Quandry: How much should I help? (long)
jane lawrence
>
> Your thoughts, please. (Hopefully not too many flames :-) I know this
> is shamefully long.
>
> I have been in a relationship for about two years. We do not live
> together. We both have been divorced for approximately 7 or 8 years.
> My kids are young adults living on their own. Hers are 10, 12, and 15.
> Her ex pays child support faithfully and has the kids every second
> weekend.
>
> Recently (the past six months or so) my SO has become increasingly
> unhappy and frustrated. She is finishing a graduate degree and raising
> her kids. She is often overwhelmed and exhausted. This past weekend
> she expressed resentment that I do not help her with her domestic load,
> particularly with the children. This post is, of course, from my point
> of view. My SO might tell it quite differently, I suspect.
>
> This may draw some flames, but I made a conscious decision early on to
> limit the amount of responsibility that I was willing to take on, as I
> shall explain. Yes, yes, I knew she had children when we began dating,
> and I accept that her children come as part of the package. However, I
> am very aware of the challenge presented in attempting to make a blended
> family work. I also made it clear at the beginning that I would not
> attempt to replace the children's father, because it is neither
> desirable nor possible.
>
> The real problem though, is that I do not agree with her view of how
> much should be done for the children. She is very much at their beck
> and call. She is quite involved in her daughter's extra-curriciular
> activities. This means spending as much as three evenings or afternoons
> per week attending basketball practices, games, choir practice, fund
> raising events, etc. If the kids wish to be involved in social
> activities such as sleep-overs or birthday parties, she practically
> never says no, and transports them around as required. If the school
> asks for parent volunteers, she takes a day off of work for it -
> practically every time. If one of her colleagues in the graduate
> program asks her to volunteer to do some extra thing, she agrees to do
> it. The kids insist on having large quantities of treats available for
> snacks, so she spends a lot of time baking. If, as happened this fall,
> her mother asks her to help can the autumn fruit, she says yes
> regardless of how much else she has to do. If, as happened this summer,
> her extended family members ask her to hold a multi-family garage sale
> at her house, she does it. Now I know very well that all of those
> things are good things, taken individually. It is hard to imagine that
> attending your child's basketball games could be a bad thing. The
> trouble is that, as far as I can tell, she will not set any limits to
> the amount of time she spends doing these "good" things. The result has
> been that she has found it tough to make progress at her studies, and
> feels overwhelmed.
>
> She is often very frustrated because her kids will not readily comply
> with her rules and requests. They will not really help to any
> meaningful extent with household chores such as cleaning, cooking, or
> laundry. So, she does practically all of it herself. She wants me to
> help.
>
> For the past few months she has complained bitterly practically every
> day that the day was "really really long" and that she was exhausted.
> She never complained expressly about my lack of participation, but I
> suspected it was a problem. That is why I finally asked her what the
> problem was this past weekend.
>
> From my perspective, I feel that she could, and should, set some
> priorities and limits on how much extra stuff she does, particularly
> during the next year as she finishes (we hope) her doctorate. She seems
> to be completely unwilling to do that, and says that the problem is that
> she has to do everything herself. I feel that her children, who are
> quite pleasant kids, are very ready to be more self-sufficient and less
> demanding of her. I feel that she is expecting me to join her as a
> virtual slave to her kids and everyone else that makes a demand on her.
>
> In the past I helped more than I have recently. For example, I enjoy
> cooking. I have prepared meals for the children a number of times.
> They were raised on a very, very plain diet. They initially openly rude
> about the stuff I cooked, and more or less refused to eat it. I have
> done a number of things for and with the kids. They simply refuse to
> say please or thank you for anything. For example, the oldest asked me
> to take him to a rock concert at which his favorite band was playing. I
> paid for the tickets and took him. (I enjoy rock, alternative, etc.
> because music is my hobby.) On the way home from the concert he refused
> to speak to me, and never said a word about the concert again (no thank
> you of any kind). I asked his mother later to find out if he was upset
> at me for something. She found out that he was not. He just went into
> an adolescent mood and decided that he was not going to acknowledge my
> presence. Despite all that, these are good kids at heart. They are
> bright, and have good senses of humor. I have avoided conflict with
> them, so we often have a lot of fun when I go to visit. The problem, as
> I see it, is that their mother has trained them to expect their demands
> to be met without question by adult family members. I refuse to become
> their servant. My feeling on it is that, until some reasonable
> priorities and limits are set, I do not want to begin to share the
> domestic load in that household.
>
> I expressed this to my SO. She said that made her feel that I am asking
> her to do all of the changing, and am unwilling to do any myself. On
> top of that, she said that I am asking her to give up all the pleasant
> things in life in order to look after the bare necessities. She also
> said that she would feel terribly guilty if she did not do all that she
> does, particularly for her daughter, and that she wants to provide stuff
> for her children that she did not have as a child. She could not really
> say what was missing in her own childhood.
>
> I do not feel neglected because of the amount she does for her kids and
> others. I do not ask for much from her. I am happy when she can make
> time for me. I do not ask for her to supply anything to me
> domestically. I clean, cook, shop, do laundry, etc. for myself. I pay
> for all (or nearly all) entertainment that we do together, including
> occasional outings with the kids. At my age (47) I want a companion,
> not someone to be my maid or my mother.
>
> I had custody of my children for a time after my divorce, and they did
> not require anything like the time she devotes to hers. I am still very
> close to my children. They seem to be happy, reasonably well adjusted
> young adults. Not that I was anything close to perfect as a parent, but
> I was not a disaster either.
>
> You may wonder what I want from the relationship. I would like to get
> married eventually, but I am not presently willing to step in as
> assistant cook, maid, and errand-runner.
>
> OK, let's hear it. How do I handle this? Please remember that I love
> her, like the kids, and want to solve it lovingly. But I do not want to
> be a doormat.
Okay. I don't know what went on when you were raising your
kids. You say your GF has kids 10, 12, and 15, works, and is
trying to finish her doctorate. I can't imagine how she could
*not* be stressed and overwhelmed. I've got to admire her for
refusing to give up the special times with people she loves.
I think I understand your position, too. You believe GF's
stress is due to her inability to set limits. You don't want be
sucked into the black hole of obligations that she cannot
refuse, even when she doesn't have time for them. You're doing
the Tough Love thing, not helping her so that she will see that
she has to learn to just say no.
My guess is that your GF is realizing that she has bitten off
more than she can chew and is fighting the knowledge that she
can't do it anymore. What can she let go of? The most obvious
answer is the doctorate. She could drop you, too, but she'd
probably miss the adult companionship too much. It seems
obvious to me that she can't and won't let go of her role as
Perfect Mother or Loving Daughter. My guess is that the entire
concept of setting limits on Good Things is totally foreign to
her.
Maybe I'm way off base, but isn't that what made you love her in
the first place?
The impression I'm getting here is that you are withdrawing
support from your mate when she needs it most. I understand your
need to set limits, but I don't understand why you have set them
where you have. You don't have to encourage her to take on extra
obligations, but you know you could make her life a little
easier than you are. That's what lovers do. We try to help our
mates get through their trials and to do what they need to get
done. Can't you accept her decision about what's important in
her life and give her a hand sometimes? Couldn't you go over
and mix up some mac and cheese for the kids once in a while?
Would it kill you to drive one of the kids to a sleepover?
Maybe you could take the girl to practice sometimes. These
aren't your obligations, but they are your mate's. If you cut
yourself out of them, you're driving a wedge between you and
her.
If I'm wrong, and you're already totally maxed out in the effort
you put into this relationship, then maybe you should think
about letting it go. If your GF needs you to be something you
are not and never will be, then you're just torturing each
other. If you think you can work with each other's needs and
personalities, your best bet is probably to keep talking, and to
do it when GF is not exhausted and overwhelmed.
jane
jane lawrence
>
> She's not doing the kids a favor by being "The
> Giving Tree" and giving giving giving without ever getting anything in
> return.
I'm warning you right now that the rest of this is going to
sound weird. OTOH, I bet you find yourself thinking about it
later.
I'm not arguing with setting limits for yourself or with
children having chores. However, what I saw in the original
post was a disruption in the Niceness Paradigm. It seems to me
that important relationships involve one Nice and one Not Nice
party. I really wish I were better at explaining things, but
that's the only description of the dichotomy I can think of.
It's not good-bad, strong-weak, strict-lenient, kind-mean, or
generous-cheap. It's Nice-Not Nice. I also wish I remembered
more about chemistry. Couples bond like molecules, one positive
and one negative for Niceness.
I can think over virtually every couple I know and instantly say
who is Nice and who is Not Nice. Most of us here are Not Nice.
Yvette and Merrie are Nice. You, lil, and I are definitely Not
Nice. The original poster is definitely Not Nice, whereas BM is
Nice.
So I assume Patrice chose BM because of her free niceness
radical (or whatever). That was great. They filled in each
other's gaps. Coupledom. Now the relationship is under
pressure and BM is over her head somewhat. Patrice is
responding by being more Not Nice and by telling BM to be Not
Nice too. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see that working.
They've reached critical Not Nice mass. BM cannot become less
Nice unless Patrice becomes more Nice.
All right, I know this probably makes no sense at all. I'm
frustrated that I can't explain it better. If you just think
over all the couples you know, I bet they will fall into a
pattern though.
Anyway, I bring this up because it's a recurring problem for a
lot of us here. In fact, I think that's partly why we are
here. Our mates were the Nice ones in their first marriages,
and they're the Nice ones now. We're here because as the Not
Nice partner, we are expected in some way to handle the Not Nice
ex. Or maybe we're frustrated because in our roles as steps we
can't handle things in our Not Nice way and we need to learn new
techniques.
I can't make an ass of myself any further here. My main point
is that Patrice cannot make BM Not Nice. If BM did become Not
Nice, Patrice would leave her anyway.
jane
Patrice
Jennifer
Patrice, you write an excellent post. And I can't add much, because I'm
totally in your court. What you've written here:
> I do not agree with her view of how much should be done for the
> children. She is very much at their beck and call...she practically never
> says no, and transports them around as required.
Well, this is an area in which I completely agree with you. But I'm not the
type of mom that overschedules her kids, and I don't much like organized
activities, anyway. We've always limited SD to 1 activity per "semester."
Now that she's just begun swimming (she's 13), it's to the exclusion of
anything else, because we've asked her to commit to one particular sport.
When she brought up basketball, we said (this is a hard word): "No." She's
played in the past, and she chose to swim.
Swimming requires three practices a week, two weekday evenings and one very
early Saturday morning. We've created a carpool with two of her friends.
Except for the occasional time when we're scheduled to drive, SD walks to
one of her friend's houses and gets a ride from there. She stays after
school sometimes to get extra credit or volunteer hours, but then she walks
home. SD initiates most activities on her own, gets our approval, and works
to accomplish them. If she wants to go to a movie, she rides her bike. If
she wants to go somewhere with a friend, she works out how best to
accomplish this, without asking me! I might offer a ride once in a while,
but it's as a friendly gesture. Even when it's raining, she walks to school
(with an umbrella, if it's not too uncool!).
You're an older father, and you obviously didn't coddle your children. I
wasn't raised that way, either. So I guess I'm raising SD with DH as if she
lived in the "good old days" when you get a game of pickup soccer going if
you want to play, and you seek out your friends and don't arrange
"playdates" on the phone (or have your parents call for you).
Can you tell I'm big on self-sufficiency? Your wife may think she's helping
her children, but she's actually increasing their dependency upon her, which
will do them little good when they're expected to make their own way in the
world in the not so far future. She's also making herself into the type of
mom whose children take her for granted, and I'd imagine that has a lot to
do with why the SKs don't say "thank you." A small irritation, sure, but
one that will grate on you after many years.
Your wife is right--she shouldn't be doing so much around the house. So
have the kids do it! They can set the table, clear the table, do the
dishes, sweep the house, run and fold the laundry, distribute the folded
laundry, vacuum, clean their rooms, cook the occasional dinner, make their
own lunches, for God's sake make their own snacks, etc. You're talking
about 3 kids here, so they can really make a difference in how much
housework is remaining for you and your wife.
When my SD comes home from school, she makes herself a snack, eats it, reads
the comics, and goes upstairs to do her homework. She sets the table for
dinner, clears it and does the dishes. She keeps her room straightened,
does chores as asked, and puts away her clothes. She occasionally watches
the younger kids for us, helps with groceries, runs occasional errands,
etc. I'm not trying to brag here, and I'm sorry if it seems as if I am, but
my point is we raise SD and the other kids with the conviction that we're
not doing them any favors if we teach them to rely upon us for everything
they have coming to them in this life.
Your wife must have a lot of guilt about the time she takes for her
schooling if she's willing to let the kids ask so much of her. She has the
right to improve herself, and she can be proud of herself for accomplishing
all she has. But the kids should be proud of her, too, and they should be
wanting to help make the load *lighter*, not heavier. This will help them
grow up into altruistic individuals who will make good spouses, too!
Jennifer
Vanessa Baldrey
one of them, feel so guilty about the break up of the marriage that inorder
to "make up" for the hurt they tend to over do everything and don't want to
say no to anything nor discipline their kids.
My SO and I have have had this fight many times and I feel that he is
raising his kids to be petulant and eventually into demanding adults who
believe that the world revolves around them and their every whim.
Not much advice to add though, except to say been there am still there and
refusing to become involved. I do the distance step parent thing.
Regards
Vanessa
Patrice <no...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:37F842C8...@nowhere.org...
Marcy
Your post reminds me of how I used to be. I was newly divorced with my
4 1/2 year old son and working on a degree in Special and Elementary
Education. I think I averaged 4 hours of sleep per night.
I overindulged my son out of guilt over the divorce. Also, I have the
tendency to do everything myself. For a long time I thought I was
superwoman. Additionally, I did everything myself because I didn't
think anyone could do it as well as me.
I was seeing someone when my son was 6. He recognized just how
overwhelmed I was, but he sat me down and had a long talk with me
concerning the above issues. At the time, my son was demanding
and spoiled. I wish I could remember his exact words because they
opened my eyes and the same night, I began to make changes.
Your partner cannot make those changes unless she is able to admit
she cannot be all things to all people. She has to *want* to admit
that things must change and the two of you could then work out a plan
to ease the load. If she is unwilling, it just won't work. You are
right. You cannot be a doormat. If she is willing to be one, that's
her business.
Unfortunately, I don't see a solution to your situation - that is
until she takes control of her life and gets her children to help
out at home. I hope she comes around. I'm absolutely glad that I did.
Regards,
Marcy
Email replies to: winterwind at mindspring dot com
ICQ# 16581997
Tracey
asking
>her to do all of the changing, and am unwilling to do any myself.
I'm wondering if she actually *heard* what you said, because that's not
what *I* heard. I heard you say that you would be quite willing to help
someone who would help themselves by scaling back a bit on their ac-
tivities, but you're not going to join in on helping support a lifestyle
that
you're not sure is good for her OR her kids. Kind of like you'll only
help
someone who will help themselves.
>On top of that, she said that I am asking her to give up all the
pleasant
>things in life in order to look after the bare necessities.
And that's different from the way most of us have to live how? I don't
mean to sound rude, but when did it become your job (or anyone else's,
for that matter) to take care of the 'necessities' of her life so that
she
can do the 'fun' stuff. I would *love* to have someone else come in
and do the laundry and the cooking and the cleaning and the boring
things that take up so much time so that I could sit and paint my
ceramics or spend the day playing with the kids or baking tons of
Christmas candies and cookies (which I bought a bunch of ingredi-
ents for last night, but I digress....), but that's not the way life
works
for most of us. We have to set our priorities and do what needs to
be done. If something gets left behind, that's what happens. To be
upset with someone who we have no 'formal' relationship with be-
cause they don't jump in and pick up that slack seems a little.....uhm,
presumptious, I guess, to me. Heck, I don't think it's fair to be mad
at my husband if I haven't made it clear what I expect from him or
have asked him.
>She also said that she would feel terribly guilty if she did not do all
>that she does, particularly for her daughter, and that she wants to
>provide stuff for her children that she did not have as a child.
Well, we talk about guilt all of the time here and I think the concensus
has been that it does no one any good to be acting solely out of guilt.
>You may wonder what I want from the relationship. I would like to get
>married eventually, but I am not presently willing to step in as
>assistant cook, maid, and errand-runner.
Can't blame you there.
>OK, let's hear it. How do I handle this? Please remember that I love
>her, like the kids, and want to solve it lovingly. But I do not want
to
>be a doormat.
Well, in some ways, it's good that this is rearing it's head now rather
than after a marriage. You will either be able to work through it and
get a baseline started for later on how things are worked out in your
relationship or you won't be able to work it out to both of your satis-
faction and your relationship will end now. Or, the absolute worst
thing, IMO, someone will feel like their needs and wants have been
absolutely ignored and the situation will be tolerated, not resolved,
and it will prove to be a sticking point for the rest of your lives.
(Some
people might think that the end of the relationship would be the worst
thing, but not me. I think that knowing of an obviously major problem
and not working it out to both of your satisfactions but continuing the
relationship knowing that arguments, fights and bad feelings will be
there for the rest of the relationship is the worst thing.)
How to solve it? I don't know. If both of you stay firm on how you
feel about it, it doesn't seem like there's a way to resolve it. FWIW,
I don't think you're being unreasonable in saying 'I don't mind helping
you out when you need it, but I'm not going to do the drudgery so
that you are free to do more 'fun' stuff without some sort of scaling
back.' It would be one thing to offer to take the kids out to dinner
so she has a couple of uninterrupted hours to deep clean the kitchen
or study for a test, a totally different thing to do the housekeeping
chores on a daily basis so she could keep up with a schedule that
she can't handle on her own, IMO, *especially* when you have
your own house/life to handle.
