tax benefits, but if it's important to you go for it. If that didn't answer the question you intended to ask, you'll need to clarify what you meant by a more modern approach. What are you imagining that looks like?
  - fosk 9y ago
    I tried to answer to your question here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179002
- smelterdemon 9y ago
  If you're looking for a purely financial reason, tax benefits and better insurance rates.
- twothamendment 9y ago
  I'm happy to be stuck with my wife for the next 4 decades and have more than one to look back at. When you find the right person, it isn't much of a compromise. I'm curious - what is the more "modern approach"? No commitment, no family?
twothamendment 9y ago
That doesn't sound far off from "Happy wife, happy life". Both my wife and I think it is the dumbest thing ever. To me, that attitude is what is wrong with marriage. Nobody is ever right all the time, not even my wife. Pointing that out may not cause immediate happiness, but I think an honest relationship is worth it.
dclowd9901 9y ago
Nope. Grandparent had it right: you should be basically exactly like one another. I know there are exceptions, but I assume one party is giving in a lot to the other in those situations. Unless that's something you _like_ to do, then you should probably not be married in the opposites-attract scenario.
NaOH 9y ago
The way I've heard that phrased is that the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you" but "Maybe you're right."
icanhackit 9y ago
> "You can be right or you can be happy." To flesh this point out beyond just being agreeable, you can both do a cost-benefit analysis on whether something is worth arguing about. A lot of the time you or your partner are just nitpicking because of some fucked up power dynamics going on at work, with friends or some other external factor. Your boss being a dick is probably the reason the bathroom being messy is such a big deal and you want to vent about it. You both need to be reasonable, introspective and effective at communicating. ...but that shit flies out the door when 1.) either of you are hungry 2.) you have kids and they're hungry/crying/fighting. Always plan your meals.

tapatio 9y ago

Well put. A couple should be required to read this as part of getting married.

needz 9y ago

That seems a little cynical. Best advice I've heard adjacent to this is to give 60% and expect 40%. If you both do this then everyone ends up with more than they expect.

tertius 9y ago
Replace "be right" with "dominate" and "be happy" with "co-operate". That may make it clearer.

jonahx 9y ago

I hear this all the time, and in its typical meaning I think it's terrible advice. If you care about honesty, or self-respect, or your partner knowing you and how you think -- caving in to everything and avoiding conflict at all costs is the opposite of what you should do. If you rephrase it as "Don't sweat the small stuff" or "Don't be petty and stubborn about things that don't matter," then it's perfectly reasonable.

throwmeaway32 9y ago
I view my relationship like the stock market, it'll have its up and downs, sometimes I'll be ahead, sometimes the market/she'll be ahead and I'll be down....but overtime the stock market generally goes up so it'll all be fine in the end. My wife tends not to like me describing our marriage like that though :)
- traviscj 9y ago
  Also channeled Baz Luhrman's "Wear Sunscreen" for a second there.
hudbuddy 9y ago
I think you are targeting an argument that doesn't really exist (though I could be wrong). In my eyes, the heart of this argument is to avoid the whole idea of "me vs. you". This falls in line with the last part of your argument, but I think it's worth driving home. Learning to approach arguments with the mindset of "even if I'm right, the best outcome is that we both come out of this altercation with a mutual understanding", is much more important than "winning" an argument, and I don't believe that concept can be misconstrued. As a simple example - maybe you're a woman with an attractive male friend. She knows that her intentions are pure, so why is it a big deal if you go out with him after work? Totally valid. However, it's important to approach the conversation with an aspect of I understand how this could make my partner uncomfortable, so how do I communicate that understanding and alleviate any doubt instead of thinking well, if my partner just trusted me, then this wouldn't be a problem. To that end, it's also important to identify these concerns early on so they aren't given the opportunity to fester as insecurities in the opposite party.
- jonahx 9y ago
  > Learning to approach arguments with the mindset of "even if I'm right, the best outcome is that we both come out of this altercation with a mutual understanding", is much more important than "winning" an argument, and I don't believe that concept can be misconstrued. Oh yes, oh god yes it can. I'd argue that it's misconstrued often. I think your example is a good one. It is not at all clear to me that "I understand how this could make my partner uncomfortable, so how do I communicate that understanding and alleviate any doubt" is better, though it might be -- everything depends on your goals and values and true feelings about the situation. If you think their discomfort is reasonable, or reassuring them isn't go to make you resentful, then by all means do it. But maybe their reaction, in this particular circumstance, strikes you as absurdly childish. Maybe it deeply bothers you, and your respect for your partner is in peril. Maybe reassuring them would make you lose respect for yourself. If that's the case, you sure as hell better have it out with them. If you fail to communicate how you really feel, you're going to do some serious harm to the relationship. Be generous and understanding when you can, but make damn sure your choice to be understanding isn't an excuse to avoid tough conflicts.

