3 ms·

If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter f

by Mz 9y ago

If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter for very long. When you are married, that approach fails on a number of fronts. First, unless you are ultra wealthy, throwing out his clothes will painfully come out of the family budget to replace, especially work clothes, especially if you are a household living on one income -- his -- as we were. Second, replacing them takes time and effort. I was a traditional homemaker, so I handled a lot of his errands. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more, instead of picking them up and putting them in the hamper? Third, it is just bitchy and hostile. This man was my lover. Just being a bitch to him every step of the way was not one of my goals. You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. He did eventually get what I was saying. It just took an unfortunately long time.

cellularmitosis 9y ago
I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree, and this might highlight why emotional labor disparity is such a big problem for so many relationships -- because each side sees things from a different perspective. You're right, adding just one expectation/consequence would be a real problem, because a lot of the fallout would eventually end up in your lap. To make this work, it would have to be part of a larger system. The consequences have to be set up to make things more fair, not less fair. throwing out his clothes will come out of the family budget to replace Alternatively, if the family had a "fun" budget set aside for his and hers, the consequence would be much more effective and fair if it came out of his fun budget -- he was saving up for an Xbox and now he has to wait two more months to afford it because he just blew $100 replacing dress shirts which were thrown away. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more This would definitely be unfair to you -- he needs to be the one to shop for the replacement clothes. This also highlights a similar issue from the article -- many of the burdens were essentially volunteered for, because one party preemptively took it upon themselves to take on the burden, without discussing it or setting up a system ahead of time. For example, the burden of constantly keeping track of which groceries were running low was mentioned. If the chore of shopping for groceries rotated between both partners, this wouldn't be a problem. If its his turn to deal with groceries, OP doesn't need to worry about it that week. Third, it is just bitchy and hostile I strongly disagree here, and I think this is the root of how our perspectives differ. I deal very well with rules and consequences. I don't see that as bitchy and hostile -- that's good communication and honoring an agreement. If I agreed to the rules and the consequences, I have only myself to blame. From my perspective, nagging is the thing which is bitchy. Also, this can cause an unhealthy blame shift for me too -- instead of blaming myself for breaking the rules, I'm tempted to shift blame onto her for perceiving the clutter (leading to the "why is this such a big deal?" argument, which is the worst possible button I could push at that time). You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. Here, I agree, but just from a different perspective. I cannot imagine being in a relationship with the author of the article. Navigating a minefield of poorly defined expectations and responsibilities, with a healthy dose of nagging, and its just a matter of time before I'd reach for the divorce lever.
- cellularmitosis 9y ago
  I should also say that the key thing about this approach is the conversations which it forces both parties to have. Once you enter the game of consequences, the negotiation of the rules becomes a high priority for both parties. These conversations will churn up all sorts of faulty assumptions and bring to light hidden expectations and burdens which the other partner had long been unaware of. With luck, this system will sharpen the subject of arguments to being solely about re-negotiating the rules, rather than the anger, resentment, guilt and blame which come from a system of unstated expectations and silent burdens.
- Mz 9y ago
  You are making a lot of assumptions that do not apply to my former marriage. For example, there was no money for each of us to have a fun budget. We just were not that well off. I don't disagree with the general principle that, in theory, you can find other alternatives. In practice, that is not always true. Furthermore, you are taking an example from my actual life and telling me I am wrong about my own life, in essence. And you are doing so very much after the fact. I am not even married to him anymore. Plus, your solution sounds a bit like "Well, there are always alternatives. Like you could just burn the house down rather than clean it!" Sure, you could. It is also utterly ridiculous and impractical for the vast majority of people. The reality is that if you are married and cannot get their cooperation, some things will negatively impact you. Period. There is no clever hack that lets you stay with an inconsiderate, uncooperative person and somehow not get crapped on by that fact. That is true regardless of gender. But, certain social norms mean women tend to be subjected to certain problems of that ilk more consistently than men. If a woman actually wants a relationship and doesn't want to just suck it up and feel victimized, asking him to change some is unavoidable. It is a question I wrestle with: Do I ever want to get involved with a man again? Because women get horribly vilified for even trying to talk about the problem space. I am very much a conflict avoider. If just asking nicely for someone to be considerate makes me some mega bitch in not only his eyes, but the entire world's eyes, I dunno. Maybe sex isn't that important to me. Because that is what it boils down to: Women can put up with this kind of crap, they can try to sort it out with their man while he and the entire world act like that is just bitchy of her, or she can sleep alone. The first two both feel like being a professional victim. Such questions actually make me suicidal because sleeping alone is not my cup of tea. So, in my book, those all look like terrible options. But, hey, I am menopausal, so sleeping alone is beginning to look less like a reason to go jump off a bridge. Anyway, I think it would be wise of me to bow out of discussing this further. It would be super nice if your future hypothetical examples do not implicitly suggest I was just an idiot and if you had been there to advise me, all of my marital problems could have been readily solved with some little hack or other. Thanks.