Maybe I'm looking at it from a selfish point of view, but it sounds
to me like you're being asked or expected to fall into a 'husband-
like' and 'stepfather-like' role without being given any of the deci-
sion making powers that should come with that. It's a situation
that a lot of people here have been in and are still in and it causes
a lot of problems. It seems to be an attitude of 'I want you to act
like my husband and my kids' stepfather but only in the ways that
I deem fit.' And I don't know if that's a situation I would willingly
go into <in my case, again.>
--
Tracey
--
"I used to think that life should be fair.
But then I realized it's better that life
is unfair. If life is fair, it would mean
we deserve all the terrible things that
happen to us."
- Marcus, Ranger extraordinaire.
Anne Robotti
three people living right in her house who could help out with a *lot*
of household chores. There's no reason why a 10, 12 and 15 year old
can't pitch in and help Mom keep the house running smoothly, arrange
rides with their friends if there are practices/games they have to get
to, make plans so that Mom can have some space on the weekends to
get some homework done - why is she turning to the boyfriend first in
order to get that support? She's not doing the kids a favor by being "The
Giving Tree" and giving giving giving without ever getting anything in
return.
Having said that, I would try to find out exactly *what* it is she wants you
to do. It may be something you don't mind doing at all. But talking in
these non-specifics - be more supportive, help out more, pull back... - it's
not getting anywhere because there's not a clear statement of what the
expectation is.
I would be REALLY reluctant to help her (if it was me) until I saw her
getting the kids to pitch in. I know from dealing with my SD, there's nothing
more annoying than running around playing maid while a perfectly healthy
child sits on the couch with their thumb up their ass watching TV.
Anne
Tracey wrote:
> >On top of that, she said that I am asking her to give up all the
> pleasant
> >things in life in order to look after the bare necessities.
>
Tracey
>three people living right in her house who could help out with a *lot*
>of household chores.
Actually, I meant 'anyone else outside of her household' when I was
talking about anyone else helping out. I assuredly didn't mean that I
felt that she should be doing it ALL and quit her bitchin'!! Our son
is responsible for (at the very least) setting the table before dinner
(and helping out in any other way I need fixing dinner) and clearing
it afterwards and doing the dishes. He has quite a few chores a-
round here and my husband *used* to help out quite a bit, but
for some reason that's stopped (and I'm not exactly too pleased
with it either, but that's another rant....er, post <grin>.)
I think you're right in that they're both being kind of vague as to
what they're saying in terms of what she needs/wants help with,
and him with what he would/wouldn't do for her. Maybe it was
just the post and maybe they were more specific when they
discussed it. For the OP, what exactly did she ask of you? An
occasional evening of you cooking or taking over the chauffer
duties or to do all of the laundry and cooking for her?
Sian Lee Reid
<winte...@mindspringspamfree.com> wrote:
> Your partner cannot make those changes unless she is able to admit
> she cannot be all things to all people. She has to *want* to admit
> that things must change and the two of you could then work out a plan
> to ease the load. If she is unwilling, it just won't work. You are
> right. You cannot be a doormat. If she is willing to be one, that's
> her business.
>
is about a year from finishing her doctorate, I can tell you that it is a
miserable, demoralizing road. You work long hours, alone, without
reinforcement or human contact. You feel as though you'll never be done;
you feel like your work is crap. I have not yet met a woman in grad
school who didn't feel like she was going to be 'found out'... that
someone was going to realize that she really didn't have what it takes to
be in a graduate program. People around you make charming comments like,
'oh, you're still in school? At your age? And what do you want to be
when you grow up?' Your sense of self worth, even if it was okay at the
start of the degree, goes down the toilet by the time you're a year or so
into ABD (all but dissertation).
The other thing that struck a chord with me about this post is that I
don't think the original poster's girlfriend has very high self esteem.
Many people who compulsively need to help others do so because it makes
them feel useful and 'worth' something. They are not secure enough in
themselves not to look for outside approval, and they tend to do anything
people ask of them. They burn out, they get grumpy, they feel
overwhelmed, but the do not set limits because they do not feel that they
have the right to have them. Their whole sense of what makes life
worthwhile is based on what they can give to others, and the way in which
they can improve other people's lives. Been there. Still go there
occassionally.
I agree with Jennifer that coddling the kids is not doing them any
favours. Sometimes, we give the most to people by forcing them to
confront things and work them out on their own. It took me a long time to
realize that, and I think that until this woman comes to honestly believe
that 1) she is worth something just for who she is, and not simply for
what she does and 2) that people need to be able to take care of things on
their own, because sometimes she just _won't_ be able to be there, she is
going to have a hard time letting go of all the 'extra' tasks.
Sian
Patrice
Thanks for the replies so far. They are all really helping me to think
about this.
Jane Lawrence wrote something which is so, so true. To paraphrase, the
very quality that I see as problematic in my SO is closely related to why I
love her. Jane also suggests that I may be too "all or nothing" about
helping. In my heart I feel that is true. I am certainly not a totally
unselfish person. I think that I am mostly afraid of going down a slippery
slope, though.
Sian Lee Reid wrote about the challenge a woman faces in grad school.There
is a lot in this in my SO's case. She is in natural science, which is (as
I have been told) more male-dominated than e.g. social science, humanities,
etc. etc. She returned to school after divorce. She has expressed her
doubts about herself on occasion. I have no doubt that she does feel like
an impostor sometimes. During our recent conversation (about me helping)
she alluded for the first time to a fear that her research may have gone
off the rails. I suspect that part of what is going on is that she is
seeking refuge in what she knows she can succeed at, which is nurturing.
That's just a guess, and perhaps I presume to much in analyzing her. She
finds it very difficult to open up to me about how work is going.
Tracey asked what my SO wanted me to do, exactly. I have asked her this.
It may have been the way I asked, but she responded as though I were
challenging her. I think she heard "how do you want me to help" as "prove
to me that I should help" or something. Given that I have expressed my
hesitance to help unless she sets some limits etc. it would not be
surprising if she understood the question that way. Instead of being
specific she more or less said that if we lived together I would just be
there and know which things to pick up the ball on. I think her feeling
that I am asking her to do all the changing *might* be her way of saying
that I am putting her over a barrel by insisting on change before I move to
getting married, cohabiting, or whatever.
Many of you seem to agree that her kids could help her out. It seems to
me, from discussions with my SO, that she is looking to me to discipline
the kids and get them going. There is no doubt that the kids comply with
my requests much more readily than with hers. They do not even seem to
resent it much. I think (and I have told my SO this) that her kids are in
some ways unconsciously ready to be treated differently. My fear is that,
if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a tyrant. "You're not
my Dad so go to hell" etc. etc. Then there will be the inevitable clashes
with BD, not because he is a bad guy but because he would have to listen to
gripes about this other adult male who is telling everyone what to do.
That is why I feel that it is essential that my SO initiate the change.
Anyway, this is helping me think about it. I hope there are more replies.
Sian Lee Reid
>
> Many of you seem to agree that her kids could help her out. It seems to
> me, from discussions with my SO, that she is looking to me to discipline
> the kids and get them going. There is no doubt that the kids comply with
> my requests much more readily than with hers. They do not even seem to
> resent it much. I think (and I have told my SO this) that her kids are in
> some ways unconsciously ready to be treated differently. My fear is that,
> if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a tyrant. "You're not
> my Dad so go to hell" etc. etc. Then there will be the inevitable clashes
> with BD, not because he is a bad guy but because he would have to listen to
> gripes about this other adult male who is telling everyone what to do.
> That is why I feel that it is essential that my SO initiate the change.
>
So don't tell them. If you have an otherwise good relationship with the
kids, why don't you try the 'coalition' approach? Take them all out with
you, say to a fast food place, on the pretense of giving Mom a break.
While they are there, initiate a discussion about how overworked their Mom
seems to be, and how you are worried about her. List all of the various
things that she has to do, not just the ones that directly involve the
kids, and invite them to help you think of ways that Mom's life could be a
little less overburdened. You never know, it's not completely impossible
that the 15 year old will say, 'well, I can probably ride my bike to
soccer practice.' Or, you could take the tack that Mom would have more
energy to do the fun things if more of the mundane stuff were taken care
of. Could someone unload the dishwasher every day? Could they take turns
cleaning the bathroom? Don't forget to tell them what you're going to do
too, and pick a couple of things you won't resent. Making dinner for her
one night when the kids are at their Dad's. Lending a hand with the
bigger jobs associated with fall cleaning. Just something to let them
know that you feel you _all_ have to pitch it, that you're all on the same
team.
Sian
Tracey
to look at the situation.
>Instead of being specific she more or less said that if we lived
>together I would just be there and know which things to pick
>up the ball on.
That might be something you two need to discuss. Does she
honestly think that you're just supposed to 'know' what needs
to be done on a daily basis? Is it really that difficult for her to
ask for something specific? Have you noticed this in other areas?
>My fear is that, if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a
>tyrant. "You're not my Dad so go to hell" etc. etc. Then there
>will be the inevitable clashes with BD, not because he is a bad
>guy but because he would have to listen to gripes about this other
>adult male who is telling everyone what to do. That is why I feel
>that it is essential that my SO initiate the change.
I think that's a very realistic fear. It's *not* going to work if you're
the one to come in one night and say 'Okay, your mom needs some
help and so you do the dishes, and you clean the living room and
you do the laundry,' especially if Mom is doing the 'I'll do it all'
when you're not around. You *are* going to be seen as the bad
guy, IMO.
Dana
my SD. I taught her how to dress herself. Even now, DH, MIL and BM still
carry SD on their hip (she will be 5 on the 12th), she still can't snap her
jeans or tie her shoes. If she can, she will try to get you to dress her.
If your wife chooses to devote her time to all of this stuff, then it is not
your fault. But, as for the housework and stuff, you should both contribute
to that stuff and come to an agreement.
Good luck!
Dana
Vanessa Baldrey <vane...@absa.co.za> wrote in message
news:7ta7f1$jtb$1...@news.is.co.za...
Tracey
>to that stuff and come to an agreement.
Uhm, why should *he* contribute to the housework in *her*
house? I don't know, but I never asked nor expected any of
my boyfriends to clean my house for me.
Vicki Robinson
:
:>My fear is that, if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a
:>tyrant. "You're not my Dad so go to hell" etc.
:
:I think that's a very realistic fear. It's *not* going to work if you're
:
:the one to come in one night and say 'Okay, your mom needs some
:help and so you do the dishes, and you clean the living room and
:you do the laundry,' especially if Mom is doing the 'I'll do it all'
:when you're not around. You *are* going to be seen as the bad
:guy, IMO.
That depends on the relationship between him and the kids. It's a
little harder for him to do this since he doesn't live with them. he
doesn't have the authority of being the Adult Male of the household,
really. Their home isn't his home. However, my husband and kids gave
me, for Xmas last year, a chore rota that he imposed on them. (As I
recall, the pep talk included the phrase "Remember, we're doing this
because we all love your mother and we don't want her to kill us.")
It included emptying the dishwasher, cleaning hamster cages and doing
laundry, taking garbage out to the can, that sort of daily stuff. I
still got all the cooking, but it worked, as long as DH remembered to
generate and post the lists. The instant the lists weren't posted,
the kids decided that that meant that they didn't have to do anything
without being specifically asked to do it, and it sort of fell apart.
But they did it while he was encouraging them, and they didn't resent
it. *Too* much. Essentially, they could see the justice in it, so
they really couldn't argue. (They were 14 and 11 at the time.)
I will also cop to the charge that my kids are shamefully indulged,
although they think that I spell their names "S-L-A-V-E." I was
shamefully indulged as a child, and I grew up pretty whole and
competent, and I'm holding my kids to tougher standards than I was
held to as a teen. They have to take their turns mowing the lawn,
which I never did, the older one has to pay half of the cost of her
school trips (choral trips out of state, mostly) which my parents
never required of me. They get their laundry done if it's in the
dirty clothes hamper when I happen to do laundry, otherwise they are
on their own. I learned to operate a washing machine when I left for
college. I drive a lot, but I insist that their friends also pick on
*their* parents for group rides. However, I am usually very sympathetic
about not making them walk alone, or when it's raining or snowing or
just plain *cold*. My mom was my taxi; I figure I'm redressing a
karmic imbalance by driving my own kids. My husband thinks that they
are spoiled rotten, and he's right. But they are smart, able and
generally polite and decent kids, too. They'll learn, soon enough. I
want them to have time for things like athletics and school plays and
chorus and all of the things that they'll only have one opportunity to
do, and if that means that they have it easier than some for a couple
of years, I'm not going to worry about it. The world has a way of
letting you know when the free ride has ended, and they realize that
they're getting the perks they get because I'm a nice person, not
because they're somehow entitled to them.
Vicki
--
Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Resources:
http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/mediation/mediation.html
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/
Tracey
>house? I don't know, but I never asked nor expected any of
>my boyfriends to clean my house for me.
And, before anyone points it out to me, I'm talking about the
BFs that I was just 'seeing'. The two times I lived with some-
one, yes, they contributed to the running of the house, but
when we both had our own houses? No, they never did.
(Unless it was a situation like we cooked dinner at my
house or it was a 'You wanna go do X on Saturday?'
'Sure, but I have to clean the living room first.' 'Okay,
I'll come over and help so we can get there earlier.')
jane lawrence
>
> Further to my original post:
>
> Thanks for the replies so far. They are all really helping me to think
> about this.
>
> Jane Lawrence wrote something which is so, so true. To paraphrase, the
> very quality that I see as problematic in my SO is closely related to why I
> love her. Jane also suggests that I may be too "all or nothing" about
> helping. In my heart I feel that is true. I am certainly not a totally
> unselfish person. I think that I am mostly afraid of going down a slippery
> slope, though.
>
> Sian Lee Reid wrote about the challenge a woman faces in grad school.There
> is a lot in this in my SO's case. She is in natural science, which is (as
> I have been told) more male-dominated than e.g. social science, humanities,
> etc. etc. She returned to school after divorce. She has expressed her
> doubts about herself on occasion. I have no doubt that she does feel like
> an impostor sometimes. During our recent conversation (about me helping)
> she alluded for the first time to a fear that her research may have gone
> off the rails. I suspect that part of what is going on is that she is
> seeking refuge in what she knows she can succeed at, which is nurturing.
This makes perfect sense to me. My house was never so clean.
Do you encourage her to talk about her research? Give her a
sounding board? My current husband was great at that.
> That's just a guess, and perhaps I presume to much in analyzing her. She
> finds it very difficult to open up to me about how work is going.
>
> Tracey asked what my SO wanted me to do, exactly. I have asked her this.
> It may have been the way I asked, but she responded as though I were
> challenging her. I think she heard "how do you want me to help" as "prove
> to me that I should help" or something. Given that I have expressed my
> hesitance to help unless she sets some limits etc. it would not be
> surprising if she understood the question that way. Instead of being
> specific she more or less said that if we lived together I would just be
> there and know which things to pick up the ball on.
I think she wants you to be sensitive to the situations and to
ways in which you might ease her load. It would be absurd of
her to try to list the individual things she wants you to do.
She just wants you to "help." If dinner catches fire on the
stove, she wants you to put it out. If 12 year old needs help
with math, she wants you to explain it. She can't foresee all
the little things that come up that you could help with. But if
you are there, you can see and fill needs as they come up.
You know, you don't have to be living with her to do this stuff,
either. You certainly don't have to discipline her kids. Do
you have any reason for wanting to move in during this hectic
time? In what way does BM suggest it would be good for you? I
could be more helpful and supportive if I had my own home to go
to to recharge. Can you work out something that you both feel
comfortable with? You could go over a couple of nights a week
and hang out doing damage control. Maybe it would be fun for
you to take a couple of kids to pizza when the other has a
game. This doesn't have to be all or nothing. As long as you
are comfortable with the limits you have set and BM respects
your need for limits, you can negotiate.
jane
Dana
anything, it will create a bad cycle.
Dana
Tracey <rbra...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:37F8F9BA...@mediaone.net...
Robert Teeter
> I'm not arguing with setting limits for yourself or with
> children having chores. However, what I saw in the original
> post was a disruption in the Niceness Paradigm..<snip>
> So I assume Patrice chose BM because of her free niceness
> radical (or whatever). That was great. They filled in each
> other's gaps. Coupledom. Now the relationship is under
> pressure and BM is over her head somewhat. Patrice is
> responding by being more Not Nice and by telling BM to be Not
> Nice too. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see that working.
> They've reached critical Not Nice mass. BM cannot become less
> Nice unless Patrice becomes more Nice.,,<snip>
I'm awestruck. I mean, while this seems weird and I can sort of
think of exceptions...this really makes sense to me. (I'm Nice, btw. And
my DH is nice but not Nice :).) I was still trying to work out what I
might say that could be useful to Patrice (given that he seems to be
involved with a woman who can only be the twin from whom I was separated
at birth) and now Jane has blown me away.
And while I'm trying to summon coherent thoughts, I *would* like
to point out that "nice" rhymes with "rice"...are we noticing a pattern to
Jane's philosophy?
Michelle
--
Michelle Geary
"I used to think only Jews, agnostics, and antisocial people went to
movies on Christmas." --Terry Gross
jane lawrence
Nice people are the water. They're different, but you need them
both.
And for those of you who are leaving me to my premenstrual
delusions, I asked DH to name the Nice and Not Nice member of
every couple I could think of. He agreed with me on all but
one. It was a close call.
jane
Merrie
mice or vice?
Does the nice/not nice relate to the one who sleeps?
Merrie
jane lawrence <jan...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:37F8CD14...@excite.com...
jane lawrence
>
> You do know that I'm storing all your "_ice" posts? Are you working on
> mice or vice?
> Does the nice/not nice relate to the one who sleeps?
>
>
my forte.
I don't know about sleeping. I do have a Nice/Not Nice test
though. Imagine yourself sitting across from the couple. Tell
them you'd like to borrow their car for two weeks at xmas time.
The person who says "No" first is the Not Nice one.
jane
jane lawrence
>
> Sorry, this test doesn't work. I am DEFINITELY the Not Nice one
> (as you so sweetly pointed out)
Yes. And my husband would never dream of saying anything
remotely like that, except maybe to me when we were alone.