humanrebar 9y ago

I like "a man who loves his wife loves himself". In other words, "you" becomes plural. One spouse isn't right unless both are. One spouse isn't happy unless both are. To the extent that that's not happening, it's an urgency for each spouse to iterate, check in, and innovate until both are right and happy. Even if that's impossible (say, chronic illness) then at least it's a loving team fighting for things that are worth it.

dnoeu872sn 9y ago
That's really horrible. It's as bad as "You can't love someone else until you love yourself," and "You're nobody until somebody loves you," and "Happy wife, happy life." All awful sayings. It's perfectly possible for one spouse to love their spouse but not themselves, or to be right when the other isn't, or one to be happy when the other isn't. It's understandable to want to help your spouse to become right or happy or whatever, but a saying like the above is one of those memes that people repeat without fully thinking through what it actually means. And what it means is terrible.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  It's Ephesians 5:28. I can promise you it's not a thoughtless meme that people bat around. I've heard it cited in at least six wedding sermons.

fosk 9y ago

I am not married, and I am in my twenties, and I don't get why people are signing a contract with high termination fees just so they can compromise on everything for the next 4 decades. Somebody please enlighten me, why are we still stuck with this 2000yrs old tribal behavior instead of moving on with a more modern approach? Edit: controversial arguments come with downvotes, but I'd really like to know your opinion on this.

jonahx 9y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted -- it's a perfectly reasonable question. The two biggest reasons are: people like security and intimacy; and they want to raise a family with someone. You can argue that you don't need marriage for those things, and technically you don't, but whatever alternative you land on (especially for raising a family) will likely be effectively identical to marriage in practice. You can opt out of family and long-term relationships altogether, but you'll be missing out on a central part of the human experience. If the "early termination fees" are your biggest concern, find someone with similar views and get a prenup. Or just stay together without officially getting married. You'll lose tax benefits, but if it's important to you go for it. If that didn't answer the question you intended to ask, you'll need to clarify what you meant by a more modern approach. What are you imagining that looks like?
- fosk 9y ago
  I tried to answer to your question here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179002
smelterdemon 9y ago
If you're looking for a purely financial reason, tax benefits and better insurance rates.
twothamendment 9y ago
I'm happy to be stuck with my wife for the next 4 decades and have more than one to look back at. When you find the right person, it isn't much of a compromise. I'm curious - what is the more "modern approach"? No commitment, no family?

twothamendment 9y ago

That doesn't sound far off from "Happy wife, happy life". Both my wife and I think it is the dumbest thing ever. To me, that attitude is what is wrong with marriage. Nobody is ever right all the time, not even my wife. Pointing that out may not cause immediate happiness, but I think an honest relationship is worth it.

dclowd9901 9y ago

Nope. Grandparent had it right: you should be basically exactly like one another. I know there are exceptions, but I assume one party is giving in a lot to the other in those situations. Unless that's something you _like_ to do, then you should probably not be married in the opposites-attract scenario.

NaOH 9y ago

The way I've heard that phrased is that the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you" but "Maybe you're right."

icanhackit 9y ago

> "You can be right or you can be happy." To flesh this point out beyond just being agreeable, you can both do a cost-benefit analysis on whether something is worth arguing about. A lot of the time you or your partner are just nitpicking because of some fucked up power dynamics going on at work, with friends or some other external factor. Your boss being a dick is probably the reason the bathroom being messy is such a big deal and you want to vent about it. You both need to be reasonable, introspective and effective at communicating. ...but that shit flies out the door when 1.) either of you are hungry 2.) you have kids and they're hungry/crying/fighting. Always plan your meals.