by Mz 9y ago

cellularmitosis 9y ago

I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree, and this might highlight why emotional labor disparity is such a big problem for so many relationships -- because each side sees things from a different perspective. You're right, adding just one expectation/consequence would be a real problem, because a lot of the fallout would eventually end up in your lap. To make this work, it would have to be part of a larger system. The consequences have to be set up to make things more fair, not less fair. throwing out his clothes will come out of the family budget to replace Alternatively, if the family had a "fun" budget set aside for his and hers, the consequence would be much more effective and fair if it came out of his fun budget -- he was saving up for an Xbox and now he has to wait two more months to afford it because he just blew $100 replacing dress shirts which were thrown away. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more This would definitely be unfair to you -- he needs to be the one to shop for the replacement clothes. This also highlights a similar issue from the article -- many of the burdens were essentially volunteered for, because one party preemptively took it upon themselves to take on the burden, without discussing it or setting up a system ahead of time. For example, the burden of constantly keeping track of which groceries were running low was mentioned. If the chore of shopping for groceries rotated between both partners, this wouldn't be a problem. If its his turn to deal with groceries, OP doesn't need to worry about it that week. Third, it is just bitchy and hostile I strongly disagree here, and I think this is the root of how our perspectives differ. I deal very well with rules and consequences. I don't see that as bitchy and hostile -- that's good communication and honoring an agreement. If I agreed to the rules and the consequences, I have only myself to blame. From my perspective, nagging is the thing which is bitchy. Also, this can cause an unhealthy blame shift for me too -- instead of blaming myself for breaking the rules, I'm tempted to shift blame onto her for perceiving the clutter (leading to the "why is this such a big deal?" argument, which is the worst possible button I could push at that time). You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. Here, I agree, but just from a different perspective. I cannot imagine being in a relationship with the author of the article. Navigating a minefield of poorly defined expectations and responsibilities, with a healthy dose of nagging, and its just a matter of time before I'd reach for the divorce lever.

cellularmitosis 9y ago
I should also say that the key thing about this approach is the conversations which it forces both parties to have. Once you enter the game of consequences, the negotiation of the rules becomes a high priority for both parties. These conversations will churn up all sorts of faulty assumptions and bring to light hidden expectations and burdens which the other partner had long been unaware of. With luck, this system will sharpen the subject of arguments to being solely about re-negotiating the rules, rather than the anger, resentment, guilt and blame which come from a system of unstated expectations and silent burdens.
Mz 9y ago
You are making a lot of assumptions that do not apply to my former marriage. For example, there was no money for each of us to have a fun budget. We just were not that well off. I don't disagree with the general principle that, in theory, you can find other alternatives. In practice, that is not always true. Furthermore, you are taking an example from my actual life and telling me I am wrong about my own life, in essence. And you are doing so very much after the fact. I am not even married to him anymore. Plus, your solution sounds a bit like "Well, there are always alternatives. Like you could just burn the house down rather than clean it!" Sure, you could. It is also utterly ridiculous and impractical for the vast majority of people. The reality is that if you are married and cannot get their cooperation, some things will negatively impact you. Period. There is no clever hack that lets you stay with an inconsiderate, uncooperative person and somehow not get crapped on by that fact. That is true regardless of gender. But, certain social norms mean women tend to be subjected to certain problems of that ilk more consistently than men. If a woman actually wants a relationship and doesn't want to just suck it up and feel victimized, asking him to change some is unavoidable. It is a question I wrestle with: Do I ever want to get involved with a man again? Because women get horribly vilified for even trying to talk about the problem space. I am very much a conflict avoider. If just asking nicely for someone to be considerate makes me some mega bitch in not only his eyes, but the entire world's eyes, I dunno. Maybe sex isn't that important to me. Because that is what it boils down to: Women can put up with this kind of crap, they can try to sort it out with their man while he and the entire world act like that is just bitchy of her, or she can sleep alone. The first two both feel like being a professional victim. Such questions actually make me suicidal because sleeping alone is not my cup of tea. So, in my book, those all look like terrible options. But, hey, I am menopausal, so sleeping alone is beginning to look less like a reason to go jump off a bridge. Anyway, I think it would be wise of me to bow out of discussing this further. It would be super nice if your future hypothetical examples do not implicitly suggest I was just an idiot and if you had been there to advise me, all of my marital problems could have been readily solved with some little hack or other. Thanks.