> but DH would be off his butt with
> that "No" in a *heartbeat* if one of the cars was involved. Now,
> ask if you could borrow his *wife* for two weeks at Christmas time
> and you're back to a working analogy.
Maybe it should be a multiple question test. In any event, you
know what I mean. I bet you can skim right through the couples
you know and name the Not Nice ones, too.
I think that terminology is getting me in trouble here. Maybe
it should be the white rice/brown rice dichotomy. Actually, I
think of it like eggs. There's always a white and a yolk. That
doesn't rhyme though.
Is there such a thing as caffeine-induced mania?
jane
jane lawrence
>
>
> snip brilliant Niceness Paradigm anaysis
>
> FWIW (and it just goes to show I'm spending way too much time
> thinking about this), I agree with Merrie (and was actually thinking this
> even before I saw her comment) that lil is naughty but Nice :).
The way I see it, lil has to be the Not Nice one because DH
flatly refuses to say "no." "I really haven't given it any
thought" is one of those traps that Nice people can fall into.
Still, part of the problem with their marriage may well be that
lil resents DH forcing her to be the Not Nice one. Sorry about
this, lil. I think you're very "nice" even if you're Not Nice.
> (And I think Patrice may need to practice a little extra strategic
> and judicious Niceness to help his love do a little work being not
> Too-Nice....)
I totally agree.
jane
Geri and Brian
>delusions, I asked DH to name the Nice and Not Nice member of
>every couple I could think of. He agreed with me on all but
>one. It was a close call.
I thought it was a very interesting idea, and probably there is truth to it.
(In fact, it sounded kind of sensible.)
Geri
~~~~~~~~~~
"One should never give a woman anything she can't wear in the evening."
Jennifer
Jennifer :-)
jane lawrence wrote:
> And for those of you who are leaving me to my premenstrual
> delusions, I asked DH to name the Nice and Not Nice member of
> every couple I could think of. He agreed with me on all but
> one. It was a close call.
>
> jane
Anne Robotti
that "No" in a *heartbeat* if one of the cars was involved. Now,
ask if you could borrow his *wife* for two weeks at Christmas time
and you're back to a working analogy.
Anne
Cat
> Kind of like you'll only
> help
> someone who will help themselves.
>
I would agree with this way of viewing it ... and find nothing wrong
with it.
> And that's different from the way most of us have to live how? I don't
> mean to sound rude, but when did it become your job (or anyone else's,
> for that matter) to take care of the 'necessities' of her life so that
> she
> can do the 'fun' stuff. I would *love* to have someone else come in
> and do the laundry and the cooking and the cleaning and the boring
> things that take up so much time so that I could sit and paint my
> ceramics or spend the day playing with the kids or baking tons of
> Christmas candies and cookies (which I bought a bunch of ingredi-
> ents for last night, but I digress....), but that's not the way life
> works
> for most of us. We have to set our priorities and do what needs to
> be done. If something gets left behind, that's what happens. To be
> upset with someone who we have no 'formal' relationship with be-
> cause they don't jump in and pick up that slack seems a
little.....uhm,
> presumptious, I guess, to me. Heck, I don't think it's fair to be mad
> at my husband if I haven't made it clear what I expect from him or
> have asked him.
>
*high five* I agree 100%! Nobody should be expected to do her
"drudge" stuff so she can do more of her "fun" stuff. IMHO - she has
TOO MUCH "fun" stuff, anyway.
> >You may wonder what I want from the relationship. I would like to
get
> >married eventually, but I am not presently willing to step in as
> >assistant cook, maid, and errand-runner.
>
> Can't blame you there.
>
Neither can I!
> How to solve it? I don't know. If both of you stay firm on how you
> feel about it, it doesn't seem like there's a way to resolve it. FWIW,
> I don't think you're being unreasonable in saying 'I don't mind
helping
> you out when you need it, but I'm not going to do the drudgery so
> that you are free to do more 'fun' stuff without some sort of scaling
> back.' It would be one thing to offer to take the kids out to dinner
> so she has a couple of uninterrupted hours to deep clean the kitchen
> or study for a test, a totally different thing to do the housekeeping
> chores on a daily basis so she could keep up with a schedule that
> she can't handle on her own, IMO, *especially* when you have
> your own house/life to handle.
>
Agree 100% again.
> Maybe I'm looking at it from a selfish point of view, but it sounds
> to me like you're being asked or expected to fall into a 'husband-
> like' and 'stepfather-like' role without being given any of the deci-
> sion making powers that should come with that. It's a situation
> that a lot of people here have been in and are still in and it causes
> a lot of problems. It seems to be an attitude of 'I want you to act
> like my husband and my kids' stepfather but only in the ways that
> I deem fit.' And I don't know if that's a situation I would willingly
> go into <in my case, again.>
>
The other thing is, even WITH the formal I-Do's ... while helping out
with the kids is one thing - especially if they're living with her ...
No SP should be expected to do EVERYTHING for their DH/DW when it comes
to the kids. I went there - ONCE. Now, DH makes all the decisions
(with my input on most of it ...) and has 100% of the "responsibility"
for the kids. I WILL *help*, but I'm no longer doing it for him as
route errands. If DH wants to do the laundry for SS ... DH does it.
When I do laundry, I only do mine and DH's.
IMHO - this is an issue you should work out and possibly get some
PROFESSIONAL help with before you contemplate getting married. This is
*not* an issue that solves itself, and can cause great strife. (Been
there, done that, got the t-shirt, ripped it up)
Good Luck!
Hugs!
> --
>
> Tracey
> --
>
> "I used to think that life should be fair.
> But then I realized it's better that life
> is unfair. If life is fair, it would mean
> we deserve all the terrible things that
> happen to us."
>
> - Marcus, Ranger extraordinaire.
>
>
--
Cat
"The best friend is likely to acquire the best wife, because a good
marriage is based on the talent for friendship." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Merrie
your thread topics are rhyming.
I thought perhaps the words "willing to accommodate" were applicable. I
remember the thread about how when a couple has a fight there's always one
who sleeps and one who doesn't. I usually don't sleep, DH is a log. I tend
to be willing to accommodate - and although DH has an extremely sharp
response curve to any request - I do not see him going about looking for
ways to do this. If he runs across something though - it's as good as done.
For me anyway. I can't say that the kids get the same treatment.
...and I wouldn't say Lil is not nice - I'd say she's more "naughty"!!
Merrie
jane lawrence <jan...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:37F960AE...@excite.com...
Michelle Geary
> Maybe it should be a multiple question test. In any event, you
> know what I mean. I bet you can skim right through the couples
> you know and name the Not Nice ones, too....
> Is there such a thing as caffeine-induced mania?
Come now, let's think of it as caffeine-induced inspiration :). I
was thinking about the chemistry part of the analogy, and the couple that
didn't "fit", btw, last night in the wee hours. Y'know, there are some
molecules that pretty much *always* are the ones which supply the extra
electrons to the other "partner" of the pair, and some which pretty much
always are the "sharees", if you will. This common pattern would
correspond to the Nice and the Not-Nice. Some molecules switch their
pattern depending on what other kind of molecule they're interacting
with...such a "weak" sharer/sharee situation might result in people who
seem to switch between Nice and Not-Nice in different relationships. And
sometimes you have bonds between molecules of nearly equal sharing
strength (polarity is probably the technical term, but let's ignore that,
shall we?). A couple like that would also be harder to place within your
paradigm/dichotomy. Very complex molecules (such as proteins) may have
complex interactions, with some areas where one is the sharer and other
areas where that same molecule/partner is actually the sharee. (Wouldn't
Vicki fall here?)
Then...there are some molecules which have such a strong pull on
the electrons of other molecules that they essentially strip the electrons
from the would-be sharing molecule and then go off on their own. Such
interactions would be indicative of a dysfunctional relationship...y'know,
Too Nice and Too Not-Nice :).
FWIW (and it just goes to show I'm spending way too much time
thinking about this), I agree with Merrie (and was actually thinking this
even before I saw her comment) that lil is naughty but Nice :).
(And I think Patrice may need to practice a little extra strategic
and judicious Niceness to help his love do a little work being not
Too-Nice....)
Back to work fighting environmental pollution :),
Dana
Dana
Jennifer <dist...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:37F9A98E...@my-deja.com...
Vicki Robinson
:Very complex molecules (such as proteins) may have
:complex interactions, with some areas where one is the sharer and other
:areas where that same molecule/partner is actually the sharee. (Wouldn't
:Vicki fall here?)
:
More or less. Ordinarily speaking, however, I am decidedly Not Nice.
My husband is the Nice one. My ex was also Not Nice, which is one of
the reasons that we are now exes.
Jennaii
( cough... sorry about that outburst)
>I would be REALLY reluctant to help her (if it was me) until I saw her
>getting the kids to pitch in. I know from dealing with my SD, there's nothing
>more annoying than running around playing maid while a perfectly healthy
>child sits on the couch with their thumb up their ass watching TV.
>
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
jane lawrence
> My ex was also Not Nice, which is one of
> the reasons that we are now exes.
>
>
I was wondering about this. I do know people who have been the
Nice one is some relationships and are now the Not Nice ones.
jane
jane lawrence
>
>
>
> The heck of it was that I was *trying* to be Nice during that
> marriage, but my essential Not Niceness saved me from losing myself
> completely. As it was, it was a close call.
>
> My current husband is definitely Nice, although there are a lot of
> Usenet newsgroups that would be dumbfounded to hear that. And he
> needs my Not Niceness, and that allows me to be Nice too, when it's
> warranted.
I promise I won't start flirting with him, Vicki, but your
husband sounds absolutely wonderful.
>
> Did I tell you that I'm an ENFP?
>
>
Is that the Champion one? I was an Inventor last time I took
the test, but I'm almost positive that I used to be a Champion?
Can you change?
jane
Merrie
It seems like you place little requirements on her, take little from her
and want to give little.
She seems to seek out situations in which to give of herself. Even
after the kids are gone I think she will still be seeking these out. Her
parents, her church, her grandchildren...
She may never ask you to participate in being alturistic, but I can't
help but think that she would be happier with someone that would fully
participate in life with her.
Merrie
Patrice <no...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:37F8D9FB...@nowhere.org...
> Further to my original post:
>
> Thanks for the replies so far. They are all really helping me to think
> about this.
>
> Jane Lawrence wrote something which is so, so true. To paraphrase, the
> very quality that I see as problematic in my SO is closely related to why
I
> love her. Jane also suggests that I may be too "all or nothing" about
> helping. In my heart I feel that is true. I am certainly not a totally
> unselfish person. I think that I am mostly afraid of going down a
slippery
> slope, though.
>
> Sian Lee Reid wrote about the challenge a woman faces in grad school.There
> is a lot in this in my SO's case. She is in natural science, which is (as
> I have been told) more male-dominated than e.g. social science,
humanities,
> etc. etc. She returned to school after divorce. She has expressed her
> doubts about herself on occasion. I have no doubt that she does feel like
> an impostor sometimes. During our recent conversation (about me helping)
> she alluded for the first time to a fear that her research may have gone
> off the rails. I suspect that part of what is going on is that she is
> seeking refuge in what she knows she can succeed at, which is nurturing.
> That's just a guess, and perhaps I presume to much in analyzing her. She
> finds it very difficult to open up to me about how work is going.
>
> Tracey asked what my SO wanted me to do, exactly. I have asked her this.
> It may have been the way I asked, but she responded as though I were
> challenging her. I think she heard "how do you want me to help" as "prove
> to me that I should help" or something. Given that I have expressed my
> hesitance to help unless she sets some limits etc. it would not be
> surprising if she understood the question that way. Instead of being
> specific she more or less said that if we lived together I would just be
> there and know which things to pick up the ball on. I think her feeling
> that I am asking her to do all the changing *might* be her way of saying
> that I am putting her over a barrel by insisting on change before I move
to
> getting married, cohabiting, or whatever.
>
> Many of you seem to agree that her kids could help her out. It seems to
> me, from discussions with my SO, that she is looking to me to discipline
> the kids and get them going. There is no doubt that the kids comply with
> my requests much more readily than with hers. They do not even seem to
> resent it much. I think (and I have told my SO this) that her kids are in
> some ways unconsciously ready to be treated differently. My fear is that,
> if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a tyrant. "You're not
> my Dad so go to hell" etc. etc. Then there will be the inevitable clashes
> with BD, not because he is a bad guy but because he would have to listen
to
> gripes about this other adult male who is telling everyone what to do.
> That is why I feel that it is essential that my SO initiate the change.
>
> Anyway, this is helping me think about it. I hope there are more replies.
>
>
>
>
>
Kim Scheinberg
>In a previous article, jane lawrence <jan...@excite.com> said:
>
>:I promise I won't start flirting with him, Vicki, but your
>:husband sounds absolutely wonderful.
>:
>He totally is. 100%. And I almost let him slip through my fingers.
He never would have let that happen. And just try and not flirt with him,
jane. It's almost impossible
For the record, it is completely unclear to me who is Nice/Not Nice in my
own marriage. We'd both let you borrow the car for two weeks at x-mas. His
ex thinks we deserve each other, though, which makes me think neither of
us is really Nice
I was the Not Nice one in my first marriage. I was the Nice one in my two
serious long-term relationships. DH was the NN in his previous marriage
I am completely lost here. In March, y'all can decide for yourselves
-k.
--
ik...@panix.com | The Max Cam is up and running! Try it:
Kim Scheinberg | www.panix.com/~jzk TAKE PICTURE
jane lawrence
>
> jane lawrence <jan...@excite.com> writes
> >
> >Maybe it should be a multiple question test. In any event, you
> >know what I mean. I bet you can skim right through the couples
> >you know and name the Not Nice ones, too.
>
> ran through two dozen couples. Several were made up of two NN's. Several
> were made up of two Nices. (Vick? Tell me who the NN is in RRD's marriage)
>
> In my marriage, I am the external N. But DH is the internal N. We are like
> the S&M non-monogamous couple where one tops outside the marriage, but
> bottoms with their spouse
>
> Among are friends, we see similar dichotomies. And for some couples, we
> are simply at a loss to define either as N or NN
>
> I suppose I could be dense, or have no feel for reading people or seeing
> into relationships. But it would be the first time anyone has ever accused
> me of such a thing
>
>
Well, I could just be totally wrong, or
You could be a victim of my garbled explanation and terminology,
or
You know weird people.
To clarify, the N/NN thing I'm talking about involves a division
of labor in the realm of home and family. You don't want to
cloud it up with other roles. My feeling is that some of us get
balance from being relatively N in some situations and NN in
others.
Did you have any trouble with Vicki and Paul?
Some couples require more thought than others. I really liked
Michelle's explanation better than anything I can come up with:
"And
sometimes you have bonds between molecules of nearly equal
sharing
strength (polarity is probably the technical term, but let's
ignore that,
shall we?). A couple like that would also be harder to place
within your
paradigm/dichotomy. Very complex molecules (such as proteins)
may have
complex interactions, with some areas where one is the sharer
and other
areas where that same molecule/partner is actually the sharee."
There was one couple who my husband and I both felt were NNs.
Ordinarily, I'd assume we don't know them well enough to decide,
but one of them is my sister. OTOH, a couple of times he had
trouble deciding about couples who were obvious to me.
Invariably, they were both very "nice" and fairly close on the
N/NN scale.
So, are you sure you're not A) confusing niceness and Niceness,
or B) factoring in roles outside the relationship?
jane
jane lawrence
>
> I know what you mean, Jane...
>
> ...but my DH is the naturally nice one, and I'm the not-nice one....really!
>
> Yvette
All right. I believe you. You know, though, I've been thinking
over this group and almost all of us are Not Nice. I still think
Merrie, nancyg, and a few others are clear Ns until they tell me
different.
When I think through the problems we discuss, I see a lot of
typical NN problems. The most obvious is seeing a problem,
devising a solution, and being unable to implement it. Maybe
usenet is just an NN-oriented forum. Maybe seeking outside
support is a predominantly NN trait. I'm beginning to suspect
that stepparenthood is just easier for the Ns. Then again,
maybe I'm getting a skewed view because of the preponderance of
NNs here.
jane
Jennaii
HER kids! And no, I don't think kids mind helping, I think it gives them a
sense of "family responsibility". Course I can't imagine kids jumping up
eagerly to clean the toilet without a push either.
I think your fears about setting rules are quite justified. The kids will be
mad if they have to obey you. And the first time their mother jumps in and
AGREES that YOU are being a tyrant and should back off because, after all, they
are HER kids, you will be sorry you got involved in the whole mess.
SHE's the parent here and SHE has to set the rules.
>me, from discussions with my SO, that she is looking to me to discipline
>the kids and get them going. There is no doubt that the kids comply with
>my requests much more readily than with hers. They do not even seem to
>resent it much. I think (and I have told my SO this) that her kids are in
>some ways unconsciously ready to be treated differently. My fear is that,
>if I set the hard rules, I will quickly be seen as a tyrant. "You're not
>my Dad so go to hell" etc. etc. Then there will be the inevitable clashes
>with BD, not because he is a bad guy but because he would have to listen to
>gripes about this other adult male who is telling everyone what to do.
>That is why I feel that it is essential that my SO initiate the change.
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
Jennaii
Where its perfectly ok for YOU to decide to indulge your kids, you aren't
asking anyone else to do their chores and you aren't complaining.
The woman Patrice is dating IS complaining and wants HIM to do the parenting /
cleaning / etc. He doesn't want to carry THEIR load and you can't blame him
for that.
>My husband thinks that they
>are spoiled rotten, and he's right. But they are smart, able and
>generally polite and decent kids, too. They'll learn, soon enough. I
>want them to have time for things like athletics and school plays and
>chorus and all of the things that they'll only have one opportunity to
>do, and if that means that they have it easier than some for a couple
>of years, I'm not going to worry about it. The world has a way of
>letting you know when the free ride has ended, and they realize that
>they're getting the perks they get because I'm a nice person, not
>because they're somehow entitled to them.
