8 ms·

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 ofte

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.

glitchc 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
    - steveBK123 4y ago
      Outside high cost of living / coastal / urban areas yeah. Even a lot of these people may be two income couples but came from one income households, so they grew up with a father doing nothing/much less around the house and find it normal.
      - antisthenes 4y ago
        Why is it not normal? Modern appliances make housekeeping basically a breeze. Unless you expect perfectly ironed shirts of something ridiculous like vacuuming every day. Now if children are in play, then it's a whole different ballgame. It easily triples or quadruples the work that needs to get done around the house.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Many (mostly) women enjoy caretaking more than working for the machine. Definitely higher quality of life satisfaction is possible if the division of labor is agreed upon. Complementary relationships can be far less stressful if each are sacrificing for the well being of the other.
    - tsol 4y ago
      Honestly it's still common all over the world, isn't it?
- Jabbles 4y ago
  I think not calling it "pocket money" would be a good step.
  - brimble 4y ago
    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.
    - throwaway821909 4y ago
      Seems this is US-only usage, maybe it's not universal there, for me in the UK pocket money has all the connotations of childhood, I'd only use it to be deliberately patronising, it's like a full reversal where allowance makes me think of a meal allowance from work etc.
  - defgeneric 4y ago
    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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
  > 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.
- mherdeg 4y ago
  > Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This is a fascinating sentence which has stuck with me (after glancing at it a week ago I find myself thinking about it now). This isn't the culture I was raised in but it's a very interesting perspective.
a_puppy 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > 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.
  - k0k0r0 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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?"
incomingpain 4y ago
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.
- avidiax 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
    - username923409 4y ago
      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.
j7ake 4y ago
Would this situation have been solved if both partners were working ?
- watwut 4y ago
  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.
Taurenking 4y ago

glitchc 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    Outside high cost of living / coastal / urban areas yeah. Even a lot of these people may be two income couples but came from one income households, so they grew up with a father doing nothing/much less around the house and find it normal.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      Why is it not normal? Modern appliances make housekeeping basically a breeze. Unless you expect perfectly ironed shirts of something ridiculous like vacuuming every day. Now if children are in play, then it's a whole different ballgame. It easily triples or quadruples the work that needs to get done around the house.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Many (mostly) women enjoy caretaking more than working for the machine. Definitely higher quality of life satisfaction is possible if the division of labor is agreed upon. Complementary relationships can be far less stressful if each are sacrificing for the well being of the other.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Honestly it's still common all over the world, isn't it?
Jabbles 4y ago
I think not calling it "pocket money" would be a good step.
- brimble 4y ago
  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.
  - throwaway821909 4y ago
    Seems this is US-only usage, maybe it's not universal there, for me in the UK pocket money has all the connotations of childhood, I'd only use it to be deliberately patronising, it's like a full reversal where allowance makes me think of a meal allowance from work etc.
- defgeneric 4y ago
  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 4y ago
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 4y ago
> 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.
mherdeg 4y ago
> Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This is a fascinating sentence which has stuck with me (after glancing at it a week ago I find myself thinking about it now). This isn't the culture I was raised in but it's a very interesting perspective.

a_puppy 4y ago

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 4y ago
> 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.
- k0k0r0 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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?"

incomingpain 4y ago

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.

avidiax 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
  - username923409 4y ago
    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.

j7ake 4y ago

Would this situation have been solved if both partners were working ?

watwut 4y ago
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.

Taurenking 4y ago