>
>Vicki
Vicki Robinson
:
The heck of it was that I was *trying* to be Nice during that
marriage, but my essential Not Niceness saved me from losing myself
completely. As it was, it was a close call.
My current husband is definitely Nice, although there are a lot of
Usenet newsgroups that would be dumbfounded to hear that. And he
needs my Not Niceness, and that allows me to be Nice too, when it's
warranted.
Did I tell you that I'm an ENFP?
Vicki
Vicki Robinson
:I promise I won't start flirting with him, Vicki, but your
:husband sounds absolutely wonderful.
:
He totally is. 100%. And I almost let him slip through my fingers.
:>
:> Did I tell you that I'm an ENFP?
:>
:>
:Is that the Champion one? I was an Inventor last time I took
:the test, but I'm almost positive that I used to be a Champion?
:Can you change?
:
Is that Champion? I think so; when I read the description years ago I
thought it sounded amazingly accurate. And I have to say that working
with a colleague who understands the MBTI is great. He'll say "Why
don't you take this part of the project... no, wait, you're an NF, do
this instead, it's right up your alley" and he's always right.
I think you can change, but you don't change a lot. You wouldn't go
from an ENFP to an ISTJ for example. How far apart are the Champion
and the Inventor? Lessee... Yup, the Champion is ENFP and Inventor
is ENTP. Only one different dimension, and I'll bet you're neither a
strong F or T.
But we don't need to revive this thread, do we?
Kim Scheinberg
>
>Maybe it should be a multiple question test. In any event, you
>know what I mean. I bet you can skim right through the couples
>you know and name the Not Nice ones, too.
I'm sorry, jane. The more thought I give this, the more it falls apart. I
ran through two dozen couples. Several were made up of two NN's. Several
were made up of two Nices. (Vick? Tell me who the NN is in RRD's marriage)
In my marriage, I am the external N. But DH is the internal N. We are like
the S&M non-monogamous couple where one tops outside the marriage, but
bottoms with their spouse
Among are friends, we see similar dichotomies. And for some couples, we
are simply at a loss to define either as N or NN
I suppose I could be dense, or have no feel for reading people or seeing
into relationships. But it would be the first time anyone has ever accused
me of such a thing
-k.
Yvette Campbell
Patrice
> I've followed this thread - tyring to sort things out...
>
> It seems like you place little requirements on her, take little from her
> and want to give little.
>
> She seems to seek out situations in which to give of herself. Even
> after the kids are gone I think she will still be seeking these out. Her
> parents, her church, her grandchildren...
>
> She may never ask you to participate in being alturistic, but I can't
> help but think that she would be happier with someone that would fully
> participate in life with her.
>
> Merrie
>
Thanks Merrie. It seems to me that you may be right. I have asked very little
of her in some ways. I am not presently needy financially or domestically, so
I have not asked for help. I pay for almost all activities that we do
together, because she just does not have the resources to pay. This past
summer we went on a vacation to visit some of her family members who live a two
day drive away from us. I did not pay for everything, but I shared her kids'
expenses with her. I don't even know whether that was generous of me (to
contribute to the kids' vacation) or stingy (even calculate and divide it). I
go back and forth on it.
My SO has been emotionally supportive as I worked through some personal
difficulties at work, etc. although these did not affect her directly. I am
thankful for that support.
You are right that I also want to limit what I give, and to be honest there is
a bit more to that, as I think about it, than I wrote in the original post.
Not that I was being less than candid - I was just focussing on the aspect of
the situation that bothered me at that moment.
There is a set of reasons why I feel the need to limit the giving and taking.
Of course, it may be that I am by nature less giving than my SO. (Maybe that's
what the many replies about "Nice versus Not Nice" are about, although I must
confess that that part of the thread pretty much lost me.) I think there is
more to it than that, though.
At present, and for the foreseeable future, my SO's situation is such that her
need for contribution (of time, monetary assistance, etc.) will far exceed my
demands on her. Because of her much lower income, and the fact that her
children are still young, most of the practical contribution will be going from
me to her for quite some time. Maybe forever. I do not see that as a problem
merely because I am ungenerous, but because I am quite afraid of losing all
choice in the matter. If ever I venture to suggest that some chore, errand, or
activity could be forgone, postponed, or assigned to her children, her common
reaction is to sigh and say "well, I guess I just have to do it myself." Or,
she agrees with me and then does it herself anyway. In other words, from my
perpsective there is just no option but do do it her way, or to be the bad guy
who won't help. As gentle and kindhearted as she is, she is dead stubborn
about defining what has to be done and how. As far as I can tell, there is no
negotiating with her on this.
I am also pretty hesitant for another reason. We live in Canada. I am a
lawyer. (OK - go ahead and flame me now everyone. I do NOT practice family
law.) I do not know what things are like elsewhere in the English-speaking
world, but our Supreme Court recently (January 99 I think) gave a decision that
SP's continue to be financially responsible to SK's even after the relationship
between the adult parties has ended. Although the case was about
responsibilities after divorce (i.e. the dissolution of a legal marriage), it
appears to me that there is a pretty strong tendency for the courts to extend
the law in that direction. In other words, it may turn out to be that way even
if the adult couple is not legally married. If I understand the law correctly,
the SP's responsibility appears to depend upon whether he/she has acted as a
parent to the SK's.
What all of this means to me is that I am not just being asked to be generous
with my time, money, etc. I am virtually being asked to sign a blank cheque.
(That's the Canadian spelling for "check.") I anticipate that some folks will
say that I should not be entering a relationship with failure in mind. This
and other newsgroups, and the media, are littered with accounts of people
blundering through multiple failed relationships and marriages. People seem to
forge ahead based on their current emotions and great optimism rather than on a
more reflective basis.
To sum it up, while it may make me the "Not Nice" one, I do not want to lose
all my options either emotionally (by being the bad guy if I won't do what my
SO defines as the necessary stuff) or legally (by incurring obligations to the
SK's without having chosen to do so). In other words, to me, this is not just
about feelings but about making reasonable choices in my life.
Anne Robotti
> If ever I venture to suggest that some chore, errand, or
> activity could be forgone, postponed, or assigned to her children, her common
> reaction is to sigh and say "well, I guess I just have to do it myself." Or,
> she agrees with me and then does it herself anyway. In other words, from my
> perpsective there is just no option but do do it her way, or to be the bad guy
> who won't help.
Well, as far as I can tell she's a big ol' martyr.
> I am also pretty hesitant for another reason. We live in Canada. I am a
> lawyer. (OK - go ahead and flame me now everyone. I do NOT practice family
> law.) I do not know what things are like elsewhere in the English-speaking
> world, but our Supreme Court recently (January 99 I think) gave a decision that
> SP's continue to be financially responsible to SK's even after the relationship
> between the adult parties has ended.
WHAT?! Well, I don't know what kind of a bullshit law that is, but there is
NO way that I would contribute one dime to my SD if DH and I got divorced.
Ever. Is this children with two biological parents, or just children where
the SP had assumed the parental role (perhaps adopted the children?) I'd sit
in jail before I'd give DH one dime for SD's support. I've supported her
way too much now.
Anne
nancy g.
> All right. I believe you. You know, though, I've been thinking
> over this group and almost all of us are Not Nice. I still think
> Merrie, nancyg, and a few others are clear Ns until they tell me
> different.
I'll claim that N for myself, as long as we're talking about me
in my role as "the ex" or "the BM".
The problem I have sometimes relating to the discussions going
on here are that I have to turn all the pronouns around first --
most of the posts that discuss the problems people are having with
"my husband's ex-wife" are the exact same problems I have with
my own ex-husband. Sigh. Seems like I've got a complete set of
step-parenting issues going on without even adding S.O. and his
kids to the mix!
Which is good, because the way things are going these days,
it looks like it's going to be a long time before the official
Blending of the Clans takes place. Sigh. Even when life is
going good, it sometimes really sucks.
nancy g.
(this doesn't mean I have to *use* that capital N, does it?)
nancy g.
> Patrice wrote:
>> If ever I venture to suggest that some chore, errand, or
>> activity could be forgone, postponed, or assigned to her children, her common
>> reaction is to sigh and say "well, I guess I just have to do it myself." Or,
>> she agrees with me and then does it herself anyway. In other words, from my
>> perpsective there is just no option but do do it her way, or to be the bad guy
>> who won't help.
> Well, as far as I can tell she's a big ol' martyr.
Maybe. Or maybe not. This particular issue was a recurring theme
between me and my ex, and I'll make the same point here that I'd try
to make to him:
Just because I say I have too much to do does *not* necessarily
mean I am asking you to pick up the slack!
I found myself in the position of never being able to express frustration
or exhaustion regarding anything to do with my role as a SAHM, because to
do so immediately brought forth protests about how he worked hard all day
long to bring home the paycheck and how dare I suggest he wasn't doing
his part and what did I think he was, a superman, and it wasn't fair for
me to ask him to ... well, anyway, my *point* is that all I had done was
make what I believe is known as an "I" statement -- saying something like,
"I can't keep up with all this laundry" or "I don't know how I'm going to
get all this done by tomorrow" or "I hate living in a house that's as messy
as this" -- but no matter how many "I" statements I'd make, they would be
interpreted as "blaming you" statements. The phrase "I can't keep up with
this laundry" would be *INTERPRETED* as if I'd told him "You need to start
doing some of the laundry in addition to everything else you do" even though
that was NEVER what I meant, and certainly NOT what I had intended to say.
I would have been content just to be listened to and understood, rather
than to have begrudging help unwillingly offered. I wouldn't have considered
him the "bad guy" for not helping any more than a co-worker would consider
a fellow employee a "bad guy" if they mentioned a big project they were
swamped with and didn't get an offer of help from their co-worker. Not every
complaint is a request for help. Sometimes it's just a generic complaint.
Sometimes just doing the complaining is enough to help the situation.
I'd ask the original poster to examine the conversations he and his fiancee
are having *very* carefully, and to make sure that he's not hearing words
that simply aren't being said.
Just my two cents, admittedly *heavily* colored by my own experiences.
nancy g.
now trying to shake off these flashbacks ...
and once again grateful to S.O. for being the guy he is.
Tracey
>contribute to the kids' vacation) or stingy (even calculate
>and divide it). I go back and forth on it.
Uhm, I'll vote for generous.
>My SO has been emotionally supportive as I worked
>through some personal difficulties at work, etc. although
>these did not affect her directly. I am thankful for that support.
>You are right that I also want to limit what I give, and to be
>honest there is a bit more to that, as I think about it, than I
>wrote in the original post. Not that I was being less than
>candid - I was just focussing on the aspect of the situation
>that bothered me at that moment.
I don't think anyone would accuse you of being less than
candid. It's very difficult to write *all* of our thought
processes. It seems unwieldy and long-winded and, well,
sometimes we don't even *know* all of them at the time.
>There is a set of reasons why I feel the need to limit the
>giving and taking. Of course, it may be that I am by nature
>less giving than my SO. (Maybe that's what the many
>replies about "Nice versus Not Nice" are about, although
>I must confess that that part of the thread pretty much lost
>me.) I think there is more to it than that, though.
Even if you're less giving than your SO, that doesn't mean
that you are wrong and she's right. We had a discussion a
while back that Merrie started when she mentioned that a
woman she knew was angry/upset about the lack of parental
participation at her children's school and how *she* found
time to help out and why couldn't everyone else. I think that
when 'giving' brings out these feelings that other people aren't
giving enough or helping you out in your attempts to 'give', it
indicates that the person is 'giving' for the wrong reasons. I
think that some people (me, for one) have a lower threshhold
of sacrifice than others. I'm very much aware that I don't have
a lot 'extra' to give others. If I go outside of that, then my whole
life basically suffers. And that might make me a selfish person,
but selfishness isn't always bad.
>At present, and for the foreseeable future, my SO's situation
>is such that her need for contribution (of time, monetary
>assistance, etc.) will far exceed my demands on her. Because
>of her much lower income, and the fact that her children are
>still young, most of the practical contribution will be going from
>me to her for quite some time. Maybe forever. I do not see
>that as a problem merely because I am ungenerous, but be-
>cause I am quite afraid of losing all choice in the matter. If
>ever I venture to suggest that some chore, errand, or activity
>could be forgone, postponed, or assigned to her children, her
>common reaction is to sigh and say "well, I guess I just have to
>do it myself." Or, she agrees with me and then does it herself
>anyway. In other words, from my perpsective there is just no
>option but do do it her way, or to be the bad guy who won't
>help. As gentle and kindhearted as she is, she is dead stubborn
>about defining what has to be done and how. As far as I can
>tell, there is no negotiating with her on this.
Now, that would be a problem. But *whose* problem it is, I
don't know. Is it just you that gets the 'bad guy' feeling or would
a situation like you described mean that she would be noticeably
upset with you? It's one thing if you feel guilty for not just jumping
in and doing whatever is asked, it's another if you get the cold
shoulder for it, IMO. And if she's not open for negotiation or
not understanding of your stand on this, that's kind of a red flag
(or at least a pale pink one.)
>I am also pretty hesitant for another reason. We live in
>Canada. I am a lawyer. (OK - go ahead and flame me
>now everyone. I do NOT practice family law.) I do not
>know what things are like elsewhere in the English-speaking
>world, but our Supreme Court recently (January 99 I think)
>gave a decision that SP's continue to be financially responsible
>to SK's even after the relationship between the adult parties
>has ended. Although the case was about responsibilities after
>divorce (i.e. the dissolution of a legal marriage), it appears to
>me that there is a pretty strong tendency for the courts to extend
>the law in that direction. In other words, it may turn out to be
>that way even if the adult couple is not legally married. If I
>understand the law correctly, the SP's responsibility appears
>to depend upon whether he/she has acted as a parent to the
>SK's.
Yeah, I've heard of that ruling and it's a pretty scary one, I think.
>What all of this means to me is that I am not just being asked
>to be generous with my time, money, etc. I am virtually being
>asked to sign a blank cheque. (That's the Canadian spelling
>for "check.") I anticipate that some folks will say that I should
>not be entering a relationship with failure in mind. This and other
>newsgroups, and the media, are littered with accounts of people
>blundering through multiple failed relationships and marriages.
>People seem to forge ahead based on their current emotions
>and great optimism rather than on a more reflective basis.
Well, I'm not one of those that would say that. I can see your
point in that you haven't even really made a firm decision as to
whether you are in this relationship for life or not and yet there
seems to be legal background that might say that the courts will
make that decision for you if you act in a certain way. Again, I
have to say I find it scary.
>To sum it up, while it may make me the "Not Nice" one, I do
>not want to lose all my options either emotionally (by being the
>bad guy if I won't do what my SO defines as the necessary stuff)
>or legally (by incurring obligations to the SK's without having
>chosen to do so). In other words, to me, this is not just about
>feelings but about making reasonable choices in my life.
I think that you both need an unbiased person to sit down
with you and try and help the other see the opposing view-
point. You might be misreading what she's saying, she might
be misreading what you're saying. OTOH, you both might
be reading each other perfectly and just not have the same
outlook on things. IMO, though, if this isn't worked out
before things go any further with you all (in terms of your
relationship), it will probably be a sticking point for the rest
of the time you're together.
Good luck
Robert Teeter
> For the record, it is completely unclear to me who is Nice/Not Nice in my
> own marriage. We'd both let you borrow the car for two weeks at x-mas. His
> ex thinks we deserve each other, though, which makes me think neither of
> us is really Nice
I think you're probably both well-rounded :). See dissertation
below....
I've been thinking about this Niceness Paradigm far too much in
the last day or so. I tried explaining it to my husband, with a complete
lack of success -- I think because I *felt* it worked in a practical
sense, but I hadn't put it into the right
words. Then Anne's comment about Patrice's SO being a martyr got me
thinking about how one "type" might appear to the other, which got me
thinking about the serious relationships in my life, and so on and so on
and on and on..... (As an aside *only*, I think that a Nice person is
likely to think of the Not-Nice as selfish,
while the Not-Nice are likely to think of the Nice as martyr-like.)
So, here's my model. Bear with me if you can :). A perfectly
well-rounded person should be a perfect mix of Nice and Not-Nice. What
I'm thinking is that Niceness is that willingness to do things for other
people that have a (sometimes high) personal
cost in time and energy, usually because doing so gives the person
pleasure. On the other hand, Not-Niceness is being self-protective of
one's own needs and boundaries. (I'm trying to phrase both of these as
neutrally as possible.) Our mythical perfectly
well-rounded person knows his or her boundaries and generally,
simply doesn't let those be exceeded -- she or he takes good care of
her/himself -- while at the same time being open and helpful to various
opportunities reaching out to others. (Okay,
let's let this part rest for a moment.)
I'm going to suggest that *most* people (not all), to a greater or
lesser extent, were (or, at the very least *felt*) inadequately nurtured
as children. In many cases, this "inadequate" nurture may have been
pretty mild; in a few cases, it may have
been horrific. What I think is that people as children come up with one
of two basic (and equally valid) "solutions" (my husband *really* hates
it when I put words in quotes like that, btw) to this problem. Some kids
learned how to self-protect -- in essence,
how to self-nurture. But (perhaps because they were kids when
they learned how to do this?) some of them carry it too far (IMNSHO :))
and have trouble or tend not to reach out readily (like, oh, my
ex-boyfriend, for example). Others put their need
for nurturing into nurturing others. (This is pretty much what I think
I do.) They could make themselves feel better by doing what they felt
should have been done for them. But (in the parallel case to the
self-nurturers above), some of the out-nurturers
*also* carried it too far, and never learned how to say no. (At
this juncture I'd like to point out that I think that for most people
one's relationship with one's children is a special case.) I think that
some self-nurturers (the Not-Nice, essentially)
find it hard to open up themselves emotionally. And I think that the
out-nurturers (the Nice) tend to over-depend upon their SOs for their
*own* nurturing, which can put a strain upon the Not-Nice partner. In
situations where the Nice partner is especially
stressed, she or he may call upon the Not-Nice partner to support
her/him in ways that the Not-Nice partner isn't prepared to do --
depending on the situation, in could be because the Nice partner is
unhealthily reliant upon the SO (who *is* willing
and able to provide many kinds of support), or because the Not-Nice
partner is unhealthily unable to reach out supportively even in situations
where that support is rationally called for. As we've seen,
Nice-person-stressed situations lead to problems.
The Not-Nice person thinks (often quite justly) "Why did you take this
all on -- or this extra stuff on, or whatever -- if you couldn't handle
it? Why can't you just say no?" And the Nice person thinks "Why aren't
you being loving and supportive of me? I'm loving
and supportive of *you*!" (In situations where the Not-Nice partner
needs support, I suspect there isn't usually too much of a problem.)
(Kids in really horrific parenting situations are probably the
ones who are likely to become pathologically selfish or pathologically
martyr-like, btw. Like Cindy's ss, I bet. Dumped on his grandparents,
who gave him material things but no real
limits of the kind that would show caring/nurturing...and his dad doesn't
seem like the nurturing type either. But I'm just wandering here.)
I think in many of the more difficult step-parenting situations
(as Jane has already said in part) the Not-Nice step-parent is having to
deal with 1) a Nice bio-parent (their SO) who may not be good at setting
limits, 2) a *really* Not-Nice other
bio-parent, who may be pissed or pathologically insecure or whatever, and
3) some really confused kids who've been receiving some inadequate
nurturing themselves. Y'know, I bet some of the more difficult bioparents
are very close to being Too-Not-Nice...and
when they become parents, there is a part of them that wants to nurture
their child -- but in many ways they just don't know how. So they veer
wildly from one extreme to another.... And...a basically well-rounded
person (either kind of Nice or kind of
Not-Nice, but with child-nurturing feelings) who was in a relationship
with someone like that may have found it to be very hard to parent
effectively....
Okay, I'm just meandering at this point. I'll let this go cause
it's already *way* too long. But I feel like I'm so much like Patrice's
SO that it's scary, and I can't help poking at this problem to try to
understand it better.
Michelle "Stop me before I volunteer again"
Kim Scheinberg
>>
>Well, I could just be totally wrong, or
>You could be a victim of my garbled explanation and terminology,
>or
>You know weird people.
>
>To clarify, the N/NN thing I'm talking about involves a division
>of labor in the realm of home and family. You don't want to
>cloud it up with other roles. My feeling is that some of us get
>balance from being relatively N in some situations and NN in others.
Here's the problem:
I'm in an amazingly well-adjusted marriage. No, seriously. We both
know our limits. We both are *very* good at asking the other for
what we want, when we want it. We both rarely say no to such requests
My parents often make me nuts. And they make dh nuts, too, and not
just because I start going insane. But we both have regular contact
with them. He calls them. I call them. Whover answers the phone when
they call is the one who speaks to them, unless it's just impossible
and then the other willingly takes the phone. He is an equal parenting
partner. We take turns sleeping in. We both do dishes. As Merrie knoes,
we send out laundry because neither of us can bring ourselves to fold.
He's learned all my recipes and I his. We take turns saying 'yes' and
'no' to others, but we almost always say 'yes' to one another. And in
the cases where we have conflicting needs, the one who asks first
usually gets what they want. Of course, after only three years together
I suppose we're still considered newlyweds. We don't argue, though we
occasionally disagree. It probably helps that our basic material needs
are met. We have enough money to hire household help when it's needed
and we've found a few great babysitters. Having come through the war
zone that was his divorce and facing our first real scare with Max,
everything else seems easy by comparison. I have never had to work so
little in a relationship. My biggest difficulties involve which card
to buy him from the local Hallmark store
>Did you have any trouble with Vicki and Paul?
Yes, initially. But I know them in a very limited context. I may
(think I) know Vicki rather well. But I have no experience seeing
how their household runs
>So, are you sure you're not A) confusing niceness and Niceness,
>or B) factoring in roles outside the relationship?
No. I'm C) Still pathetically in love
I'll be sure and revisit this in a few years
-k. who, actually, thinks she *does* misunderstand, but didn't want
to miss an opportunity to remember why she feels so lucky all
the time
Merrie
I think it's too late and you may already be damned. You've been
supporting everyone for so long now. Check the laws...
Anne Robotti
Love Anne
Who already knew it...but is the Queen of Denial...
Merrie
SP-remains-financially-responsible-for-SK's-after-divorce fear. That
previous poor fellow got quite slammed for being so concerned with $$ and
not emotions...
You should probably research this law and the cases when it was applied.
There may be something about it that will give you hope - like maybe your
SO's ex pays support and the law just never gets applied in that case...
It would be nice to get rid of all the extraneous factors as much as
possible.
I don't want to be judging your relationship. I don't know even an
inkling about it. All I know for sure is my relationship.
It's not feasible for one of us (my DH or I) to be
unhappy/dissatisfied/out of sorts and the other to not be affected by it.
One of the kids can be completely torqued and we can still shrug our
shoulders. But not when things aren't going right for our
partner/lover/best friend. We may not be able to help but we are always
affected.
Merrie
Patrice <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:37FB6493...@nowhere.com...
> Merrie wrote:
>
> > I've followed this thread - tyring to sort things out...
> >
> > It seems like you place little requirements on her, take little from
her
> > and want to give little.
> >
> > She seems to seek out situations in which to give of herself. Even
> > after the kids are gone I think she will still be seeking these out.
Her
> > parents, her church, her grandchildren...
> >
> > She may never ask you to participate in being alturistic, but I
can't
> > help but think that she would be happier with someone that would fully
> > participate in life with her.
> >
> > Merrie
> >
>
> Thanks Merrie. It seems to me that you may be right. I have asked very
little
> of her in some ways. I am not presently needy financially or
domestically, so
> I have not asked for help. I pay for almost all activities that we do
> together, because she just does not have the resources to pay. This past
> summer we went on a vacation to visit some of her family members who live
a two
> day drive away from us. I did not pay for everything, but I shared her
kids'
> expenses with her. I don't even know whether that was generous of me (to
> contribute to the kids' vacation) or stingy (even calculate and divide
it). I
> go back and forth on it.
>
> My SO has been emotionally supportive as I worked through some personal
> difficulties at work, etc. although these did not affect her directly. I
am
> thankful for that support.
>
> You are right that I also want to limit what I give, and to be honest
there is
> a bit more to that, as I think about it, than I wrote in the original
post.
> Not that I was being less than candid - I was just focussing on the aspect
of
> the situation that bothered me at that moment.
>
> There is a set of reasons why I feel the need to limit the giving and
taking.
> Of course, it may be that I am by nature less giving than my SO. (Maybe
that's
> what the many replies about "Nice versus Not Nice" are about, although I
must
> confess that that part of the thread pretty much lost me.) I think there
is
> more to it than that, though.
>
> At present, and for the foreseeable future, my SO's situation is such that
her
> need for contribution (of time, monetary assistance, etc.) will far exceed
my
> demands on her. Because of her much lower income, and the fact that her
> children are still young, most of the practical contribution will be going
from
> me to her for quite some time. Maybe forever. I do not see that as a
problem
> merely because I am ungenerous, but because I am quite afraid of losing
all
> choice in the matter. If ever I venture to suggest that some chore,
errand, or
> activity could be forgone, postponed, or assigned to her children, her
common
> reaction is to sigh and say "well, I guess I just have to do it myself."
Or,
> she agrees with me and then does it herself anyway. In other words, from
my
> perpsective there is just no option but do do it her way, or to be the bad
guy
> who won't help. As gentle and kindhearted as she is, she is dead stubborn
> about defining what has to be done and how. As far as I can tell, there
is no
> negotiating with her on this.
>
> I am also pretty hesitant for another reason. We live in Canada. I am a
> lawyer. (OK - go ahead and flame me now everyone. I do NOT practice
family
> law.) I do not know what things are like elsewhere in the
English-speaking
> world, but our Supreme Court recently (January 99 I think) gave a decision
that
> SP's continue to be financially responsible to SK's even after the
relationship
> between the adult parties has ended. Although the case was about
> responsibilities after divorce (i.e. the dissolution of a legal marriage),
it
> appears to me that there is a pretty strong tendency for the courts to
extend
> the law in that direction. In other words, it may turn out to be that way
even
> if the adult couple is not legally married. If I understand the law
correctly,
> the SP's responsibility appears to depend upon whether he/she has acted as
a
> parent to the SK's.
>
> What all of this means to me is that I am not just being asked to be
generous
> with my time, money, etc. I am virtually being asked to sign a blank
cheque.
> (That's the Canadian spelling for "check.") I anticipate that some folks
will
> say that I should not be entering a relationship with failure in mind.
This
> and other newsgroups, and the media, are littered with accounts of people
> blundering through multiple failed relationships and marriages. People
seem to
> forge ahead based on their current emotions and great optimism rather than
on a
> more reflective basis.
>
jane lawrence
Okay. Forget Niceness Theory for the moment.
Your relationship with GF is a contract, agreed upon freely and
willingly. Obviously, there is consideration flowing in both
directions, or you would not both be continuing to perform under
the contract. Since you two have been relatively satisfied with
each other's performance over the past few years, it's not my
place to consider whether the consideration has been adequate.
Your continued relationship proves that it has.
You do not claim that GF has failed to perform according to the
agreement. Several times you have said that your demands
(bargained for consideration) are moderate and that GF has
fulfilled those obligations. Rather, you claim that she is
attempting to renegotiate the contract and wants additional
consideration from you. You want us to tell you whether you
should renew the contract in light of recent developments.
In the first place, this isn't binding arbitration. You have to
negotiate with the other party to the contract, your GF.
In the second place, I suspect that GF does not see this as
renegotiation. She feels that you have breached. According to
your own statements, you have not performed recently as you did
in the past. During your course of dealings (which is really my
only source for the terms of the agreement) consideration from
you to GF has comprised both emotional and financial support,
and consideration flowing to you has included emotional support
and the opportunity to partake in family life. I'm not clear on
the financial support, but in recent months you have not
provided the same emotional support that you did during early
performance under the contract (There are substantially more
defective widgets in your recent shipments). I reiterate: you
do not claim that GF has failed to deliver either emotional
support or the opportunity to participate in her family. GF has
performed per terms of your agreement despite inadequate
performance on your part and is now demanding adequate assurance
that you are ready, willing and able to perform.
So, to keep this real: in love relationships the mutual
consideration bargained for is often not specifically stated.
It may not even be fully grasped by the parties involved. Your
problem here is that you've lost track of exactly what you're
getting from this woman in return for your movie tickets and
dinner dates. I call it Niceness, but only you can fully
understand all the specifics and ramifications. What is obvious
to me is that she fills a need for you and you fill a need for
her.
Go ahead and factor in recent court rulings in your decision
whether to continue your contract with this woman. But if I
were you, I'd also spend some time evaluating the value to you
of her consideration. What would it take to cover her love on
the market?
jane
Tracey
>think of the Not-Nice as selfish, while the Not-Nice are
>likely to think of the Nice as martyr-like.)
Hi, Michelle
I think you had some good points in your post and explained
things well. One comment about your comment above. I think
that it all depends on what the motivation for being 'nice' and
'not-nice' are when it comes to how they view the others. For
instance, I have a very good friend here who is definitely in the
'nice' arena. She's constantly volunteering for things at her church,
starting projects for other people, helping out here and there
and, even with me being the 'not-nice' person that I am, I don't
think she's a martyr and I think it's probably because *she*
doesn't *act* like a martyr. She isn't complaining because she
never has a moment to herself, she's exhausted, she doesn't
get any housework done, she never sees her kids, or what-
ever. She *did* ask me not long ago to help her out with a
project that she had misjudged (she's putting together a cook-
book to sell at the church bazaar and didn't even think of the
fact that she had to type in hundreds of recipes. Me, with my
70+ words a minute typing skill, got them all typed in a fraction
of the time it would have taken her.) But, on the whole, she
does what she wants, when she wants and she's *happy*
doing it, not complaining because no one's helping her.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if your behavior is causing
problems in your life (i.e., exhaustion, not getting anything done,
feeling badly about yourself because you're not doing enough or
you're doing too much,) it might be time to look at your reasons
for being the way you are.
--
Tracey
"The Constitution of the United States
guarantees every individual the right to
make a damn fool of himself--in public or
private, however he chooses."
--Solomon Short--
Anne Robotti
Anne
Who doesn't take a hint very well... :D
Kim Scheinberg wrote:
>
> Robert Teeter <rte...@shell1.ncal.verio.net> writes
>
> > Okay, I'm just meandering at this point. I'll let this go cause
> >it's already *way* too long. But I feel like I'm so much like Patrice's
> >SO that it's scary, and I can't help poking at this problem to try to
> >understand it better.
> >
> >Michelle "Stop me before I volunteer again"
>
> Geez, Michelle. A simple, "Kim, I don't think I'll be able to get those
> Harry Potter books signed for you" would have sufficed! :-)
>
> It was a well thought out post. But I need to read it a few more times
> before I'm sure I understand it. I'm struggling with this, too
>
> -k.
Kim Scheinberg
> Okay, I'm just meandering at this point. I'll let this go cause
>it's already *way* too long. But I feel like I'm so much like Patrice's
>SO that it's scary, and I can't help poking at this problem to try to
>understand it better.
>
>Michelle "Stop me before I volunteer again"
Geez, Michelle. A simple, "Kim, I don't think I'll be able to get those
Jennifer
Jennifer
Anne Robotti wrote:
> Wait a second, somebody can get Harry Potter books signed?
>
> Anne
> Who doesn't take a hint very well... :D
>
> Kim Scheinberg wrote:
> >
> > Robert Teeter <rte...@shell1.ncal.verio.net> writes
> >
> > > Okay, I'm just meandering at this point. I'll let this go cause
> > >it's already *way* too long. But I feel like I'm so much like Patrice's
> > >SO that it's scary, and I can't help poking at this problem to try to
> > >understand it better.
> > >
> > >Michelle "Stop me before I volunteer again"
> >
Patrice
>
> I'm going to suggest that *most* people (not all), to a greater or
> lesser extent, were (or, at the very least *felt*) inadequately nurtured
> as children. In many cases, this "inadequate" nurture may have been
> pretty mild; in a few cases, it may have
> been horrific. What I think is that people as children come up with one
> of two basic (and equally valid) "solutions" (my husband *really* hates
> it when I put words in quotes like that, btw) to this problem. Some kids
> learned how to self-protect -- in essence,
> how to self-nurture. But (perhaps because they were kids when
> they learned how to do this?) some of them carry it too far (IMNSHO :))
> and have trouble or tend not to reach out readily (like, oh, my
> ex-boyfriend, for example). Others put their need
> for nurturing into nurturing others.
Your analysis is spot on for my SO and me. We were discussing the problem in
the original post, and came to the conclusion that we had similar childhood
experiences in terms of the nurturing we received (i.e. perhaps not enough).
She put her need for nurturing into nurturing others, while I became the
self-nurturer.
On that topic, lest it come across as a criticism, we are now both very close
to our respective parents. My SO specifically stated that she feels compelled
to provide her kids with whatever was lacking in her own childhood with regard
to nurturing, but she was unable to articulate exactly what it was that was
missing. I felt loved and well cared for as a child. Only as an adult did I
come to suspect that my self-protecting and perhaps emotionally aloof
personality may have something to do with my mother's very reserved and
self-contained personality. A few years ago my father and I got talking about
my hard-shelled exterior. (He is the warm one in our family.) He said to me
that he had realized at some time or other that my mother rarely touched us
once we were past infancy, etc. etc.
Anyway, enough of the childhood analysis stuff. Your model appears to describe
my SO and me pretty well.
As to the problem in the original post, things have certainly deteriorated. We
seem to be at an impasse. My SO admitted tonight that she is very, very
unhappy with life, but does not know why. She finds her daily routine
intolerable. Some of the posts have questionned whether I have misunderstood
her, i.e. whether I have assumed that she wants solutions or advice when she
really just wants me to listen and be emotionally supportive. The reason I
originally posted was because I had asked her what was wrong, and she told me
that she wanted more help from me and involvement with her kids. So I don't
think I misunderstood that part. She wants me to DO something. The biggest
obstacle now is that she is adamant that nothing - not one thing - can be
changed in her routine, or in the amount she does for her children or others,
or the way she does it. She hates what she has to do but insists that it all
absolutely must be done. She is quite specific about that.
This leads to real practical problems. I guess I have to give an example here
to illustrate what I mean.
On Wednesday night my SO was very upset about the amount to be done to get
ready for the weekend. We have been invited to a party on Friday night to
honour a friend of hers. She began worrying on Wednesday about preparing the
kids to go to their father's for the weekend, as it is his weekend to have
them. Ordinarily she drives them after school, but she has a full day of work
on Friday, and we have to be at the party at 6:00 p.m. So on Wednesday night
she grimly anticipated the Thursday ordeal of getting the kids ready to go,
because to her it requires a lot of effort on her part.
We have talked about this kind of thing before. She knows how I handle things
like that. In my opinion, there is little or nothing to do, or at least there
should be very little. The children have been going to their father's house
every second weekend for six or seven years. They are 10, 12, and 15 years of
age. They know exactly what they need to pack. Or, if they don't know, they
would learn very quickly if I were dealing with it. So my "help" would be to
remind the kids on Thursday night to get their stuff ready, and to tell them to
be prepared to go at 4:00 p.m. Friday. Anything that they forget to pack, they
do without.
Does this approach work? I know it does. Last summer I told the middle child
that I was no longer going to put up with his dawdling whenever we were getting
ready to go somewhere. Sometime later I told the kids that I would take them
to a Saturday matinee, as their mother was busy with something or other. I
phoned at 12:00 noon and told the 12 year old (then 11) that I would be there
at 12:45, and that we would leave at 1:00 for the cinema. He said "fine." When
I arrived he was just fixing himself some food. At 1:00 p.m. I said "let's
go." He ignored me and continued fixing his snack. So I left without him.
Naturally he was upset, but he got over it, and now he knows that he has to get
moving when I ask him to.
I do not know why doing something like getting ready for the weekend would put
such a strain on my SO. I don't get it. For some reason stuff like that
generates a lot of uproar, wheedling and pleading, procrastination and
non-compliance from the kids. Is that nurturing? Is my way non-nurturing?
I cannot begin to conceive what benefit children might derive from that kind of
"nurturing."
If I mention anything like this as a specific instance of how things might be
different, my SO is very, very resistant. Lately she has expressed resentment
that I implicitly am criticizing her by suggesting that anything be done
differently. OK, fine - I understand that, and would probably feel the same.
She is entitled to do it her way. But if she wants my help, I just don't know
how. What am I supposed to do? Should I turn a task like getting the kids
ready into an ordeal so that I am exhausted too? Actually, there simply is no
real recourse, because if I did it my way, she would feel that I was not really
helping, and would probably silently go back to doing it her way anyway.
As you can probably detect, I am very frustrated. I know my SO is too, and her
feelings are very battered by all of this. I just do not know where to go from
here.
Vicki Robinson
:
:As to the problem in the original post, things have certainly deteriorated. We
:seem to be at an impasse. My SO admitted tonight that she is very, very
:unhappy with life, but does not know why. She finds her daily routine
:intolerable. Some of the posts have questionned whether I have misunderstood
:her, i.e. whether I have assumed that she wants solutions or advice when she
:really just wants me to listen and be emotionally supportive. The reason I
:originally posted was because I had asked her what was wrong, and she told me
:that she wanted more help from me and involvement with her kids. So I don't
:think I misunderstood that part. She wants me to DO something. The biggest
:obstacle now is that she is adamant that nothing - not one thing - can be
:changed in her routine, or in the amount she does for her children or others,
:or the way she does it. She hates what she has to do but insists that it all
:absolutely must be done. She is quite specific about that.
:
She's created Hell for herself, demands that you wave a magic wand and
make the intolerable tolerable, although nothing can change.
Patrice, it seems to me that she's posing the kinds of questions that
my kids used to ask me: "If you were in a burning building and chained
to the wall with huge chains and a heavy padlock and no key and no
file and no one knew you were there, what would you do?" "Die." "No,
really, what would you do?" Looking for the magic escape route that
grownups should know about.
I think that right now she focuses on you as both part of the problem
and the entire solution to her frustration. The difficulty here is
that the problem is entirely hers; you *cannot* change it. I'm
willing to bet that even if you willingly pitched in unstintingly and
did everything her way, she'd immediately fill up the freed time with
other burdens.
Have you considered couples therapy? Actually, I think she's the one
who needs it, but she'd resist the implicit criticism that she's crazy
and needs help. If you put it on yourself (and truthfully you'll
learn something too), that you need help in finding a way to help that
won't overwhelm you, she might be willing to go. Otherwise, I'm
thinking that you're in a no-win situation. You can't rescue someone
who hasn't finished drowning.
Michelle Geary
say), it's not that I wouldn't love to get y'all signed copies. But I
can't. We each (my daughter and I) get to bring one book to be signed to
the talk-and-signing event (Kim, I was going to e-mail you about this,
since I finally talked to the bookstore this week). My daughter of course
will be bringing her own copy, and I'll be taking one for Max. You
wouldn't believe what a serendipitous event getting tickets to this was,
btw...people camped out overnight to get tickets, but I lucked out, and
just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Michelle
Jennifer <dist...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Count me in on that Harry Potter signature deal!
> Jennifer
> Anne Robotti wrote:
>> Wait a second, somebody can get Harry Potter books signed?
>>
>> Anne
>> Who doesn't take a hint very well... :D
>>
>> Kim Scheinberg wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert Teeter <rte...@shell1.ncal.verio.net> writes
>> >
>> > > Okay, I'm just meandering at this point. I'll let this go cause
>> > >it's already *way* too long. But I feel like I'm so much like Patrice's
>> > >SO that it's scary, and I can't help poking at this problem to try to
>> > >understand it better.
>> > >
>> > >Michelle "Stop me before I volunteer again"
>> >
>> > Geez, Michelle. A simple, "Kim, I don't think I'll be able to get those
>> > Harry Potter books signed for you" would have sufficed! :-)
>> >
>> > It was a well thought out post. But I need to read it a few more times
>> > before I'm sure I understand it. I'm struggling with this, too
>> >
>> > -k.
>> > --
>> > ik...@panix.com | The Max Cam is up and running! Try it:
>> > Kim Scheinberg | www.panix.com/~jzk TAKE PICTURE
Merrie
very well for me because I can understand why she would want to do the
packing - even with kids that are old enough to do it.
There's a good chance that she wants to select which items are going to
their dad's as what goes may not be coming back. She probably doesn't want
them taking their brand new favorite pants and rather than arguing about it
and making them repack - she'd rather just do it.
I have a suggestion however. You can run this past her. I suggest she
get a box and pack some clothes for them to keep over at their dad's. I
know it's a little costly at first but just get some basic clothes and let
Dad worry about buying stuff for special functions at his place. It'll
avoid having to pack each visit.
I think mixed into this poor behavior surrounding this area is that when
you start packing the kids up for a visit - they start to go through their
"transition phase." Packing's like a signal that starts the mindset to
changing.
So can you think of another example of a real practical problem that she
is unhappy about but doesn't feel she can change?
Merrie
Patrice <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:37FDC14F...@nowhere.com...
Michelle Geary
> Your analysis is spot on for my SO and me. We were discussing the problem in
> the original post, and came to the conclusion that we had similar childhood
> experiences in terms of the nurturing we received (i.e. perhaps not enough).
> She put her need for nurturing into nurturing others, while I became the
> self-nurturer.
...
> As to the problem in the original post, things have certainly deteriorated. We
> seem to be at an impasse. My SO admitted tonight that she is very, very
> unhappy with life, but does not know why. She finds her daily routine
> intolerable..<snip> She wants me to DO something. The biggest
> obstacle now is that she is adamant that nothing - not one thing - can be
> changed in her routine, or in the amount she does for her children or others,
> or the way she does it. She hates what she has to do but insists that it all
> absolutely must be done. She is quite specific about that.
I've been thinking about this and thinking about this. Part of
the problem (because I've been in similar situations) is that I don't know
where my experiences are similar enough and where they aren't -- it's
actually a little harder than I think it ought to be to separate what you
two are going through from what I went through. I suspect that she is so
exhausted right now that even the effort of imagining how it could be
different feels like too much. The very routine (fatiguing as it is)
gives a kind of comfort -- because at least she knows what to do, even if
she feels she can't do it all. Two metaphors/analogies here (my sweet
husband will shoot me, but I still have difficulty remembering how a
metaphor and an analogy differ...but I'm a scientist, okay?). First
metaphor: I'm terrified of heights. Now, I've done things to make this a
bit more endurable for myself -- but *at the same time* I don't want to
lose that fear. Although I do believe (intellectually) that my fear is
irrational, my *gut* feeling is that losing my fear of heights would cause
me to be careless in situations where there so clearly to me now *is*
danger. I remember thinking that, if I tried to let some things go, I'd
be letting go of some *vital* things. And I was so mentally and
physically exhausted I couldn't see where I *could* safely let go. Second
metaphor: grad school life for me felt like riding a mountain bike along
a ridgetop with cliffs on both sides. I felt like all my energy had to
focus just on keeping that bike balancing...I couldn't look behind or very
far ahead or at what was around me...all I could do was look at the next
few feet of path.
What I *think* is that somehow your SO needs a little rest space
in which she can get a little less exhausted and have some room for
rational reflection and assessment. The problem is that if you create
that space for her by doing what she wants, that may 1) create the
impression (or implied contract :)) that you will go on doing that
indefinitely, and 2) make her feel that the current situation is tenable.
Which it isn't. Somehow I think it would help if you could help her
create a little rest space for herself (even if it's not the exactly
the way she thinks it ought to be done), but I'm not sure how you can do
that, given the current conditions.
I do think it might help her to talk with someone - like me -- who
has been where she is -- and I am offering to do that (to talk to you
more or to talk to her, on-line or off). But then that's one more thing
that she's perhaps trying to do, and that seems counter productive.
Dave Penton
> I'm sorry can you give another example. The packing one doesn't work
> very well for me because I can understand why she would want to do the
> packing - even with kids that are old enough to do it.
>
> There's a good chance that she wants to select which items are going to
> their dad's as what goes may not be coming back. She probably doesn't want
> them taking their brand new favorite pants and rather than arguing about it
> and making them repack - she'd rather just do it.
>
> I have a suggestion however. You can run this past her. I suggest she
> get a box and pack some clothes for them to keep over at their dad's. I
> know it's a little costly at first but just get some basic clothes and let
> Dad worry about buying stuff for special functions at his place. It'll
> avoid having to pack each visit.
>
> I think mixed into this poor behavior surrounding this area is that when
> you start packing the kids up for a visit - they start to go through their
> "transition phase." Packing's like a signal that starts the mindset to
> changing.
>
> So can you think of another example of a real practical problem that she
> is unhappy about but doesn't feel she can change?
>
> Merrie
>
OK - you may right on that one. I must admit that there are some things that I
miss the practical point on, i.e. things that it would actually be worse to
change than to leave as is, with an adult bearing the burden.
I will try again. I am going to give two examples, because it seems to me the
problem falls into two categories (roughly).
EXAMPLE #1:
For about six or eight months my SO has complained that she is exhausted by the
chore of getting her kids to bed at night and up in the morning. I will
reproduce a typical bedtime interaction that I have observed often between SO
and 10 year old daughter (who is, no doubt, a very sweet kid):
*9:40 p.m. *
SO:"It's twenty to ten. Start getting ready for bed." (Bedtime is 10
o'clock.)
*10:00*
(Daughter still playing with Barbie in the living room.)
SO: "Why aren't you getting ready for bed?"
Daughter: "Will you fix me a snack?"
SO: "NO. Fix your own snack, and hurry up."
*10:10,*
(Daughter in the living room with plate full of crumbs, playing with Barbie.)
SO: "Did you brush your teeth yet?"
Daughter: "Not yet."
SO: (Beginning to get exasperated) "Well hurry up and brush your teeth."
*10:18*
Daughter: "Will you read to me?"
SO: "No, it's too late."
Daughter: "Please?"
SO: "OK but only for a short while."
*10:30*
Daughter (calling from her bedroom): "Mommy, come tuck me in."
SO: "I already did."
Daughter: "No, you read me a story. You didn't tuck me in."
*10:35*
Sounds of daughter getting up to pee & get a drink.
*10:40*
Daughter (comes into living room): "Mommy I can't sleep."
SO gets up and takes daughter to her room. I don't know what transpires.
*10:50*
Daughter (calls from her bedroom): "Mommy"
SO departs. Returns in 10 minutes. I ask "what was it?" and SO replies "she
still cannot sleep."
*11:00*
Daughter: "Mommy come here."
Result: Frustrated, exhausted SO. The next morning, daughter will not get up
on time. SO says "she's overtired." I say "No shit."
Last night we were discussing the matter, and SO gave as an example of the
pressure that she is experiencing the fact that she must be at school at 9:00
to attend a class she is auditing. She finds it a strain. I asked whether she
still has trouble getting the kids going in the morning as she did last year.
She said "no, they are much better." So I asked what was creating the morning
difficulty. She said "nothing, there is no problem." I said "Well then why
did you raise it as an example?" She said "it was just a comment, don't
analyze everything", or words to that effect.
EXAMPLE #2
A typical conversation from last spring:
SO: "I am exhausted. The week was very, very long and hard."
Me: "Oh yeah. Tell me about it."
SO: "I have to get that reseach paper out. I had to go to three softball
games with daughter this week, and there is a basketball fundraising bingo on
the weekend. I have to drive daughter to an extra choir practice because the
spring concert is coming. I just don't know how I can get it all done."
Me: "Maybe next year you could get daughter to pick one activity."
SO: "She enjoys all of them."
Me: "Maybe you could explain to her that you can only make it to a couple of
games per month and the playoffs if she makes it."
SO: "I want her to know that I support her."
Me: "Why do you have to do the fundraising?"
SO: "Because otherwise I have to pay $75 for basketball."
Me: "I though tyou already paid the $40 registration to the community."
SO: "I did."
Me: "So what is the other $75 for?"
SO: "I don't know."
Me: "I thought you went to the kick-off meeting?"
SO: "Yes I did."
Me: "Didn't they discuss the extra $75 then?"
SO: "Yes. I think it is for new uniforms."
Me: "But you just paid for a new uniform for daughter."
SO: "I think it is for treats after each game and the end of the year party at
<local amusement park>."
Me: "Maybe next year you could tell the other parents you consider the
basketball to be the entertainment and you are not prepared to do four day long
bingos in addition."
SO: Long silence. Eventually: "I enjoy doing this stuff."
This year once again daughter is in choir and basketball. SO is doing a bingo
on Saturday. The options that SO sees are: She does the stuff while I help
with meals, etc. or I do some of the extra-curricular stuff. Cutting down the
number of activities, the number of games & practices attended by SO, or the
amount of fundraising volunteer work is not even on the map.
So the conversations have gone like this:
Example #1: There is a problem that SO describes. I think the kids could be
less of a drain if they were taught to be less of a drain. SO changes her mind
and says it really is no longer or never was a problem.
Example #2: The week is filled with various activities that appear to me to be
optional. It looks like there is quite a bit of room to be selective. SO says
that I am asking her to give up all the good stuff.
I wouldn't mind either one but now she sees the problem as "I won't help."
Dave Penton
my usual nickname.
Patrice = me, David Penton.
Anne Robotti
a guy named Patrice anyway. :D
Anne
Involved in my own thread but Jane will be dead soon and I'll devote
lots of time to this one. She's wearing down already. :D
jane lawrence
I have an idea.
Vow not to mention either of your two favorite solutions for a
month. I guarantee the last thing GF wants to hear from you is
that her kids should do more or she should do less. Consider
those issues nonnegotiables. The more you mention them, the
less willing she will be to consider them. You two are
polarized.
Try to think "outside the box" for a while. Try to think of
solutions that will be acceptable to her. Suggest things like a
reward system for kids going to bed on time, or carpooling for
the games, or lying down with her daughter for a while when she
goes to bed.
Try to be "helpful." If time is the problem, maybe you can find
ways to give her some. What was GF trying to get done at the
same time she was trying to get her daughter in bed? Maybe she
could focus on the bed thing if she weren't so distracted.
Could you take over the job she was doing and free her up to get
her kid in bed? When she goes off to read to her daughter you
could finish up the kitchen, or set things up for the morning,
or straighten up the living room. Maybe you could offer to help
the kids pack - not order them to do it. If GF gave you a list
of things that must and can't go you could do it with them,
couldn't you?
Stop telling her she's wrong. You don't see it, but you're
jumping down her throat every time she expresses a concern. It
doesn't matter what the $75 is for. She told you she had to pay
it or volunteer. You're just taking up her time with the whole
cross examination thing, and time is something she can't afford
to waste right now.
Taking GF's need to raise her children as she thinks best as set
in stone, do you want to be in this relationship? Is it worth
it to you?
jane
Kevin
> Anne
> Involved in my own thread but Jane will be dead soon and I'll devote
> lots of time to this one. She's wearing down already. :D
>
life . . . hmmm?
Kevin
Kim Scheinberg
>Dear hearts (as my grandmother, may her memory be for a blessing, used to
>say), it's not that I wouldn't love to get y'all signed copies. But I
>can't. We each (my daughter and I) get to bring one book to be signed to
>the talk-and-signing event (Kim, I was going to e-mail you about this,
>since I finally talked to the bookstore this week). My daughter of course
>will be bringing her own copy, and I'll be taking one for Max. You
Wow, Michelle! That's great! But let's not commit to it being addressed to
'Max' just yet, okay? I won't know who's purchasing my signed HP book
until the Ebay auction ends on Friday...
-k. who is kidding of course, but almost bought the complete signed
collection of Calvin and Hobbes books on Ebay two months ago
Nikki Murphy
I think the bedtime story that you've described is a classic case of a Mom
overdoing for her daughter which means no clear boundaries have been set and
daughter gets to play Mom for all that she is worth.
I have a ten year old stepson. Since he was 8 years old he has gone to bed himself.
He goes for a shower 3/4 of an hour before bedtime. Comes down afterwards and has a
drink if he wants to. Snuggles with us. Says goodnight, gives us both a kiss. Goes
upstairs, cleans his teeth on the way and goes to bed. He doesn't come down again
on promise of death. If he can't sleep he can read until he drops off.
He also used to try the 'i'm hungry, i'm thirsty' thing on us right before bedtime
and a few nights of 'if you were hungry you should have eaten earlier' and sending
him to bed sorted it out. Anything like this is our house is described as 'delaying
tactics' and if he tries it these days we just say 'pack it in with the delaying
tactics and off to bed'. Off he goes.
I think your SO needs to learn to put her foot down as to me it sounds like her
kids are running her ragged emotionally and physically.
Sorry i can't be more help
Nikki
Dave Penton wrote:g.
Merrie
I see her asking you to help. In both of these examples I think all she
wanted was acknowledgment. I think Nancy had a response that was elluding
to this possibility. I know I should avoid generalizations but here goes.
When men have a conversation in which they bring up a problem or
something that bothers them, they are looking for a solution.
When women bring something up, they are often looking for a little
sympathy or someone to simply validate that the conditions exist. They are
*not* looking for a solution. They are not asking for help.
I, personally, don't do this too often. (Well, I think I don't but we
should ask my DH.) I tend to look for solutions or not spend any time on
it.
But you seem really sure that she's currently asking you to actually
help out. Can you relay to me the conversation in which she did this?
I'm not trying to be obtuse here - I really am trying to help.
Merrie
Dave Penton <dpe...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:37FE5F73...@telusplanet.net...
Jennifer
I myself (and I) am *very* aware of the solution v. empathy quandary (see, I'm
on topic) with DHs in general. I've had to explain to DH for *years* how I want
him simply to listen to my bitching and say, "there, there" (and we actually
have a stock phrase he can use to soothe me). I don't want to hear what I could
have done differently.
In Dave's example #2 (the overscheduling), he's likely to help the household by
being more understanding. If SO runs herself ragged and then wants to unload on
Dave, it doesn't seem out of line for her to expect him to pat her head and give
her soothing hugs and words. (Mind, not in a patronizing sense :-) .)
But in example #1, with the slow-to-bedder, that directly affects Dave. Here SO
is getting up and down for over an hour and ends up upset and frustrated. Dave
should have the expectation of some time alone with SO at night, and I feel as
Nikki does, that delaying tactics need to be curtailed. SD is sharing a
household with both Dave and Mom, and SD needs to respect their time together.
What she's doing seems a manipulative tactic to separate Mom from DH and have
Mom to herself. Not that this isn't some reasonable desire on SD's part, but
Mom needs to show her commitment to her husband at this point, not to her
daughter. Otherwise, there's not going to be much of a marriage.
Jennifer
Merrie wrote:
--
Xander: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to anger. No,
wait, hold on. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side. Hold on,
no... First you get the women, then you get the money, then you... Okay, can
we forget that?
Buffy: "Thanks for the Dada-ist pep talk. I feel much more abstract now."
From BTVS, "The Freshman," airdate 10-5-99
jane lawrence
>
> Oh.
You mean: "Oh. Never mind."
jane
or are you too young for that?
Merrie
gives to him. He says that he has no complaints about their arrangement -
save the one about her wanting more help.
Merrie
Vicki Robinson <vjr...@piper.xcski.com> wrote in message
news:7tot82$9u$1...@piper.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, Jennifer <dist...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> :SD is sharing a
> :household with both Dave and Mom, and SD needs to respect their time
together.
> :What she's doing seems a manipulative tactic to separate Mom from DH and
have
> :Mom to herself. Not that this isn't some reasonable desire on SD's part,
but
> :Mom needs to show her commitment to her husband at this point, not to her
> :daughter. Otherwise, there's not going to be much of a marriage.
>
> Just for the record, they aren't married or cohabiting. Each adult
> has his or her own place, and these things take place at the home
> where the kids and Dave's SO live. That's why this is a little
> touchier than it might be; there is no expressed committment, no
> permanent adult relationship that needs to be preserved for the
> benefit of the kids as well. And that's one of the problems with Mom
> expecting her SO to take up some of her work--it really is *her* work,
> and he has no responsibilty at all for any of it.
Vicki Robinson
:SD is sharing a
:household with both Dave and Mom, and SD needs to respect their time together.
:What she's doing seems a manipulative tactic to separate Mom from DH and have
:Mom to herself. Not that this isn't some reasonable desire on SD's part, but
:Mom needs to show her commitment to her husband at this point, not to her
:daughter. Otherwise, there's not going to be much of a marriage.
Just for the record, they aren't married or cohabiting. Each adult
Geri and Brian
"Oh. Never mind. (Bitch)."
Emily Latilla
Geri
~~~~~~~~~~
"One should never give a woman anything she can't wear in the evening."
Jennifer
Jane, don't you remember my birthday woes? I'm turning 30 on the 28th of
October, in just--oh--18 more days. My parents are in Europe, having
abandoned me. Vic is going to share a cyber birthday with me, since we
celebrate (or not, as the case may be) on the same date.
Jeez, can't anybody here focus on what's important?!!
Jennifer
(who would have added "never mind" or other choice words if she'd had more
time)
Geri and Brian wrote:
--
Anne Robotti
> Last night we were discussing the matter, and SO gave as an example of the
> pressure that she is experiencing the fact that she must be at school at 9:00
> to attend a class she is auditing. She finds it a strain. I asked whether she
> still has trouble getting the kids going in the morning as she did last year.
> She said "no, they are much better." So I asked what was creating the morning
> difficulty. She said "nothing, there is no problem." I said "Well then why
> did you raise it as an example?" She said "it was just a comment, don't
> analyze everything", or words to that effect.
David, this seems like she might be feeling kind of picked on in your conversations,
or feel like you're analyzing her lightest utterance to see where you can "fix it"
without actually "helping" the way she wants you to.
>
> EXAMPLE #2
>
> A typical conversation from last spring:
This one I can help you with. I've had this one with my husband.
>
> SO: "I am exhausted. The week was very, very long and hard."
> Me: "Oh yeah. Tell me about it."
You're doing great up to here.
> SO: "I have to get that reseach paper out. I had to go to three softball
> games with daughter this week, and there is a basketball fundraising bingo on
> the weekend. I have to drive daughter to an extra choir practice because the
> spring concert is coming. I just don't know how I can get it all done."
> Me: "Maybe next year you could get daughter to pick one activity."
And she hears, "Okay, we can fix this by you doing what I've been telling you
to do for ages, when are you going to stop whining and do it?"
> SO: "She enjoys all of them."
She's saying, "I'm not going to do that, back off and stop trying to fix my
life when I just want some sympathy."
> Me: "Maybe you could explain to her that you can only make it to a couple of
> games per month and the playoffs if she makes it."
She hears, "No, really, I'm right. Let me badger you some more and add to your
already stressful life with the knowledge that I think you do too much for your
kids."
> SO: "I want her to know that I support her."
She's saying, "I just SAID I wasn't going to do that. Why are you hammering
on this?"
> Me: "Why do you have to do the fundraising?"
> SO: "Because otherwise I have to pay $75 for basketball."
She's saying, "God, I am so sorry I brought up fundraising, are you going
to cross examine me about that now?"
> Me: "I though tyou already paid the $40 registration to the community."
And she hears, "Yes."
> SO: "I did."
She's saying, "Never mind."
> Me: "So what is the other $75 for?"
She's hearing, "No, we're not going to drop this until you've justified your
entire schedule to me."
> SO: "I don't know."
She's saying, "Just DROP it already."
> Me: "I thought you went to the kick-off meeting?"
And she hears, "Well, let's keep at it and at it until we prove that you don't
have to do everything you're saying you have to do, since I don't recognize
the value of it."
> SO: "Yes I did."
She's saying, "Okay, if we're really not going to drop it..."
> Me: "Didn't they discuss the extra $75 then?"
> SO: "Yes. I think it is for new uniforms."
"Let me come up with some kind of justification for it so I can get the
hell out of this conversation."
> Me: "But you just paid for a new uniform for daughter."
And she hears, "Ha! Caught you on that one! That justification doesn't work."
> SO: "I think it is for treats after each game and the end of the year party at
> <local amusement park>."
She's saying, "Okay, then how about this? ANYTHING to stop this cross-examination."
> Me: "Maybe next year you could tell the other parents you consider the
> basketball to be the entertainment and you are not prepared to do four day long
> bingos in addition."
And she hears, "Well, if you can't come up with a better reason then that, I can
"fix" this for you too. Here, here's the solution to your life all neatly packaged
for your convenience and now I never have to help you in life and that's good because
I never will."
> SO: Long silence. Eventually: "I enjoy doing this stuff."
And finally she says, "Well listen buster, what I want to do with my kids is my
business, and exactly where in this conversation did I ask you for suggestions to
get *less* time with my kids?!"
David, I'm not trying to be flip, but you have to understand the vast gap between what
you're saying and what a tired, emotionally wrung out, too-busy woman is hearing when
she asks you for help and it seems to her like you won't. I've been there, it's not
pretty.
Anne
Vicki Robinson
:David, this seems like she might be feeling kind of picked on in your
:conversations,
:or feel like you're analyzing her lightest utterance to see where you
:can "fix it"
:without actually "helping" the way she wants you to.
:
[snip]
:
:David, I'm not trying to be flip, but you have to understand the vast
:gap between what
:you're saying and what a tired, emotionally wrung out, too-busy woman is
:hearing when
:she asks you for help and it seems to her like you won't. I've been
:there, it's not
:pretty.
Anne, your analysis was spot-on I think, but I'm wondering about Dave's
needs here too. She has told him that she wants him to help her,
I think, but without specificity. I'm not so sure that when you ask
for general help, you get to dictate what form that help will take.
It's one thing to say "I'm going to be tied up with the fundraiser
Monday evening, so could you pick up Claudette at dancing at 5:30 for
me please?", and another to say "I'm overwhelmed, I need some help,
and you're not helping me." If she's not being specific, if she's
asking for "help" in general, then suggestions on restructuring her
time are indeed helpful. Maybe not what she wants to hear, maybe not
the kind of help she's looking for, but it is help of a sort. If she
wants specific kinds of help, and for things to be done her way and no
other, then she has a responsibility to be clear in her requests.
I learned this the hard way. My first husband and I were constantly
feeling overwhelmed, constantly certain that each of us was doing well
more than 50% all the time, and that the other was not carrying his or
her weight. We constantly made general statements about "This thing
needs to be done." without appending "..so do you want to, or shall
I?" Each of us believed that saying "This needs to be done" should
have been enough for the other to realize that this was a direct
request for him or her to take care of it. We ended up in a truly
terrible tug of war, each mentally recording in excrutiating detail
what s/he had done this week, and what the other had done. My husband
would think that it was time that I stopped reading and starting
cleaning, so he'd start cleaning something and then become enraged
because I was supposed to follow his lead and put down my book,
without him saying anything. This pattern of interaction was one of
the biggest reasons we ended up apart.
I find myself falling into the same pattern in this marriage at times,
racing around loudly picking up and saying things like "Oh, my God,
I'll never get this done in time, and I still have to do the laundry
and shop for groceries and I'm supposed to be at church at 4:00. Oh,
who left this here?! Oh, no! Oh, damn, another ....", looking sweaty
and anxiously distracted. The rest of the family continues to watch TV,
web-surf and just goof off. It works much better when I say "I need
some of you to do some of this stuff. YOU, mow the lawn, YOU pick up
all the junk in the living room, YOU fold the clean laundry and put in
another load..." I used to resent it when my first husband would do
the racing-around-frantic routine (and OHHHHHHH, was he good at it!),
and would refuse to react to this kind of coercion, I sort of understand
it when my kids and present husband don't react either.
If she wants help, then she should ask for what she wants. If she
asks in a vague way, then she shouldn't be surprised when "help"
consists of ways that she can help herself.
I am all for empathic listening. I think your analysis of the way
that particular conversation went is exactly right, and I think that
it might be a relief to Dave's SO if he just listened and didn't try
to solve her problems. But right now she's sending mixed signals, and
it's her responsiblity to let him know what exactly she wants from
him, or she needs to accept what she gets.
Anne Robotti
But, I'd be willing to bet that the question, "What specificaly
are you asking me to do?" would be met by an exasperated, "Fine.
I'm not asking you to DO anything."
Anne
jane lawrence
>
>
> Anne, your analysis was spot-on I think, but I'm wondering about Dave's
> needs here too. She has told him that she wants him to help her,
> I think, but without specificity. I'm not so sure that when you ask
> for general help, you get to dictate what form that help will take.
> Monday evening, so could you pick up Claudette at dancing at 5:30 for
> me please?", and another to say "I'm overwhelmed, I need some help,
> and you're not helping me." If she's not being specific, if she's
> asking for "help" in general, then suggestions on restructuring her
> time are indeed helpful.
I'm so excited. I disagree with you, Vicki. Initial
suggestions about cutting back on time with kids and
volunteering were fine. Creative, new time restructuring ideas
that don't involve doing less for the family are fine.
Reiterating the same two or three suggestions that have been
rejected hundreds of times is not suddenly going to help. It is
incomprehensible to me that that is incomprehensible to Dave.
> Maybe not what she wants to hear, maybe not
> the kind of help she's looking for, but it is help of a sort. If she
> wants specific kinds of help, and for things to be done her way and no
> other, then she has a responsibility to be clear in her requests.
It can't happen this way until Dave let's go of the idea that
she has to let go of the things that are most important to her
for their relationship to work. She wants him to pick up some
of the slack. It's annoying that some people need to have the
slack pointed out in excruciating detail until they catch on to
the general idea, but that's doable. It's like teaching kids
how to vacuum. You may have to pint out every scrap of lint and
popcorn shell, but eventually they'll get it.
As it is now, every time Dave's GF points out something she'd
like him to do, he refuses to do it. And he honestly doesn't
seem to understand what he is doing wrong. Telling the kids to
pack is not the same as packing for them. Listening to her
problems is not the same as telling her what she's doing wrong.
Taking a kid to the movies is not the same as teaching him a
lesson in punctuality. She can't ask him to do the dishes,
because he'll say the kids should do them. She can't ask him to
pick up her daughter, because he'll say she should cut back on
activities. She can't bitch about the fundraising because he'll
tell her the kid's should cut back on extracurricular
activities. There is no point in enumerating the little things
anymore because they just end up arguing about every one.
>
> I learned this the hard way. My first husband and I were constantly
> feeling overwhelmed, constantly certain that each of us was doing well
> more than 50% all the time, and that the other was not carrying his or
> her weight. We constantly made general statements about "This thing
> needs to be done." without appending "..so do you want to, or shall
> I?" Each of us believed that saying "This needs to be done" should
> have been enough for the other to realize that this was a direct
> request for him or her to take care of it.
I see an important difference here. When Dave's GF says, "This
needs to be done," he says it doesn't. At least with you and
DH, you could keep track of points. Not only does Dave's GF do
everything, she doesn't even get credit for it.
As lil would say, this kind of thing makes my eyes bleed. He
won't take any initiative. He won't do what she asks. And he
refuses to admit that she does anything of value. Telling a
person she is wrong every time she opens her mouth is abusive.
I'm assuming that Dave and his GF have a respectful, mutually
beneficial relationship in other areas, because they've worked
out other issues and are still together despite this difference
in values.
I just don't see how they're going to get through this unless
they compromise. You're the queen of compromise, what do you do
in situations like this? Just from my own life, I'd say that
the absolute worst place to start is trying to convince your
mate to let go of the thing she considers the most important. I
like to start with a goodwill gesture, I guess, with conceding
something that they want that I don't mind giving up too
terribly much.
That's why I think Dave should at least consider doing something
"helpful" as GF defines it. He's got to say, "Even though we
disagree about what is important, you are important enough to me
to work on this." He could ask her to name a specific thing he
could do to help her and then do it precisely the way she wants
him to. Not his way, which really isn't what she asked at all.
Or he could offer to do something that doesn't involve stressful
areas, like picking up her dry-cleaning. Don't you have
techniques for getting polarized parties to come to the table?
Or do people only come to you when they've both come around a
bit?
jane
Jennifer
Jennifer
Anne Robotti wrote:
> Vicki, I've dealt with that in a previous post. I agree totally.
>
> But, I'd be willing to bet that the question, "What specificaly
> are you asking me to do?" would be met by an exasperated, "Fine.
> I'm not asking you to DO anything."
>
> Anne
>
> Vicki Robinson wrote:
>
> > Anne, your analysis was spot-on I think, but I'm wondering about Dave's
> > needs here too. She has told him that she wants him to help her,
> > I think, but without specificity. I'm not so sure that when you ask
> > for general help, you get to dictate what form that help will take.
--
Lauralee Adams
jane lawrence wrote:
> As lil would say, this kind of thing makes my eyes bleed. He
> won't take any initiative. He won't do what she asks.
Um, am I lost here? I thought Dave said that he wasn't living with his
SO - or do I have threads confused here? If he's not living with her,
and neither one of them has made that level of commitment to the
relationship, then how is he in any way responsible for helping her with
her kids or her daily life? If they were living together or married I
would feel differently, but she seems to be demanding a greater degree
of intimacy and responsibility than which exists. So maybe the guy's a
less than fabulous person because he doesn't want to help except on his
own terms, but he hasn't made any commitment to her, has he? That is
what SHE should be looking at - if she wants and needs more, and he
isn't willing to give it, she should get out of the relationship. And
if he doesn't like her priorities, or isn't willing to be an equal
partner in her life, then HE should get out.
Lee
jane lawrence
>
> jane lawrence wrote:
>
> > As lil would say, this kind of thing makes my eyes bleed. He
> > won't take any initiative. He won't do what she asks.
>
> SO - or do I have threads confused here? If he's not living with her,
> and neither one of them has made that level of commitment to the
> relationship, then how is he in any way responsible for helping her with
> her kids or her daily life?
I don't know if there is any obligation per se. I don't see
that as important to the issue. I don't think it matters
whether or not David is "responsible" for helping GF.
He has to do it to get what he wants.
> If they were living together or married I
> would feel differently, but she seems to be demanding a greater degree
> of intimacy and responsibility than which exists. So maybe the guy's a
> less than fabulous person because he doesn't want to help except on his
> own terms, but he hasn't made any commitment to her, has he?
Commitment seems to be a big issue in their relationship right
now. GF feels she needs a help mate. Dave does not want to fill
that role. That's not what he wants out of this relationship at
this point. He is afraid that he will not be able to set limits
in that environment and that he will be sucked into the black
hole of his GF's overscheduled life. He doesn't want to take on
the responsibility for innumberable problems without the
authority to handle them his own way. Makes sense to me.
OTOH, GF and their relationship seem very important to David.
He does not want to lose the woman he loves. GF can't afford to
be his girl friend any more. She doesn't have the time or
energy right now. She's not ready to toss him, but she's
definitely considering ending the relationship. Whether he
agrees with them or not, GFs needs and expectations in the
relationship are just as important as David's.
So - David has to help GF if an only if he wants her to continue
to be his GF.
> That is
> what SHE should be looking at - if she wants and needs more, and he
> isn't willing to give it, she should get out of the relationship. And
> if he doesn't like her priorities, or isn't willing to be an equal
> partner in her life, then HE should get out.
> Lee
But I don't think David is wrong for trying to work this out
with GF.
You can read these posts and see two people who are being
completely unreasonable. GF's a useless ditz whose life is in
chaos and all she can do is whine about it. David's an
unfeeling bastard who can't lift a finger to help but has all
the time in the world to lecture her about what she is doing
wrong as a parent. Their values seems so totally different that
you can't help but wonder what they could possibly be doing
together.
I think that's an illusion. David and his GF have been together
for years. They've had and resolved other problems. They're
not terminating the relationship despite the torture now. Above
all, David is posting here. So I figure I just can't see the
reasonable couple in a loving and mutually beneficial
relationship who can resolve this difference amicably and
equitably.
IMHO, I can't see them because David and GF are so locked into
absolutist positions that it's impossible to consider the common
ground that they need to find. I don't see that reinforcing
David in the position that he's right and GF is wrong is helpful
here. They've both already gone way too far in that direction.
David could do things that would ease the strain on his GF if he
chose, and he probably would be willing to if he didn't feel
he'd end up waiting hand and foot on her kids. GF is so busy
defending the things she does for the kids and proving to
herself that they're necessary, that she can't even consider
letting any of them go.
IMVE, this isn't all that uncommon a situation for couples to
find themselves in. I don't think it has to be the end of the
line for Dave and GF. For me, when I'm locked into a polarized
situation like this and I want to get past it, the easiest thing
to do is give something up. Not everything. Just enough to
show I'm serious about the negotiation and willing to give as
well as take. If I'm not willing to make that gesture, then why
should the other party bother to negotiate with me? That's what
I think David should do.
jane
ye...@my-deja.com
convinced by compelling arguments, I would want to cast my vote for both
sides. Vicki and Jane make me feel like that here.
Except, I look to what works with my SO. Sometimes I'm looking for a
solution and sometimes I'm looking for comfort, and I have to be clear
for him, which one I need each time. It's one thing that he says he
really appreciates, my ability to ask for what I need. I went thru the
"read my mind, fulfill my needs" long enough to know it doesn't work in
other relationships. It sounds like her kids are old enough to take on
more responsibility, if she chooses not to go that avenue, why should it
fall to him? We all get 24 hours in a day, how we choose to use them is
up to us, it just doesn't make sense to then complain about the choices
we've made.
Ange
In article <38005989...@excite.com>,
jane lawrence <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tracey
>to be his GF.
Ah, jane, THAT'S why I've been reading your post and saying
to myself 'But, but, but......' I've probably just missed this part
in your other replies, but this makes all of the difference in the
world as to why you've been saying what you've been saying
(at least to me it does.)
--
Tracey
"Jesus only told us half of it.
The truth will set you free. But
first it's going to piss you off."
--Solomon Short--
Vicki Robinson
:Vicki Robinson wrote:
:>
:>
:> Anne, your analysis was spot-on I think, but I'm wondering about Dave's
:> needs here too. She has told him that she wants him to help her,
:> I think, but without specificity. I'm not so sure that when you ask
:> for general help, you get to dictate what form that help will take.
:
:I'm so excited. I disagree with you, Vicki. Initial
:suggestions about cutting back on time with kids and
:volunteering were fine. Creative, new time restructuring ideas
:that don't involve doing less for the family are fine.
:Reiterating the same two or three suggestions that have been
:rejected hundreds of times is not suddenly going to help. It is
:incomprehensible to me that that is incomprehensible to Dave.
:
I understand what you're saying, but I'm taking the tack that she doesn't
get to be the boss, necessarily. When someone is beating himself on
the head with a hammer and asking you to do something about the pain,
it's not reasonable of him to expect you to run for the aspirin without
complaint every 4 hours and ignore your suggestion that there may be
a better, long-term solution to be found in stopping the beating.
:As it is now, every time Dave's GF points out something she'd
:like him to do, he refuses to do it. And he honestly doesn't
:seem to understand what he is doing wrong. Telling the kids to
:pack is not the same as packing for them.
But it gets the job done. I'm *very* sensitive to this issue, again
because of my first marriage, so maybe I'm not seeing this objectively
as I could. However, my ex would not have found it satisfactory if,
for example, I had decided to do my half of the housework by paying
someone to do it. (I brought in as much money as he did for quite a
bit of our marriage.) It wasn't that the task got done, it was that
**I** did it. He wanted me to work. He wanted me to "suffer". He
would not have been at all happy just to have the work done, because
*I* hadn't put in equal work to *him*. I could have said "Well, pay
someone to do your half too." and he would have sighed heavily and
walked away. Not only was it necessary that the work get done, I had to
do it the way he wanted me to.
Presently, my family thinks it's quite hilarious that I like to have
the towels folded a certain way. It's kind of complicated, but I like
the way they look stacked up in the linen cupboard. (So, shoot me.)
However, if I ask the kids or Paul to help me by folding the towels, I
don't insist that they get done *my* way; they're doing the job, I'll
let them decide *how* to do it. It's not the same as teaching kids to
vaccuum more than just the middle of the room; here we are talking
about achieving a goal (getting the towels folded, getting the kids
packed) and how to get there. As long as the end result is the same,
how it gets done should be the choice of the person doing the task.
:Listening to her
:problems is not the same as telling her what she's doing wrong.
:Taking a kid to the movies is not the same as teaching him a
:lesson in punctuality. She can't ask him to do the dishes,
:because he'll say the kids should do them. She can't ask him to
:pick up her daughter, because he'll say she should cut back on
:activities. She can't bitch about the fundraising because he'll
:tell her the kid's should cut back on extracurricular
:activities. There is no point in enumerating the little things
:anymore because they just end up arguing about every one.
:>
But if he's willing to take the adult responsibility of making sure
the job gets done, she needs to let him do it his way. If she asks
him to do the dishes, and he thinks the kids should do them *and is
willing to turf them out and supervise them doing the dishes* then
he's helping in a productive way. I agree, he's just bouncing back to
her if he says "I don't want to do the dishes, let the kids do them"
but if he says "Righto, they'll be done in half an hour" then rounds
up the kids and assigns jobs, then more power to him!
:
:I see an important difference here. When Dave's GF says, "This
:needs to be done," he says it doesn't. At least with you and
:DH, you could keep track of points. Not only does Dave's GF do
:everything, she doesn't even get credit for it.
:
Does Dave say it doesn't have to be done, or that there are other ways
to do it then her way? Again, my ex's slogan was "There are two ways
to do everything. My way and the wrong way." If that's her attitude,
I'd be pissed too. There are hundreds of ways to do anything. If it
**MUST** be done the One True Way, then do it yourself and quit
bothering me. If you want me to do it, I'll do it my way to achieve
the end result that you want. (And I agree that both parties need to
agree on standards of completion.)
:As lil would say, this kind of thing makes my eyes bleed. He
:won't take any initiative. He won't do what she asks. And he
:refuses to admit that she does anything of value. Telling a
I don't think this is true. I haven't seen him denigrating her
activities, only that she takes on more than she can handle, and
doesn't expect her kids to pull their weight, which is of course her
right. But then why should he pick up the slack?
:
:I just don't see how they're going to get through this unless
:they compromise. You're the queen of compromise, what do you do
:in situations like this? Just from my own life, I'd say that
:the absolute worst place to start is trying to convince your
:mate to let go of the thing she considers the most important. I
:like to start with a goodwill gesture, I guess, with conceding
:something that they want that I don't mind giving up too
:terribly much.
:
Well, in mediation, I would start with goals. What is their ultimate
goal? If the goal is indeed to get the kids packed to go to their
dad's with an appropriate wardrobe and necessary sports equipment,
then I would start generating a list of alternative ways to accomplish
that goal. At the top would be "Mom packs" and "Dave packs." And then
the real work begins. I wouldn't let them stop generating
alternatives until we had at least 25 on the board. Then we consider
each one, even the dumb ones like "Biodad comes over and packs for the
kids", for its utility, cost and ability to get the job done, and do
some ranking.
We wouldn't necessarily get the final solution from this. But it
would open Mom's eyes to the fact that there are more ways than just
her way to accomplish a goal, and it would help Dave understand why
it's so important to her to have it done a certain way.
And, by the way, I'm not a big fan of compromise. Everyone feels
vaguely like a loser with compromise, although if everyone loses
equally, it feels fair. I am a big big big proponent of
collaboration; we have a shared problem and a shared goal. How can we
solve our problem and achieve our goal and both walk out winners?
:That's why I think Dave should at least consider doing something
:"helpful" as GF defines it. He's got to say, "Even though we
:disagree about what is important, you are important enough to me
:to work on this." He could ask her to name a specific thing he
:could do to help her and then do it precisely the way she wants
:him to. Not his way, which really isn't what she asked at all.
:Or he could offer to do something that doesn't involve stressful
:areas, like picking up her dry-cleaning. Don't you have
:techniques for getting polarized parties to come to the table?
:Or do people only come to you when they've both come around a
:bit?
At this point, it wouldn't hurt Dave to do some empathic listening or
just give her what she wants in a defined area. At least she would
feel less besieged and less likely to continue to cling to her very
polarized position. But she also has to understand that he's not an
employee, who can be ordered to do things a certain way, just because
that's the way she wants it. She doesn't seem to want a partner, she
wants a mother's helper. That's something she should be paying our
kids to do, not looking to her SO for.
jane lawrence
>
> >So - David has to help GF if an only if he wants her to continue
> >to be his GF.
>
> Ah, jane, THAT'S why I've been reading your post and saying
> to myself 'But, but, but......' I've probably just missed this part
> in your other replies, but this makes all of the difference in the
> world as to why you've been saying what you've been saying
> (at least to me it does.)
>
I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
When David asked how much he should help, he said:
> OK, let's hear it. How do I handle this? Please remember that I love her, like the
> kids, and want to solve it lovingly. But I do not want to be a doormat.
I thought he meant that he wanted work things out with GF and
stay together. In fact, I thought he was asking what *he* had to
do to work out this problem with his GF. So for me this has been
a conflict resolution issue - understanding the other point of
view, evaluating your own position, compromise, depolarization.
Now that you mention it, though, I see that that's not the only
way to take David's question.
jane
Tracey
>I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
It was. I think I was reading you as saying that her
requests of help from him was perfectly reasonable
and understandable and that he was being selfish
and stuff that he wasn't responding to them. But
*now* I see that you're presenting to him the only
way that you see is going to keep them together.
I think I was stuck on what I felt was 'fair' rather
than what probably has to happen for them to stay
together.
Tracey
>than what probably has to happen for them to stay
>together.
As an aside, I was just thinking about something
that happened a few weeks ago with me. I men-
tioned in another reply how a friend of mine is
one of those 'nice' people who never says no.
I just recently typed a bunch of recipes for her
and it wasn't a problem for me. I was glad to
help her out. BUT, I think that if she started
asking me every week to help out with one of
her projects, I think I would get tired of it fast.
And, it seems that that is one of Dave's big
fears. It's not so much the occasional making
of dinner or taking the kids out for a movie
so his GF can study or get some alone time,
but the fact that, at least from what I read,
she's not asking for occasional help, she's
asking for a full-time assistant and that's not
something he wants or is ready to do. With
me and DH, we have a certain 'division of
labor' and when he's overwhelmed at work,
well, I'll pick up the slack *for a while*. But
if I would start to think that working late every
night, working at home every night was going
to be a 'for the rest of my life' thing, then we
would be having some very serious 'It's about
time you changed your job' talks.
jane lawrence
>
> :
> I understand what you're saying, but I'm taking the tack that she doesn't
> get to be the boss, necessarily.
Right. That doesn't sound like a solution that they would be
happy with overall.
I've realized since my post that I have framed the question as
"How does David get where he wants to be?" I haven't given a
lot of thought to where he actually does want to be. I don't
feel qualified to get into that area. I don't know what kind of
deal between him and his GF would work.
I said:
> :As it is now, every time Dave's GF points out something she'd
> :like him to do, he refuses to do it. And he honestly doesn't
> :seem to understand what he is doing wrong. Telling the kids to
> :pack is not the same as packing for them.
>
Vicki:
> But if he's willing to take the adult responsibility of making sure
> the job gets done, she needs to let him do it his way.
I don't think that is the only option. I don't want to start
taking options off the table because they wouldn't work for you
or for me.
> If she asks
> him to do the dishes, and he thinks the kids should do them *and is
> willing to turf them out and supervise them doing the dishes* then
> he's helping in a productive way. I agree, he's just bouncing back to
> her if he says "I don't want to do the dishes, let the kids do them"
> but if he says "Righto, they'll be done in half an hour" then rounds
> up the kids and assigns jobs, then more power to him!
I don't see the situation first hand, so I don't know if his way
is productive or not. I can't gauge it. All I really have to
go by is what David says. GF seems to feel that when David does
things his way, it is not helpful to her. Who am I to say it
is?
That's a major concern for me about Dave working this out with
GF successfully. He does not seem to accept anything GF says as
valid. In general, if I'm doing someone a favor, I try to get
as close to their request as possible. I assume they have
reasons for the way they want it done. I don't have to agree
with them. If I can't do specifically what they request, we can
often come up with a variation or alternative that is helpful to
them and feasible for me. I have never been in the position
where I was trying to do a favor for someone with whom I
disagreed about everything.
>
> :I see an important difference here. When Dave's GF says, "This
> :needs to be done," he says it doesn't. At least with you and
> :DH, you could keep track of points. Not only does Dave's GF do
> :everything, she doesn't even get credit for it.
> :
> Does Dave say it doesn't have to be done, or that there are other ways
> to do it then her way? Again, my ex's slogan was "There are two ways
> to do everything. My way and the wrong way." If that's her attitude,
> I'd be pissed too. There are hundreds of ways to do anything. If it
> **MUST** be done the One True Way, then do it yourself and quit
> bothering me. If you want me to do it, I'll do it my way to achieve
> the end result that you want. (And I agree that both parties need to
> agree on standards of completion.)
>
> :As lil would say, this kind of thing makes my eyes bleed. He
> :won't take any initiative. He won't do what she asks. And he
> :refuses to admit that she does anything of value. Telling a
>
> I don't think this is true. I haven't seen him denigrating her
> activities, only that she takes on more than she can handle, and
> doesn't expect her kids to pull their weight, which is of course her
> right. But then why should he pick up the slack?
Again, because he is choosing this relationship. As unromantic
as it sounds, there's no free lunch in love. David wants this
woman. He loves her and the kids. I can't say specifically
what he is getting out of the relationship, but it is extremely
important to him. I don't know or care what's in it for him. I
just know it's there, or he wouldn't be here.
GF needs something from David that she's not getting. I can't
say who's right and who's wrong, what's fair and what's not, or
whether it will turn out to be worth it for either one of them.
All I know is that David can't determine whether it is worth it
until he and GF hammer out what it is she wants from him. As I
read his posts, he sincerely wants to and can't figure this out.
Incidentally, doing things for her children is the primary thing
that GF values that David says has no value. He says either
that the children don't need the task done (activities), or that
the children need to do the tasks themselves (packing). It may
be the core issue, or it may be a lightening rod. I can't
tell. It's obviously something they need to resolve. I just
don't think that at this delicate point in the relationship,
he's going to get anywhere by framing any request to give his GF
a hand as a parenting issue.
IME, it is the issues that people are most concerned about
getting precisely right that they tend to take the "my way"
stance on. Your towels are a blip. I don't know why you want
them folded that way, and frankly I think you should investigate
it in intensive psychotherapy. But if you were overwhelmed
because it was finals time, SKs were coming to stay, and DH had
broken his leg, I would be happy to do your laundry, and I would
fold the towels your way. I would not tell you DH should be
folding them. If it drove me nuts, and I was helping you out for
a while, I might set them aside for you to do. I would not do
them "wrong." I would not refuse to do any laundry because you
have towel issues. You may be nuts, but it's no skin off my
behind.
Parenting the kids is a much more pervasive issue than the
towels. The more David is involved with it, the more I suspect
he will need to have a say in how it is done. His decision to
stay out of the parenting makes perfect sense to me. If he
wants to help his GF/preserve the relationship, it's important
for him to define "parenting" as narrowly as possible. He needs
to look at whipping up mac and cheese as doing something to give
GF a break, not as enabling her to cater to her children's
whims. If he wants to spend time with GF, he's better off
looking at straightening the living room as a way to steal 10
minutes of her time for himself than as complicity in spoiling
her children. The less he includes under the "parenting"
rubric, the easier it will be for him to find things he can help
her with.
> snip best part
>
> At this point, it wouldn't hurt Dave to do some empathic listening or
> just give her what she wants in a defined area. At least she would
> feel less besieged and less likely to continue to cling to her very
> polarized position. But she also has to understand that he's not an
> employee, who can be ordered to do things a certain way, just because
> that's the way she wants it. She doesn't seem to want a partner, she
> wants a mother's helper. That's something she should be paying our
> kids to do, not looking to her SO for.
I'm with you right up to this point. I'm not willing to say
what is and is not reasonable for them. They have to figure it
out for themselves.
Consider this example: Two people, W and M, grow up without the
nurturing (encouragement, support, displays of love, etc.) that
they need as children. This informs their adult relationships.
W is repelled by idea of causing others the kind of pain she has
endured. This translates to a need to give of herself. At the
same time, since she has never been nurtured, she is
uncomfortable in that role. M OTOH models his relationships on
those he grew up with. He is unable to nurture. However, he
still hungers for the nurturing he did not receive as a child.
They fall in love because he gives her someone to nurture and
because she gives him the nurturing he needs. If W and M are
happy with the arrangement, who cares if it seems unfair to me?
What if W and M gradually come to realize that they are not
truly satisfied with the relationship? Say W starts to feel a
vague emptiness, a yearning for something she does not
understand. Since no one has ever nurtured her, she can't
explain what it is she wants, she just knows it's not there. Or
M begins to taste ashes in his mouth when he receives without
giving nurturing. He wants to be a whole person and to be able
to do what others do, but he has no idea how. Maybe they can
teach each other. Maybe they need to experiment in fits and
starts. It would be cruel of me to sit in judgment on their
initial ineptitude.
That's as much as I can think about this right now.
jane
Tracey
>GF successfully. He does not seem to accept anything GF says as
>valid.
I don't see it as Dave not accepting what GF is saying as valid, but
more of him saying that there is more than one valid way of looking
at the situation and *she's* not seeing the alternatives.
>In general, if I'm doing someone a favor, I try to get
>as close to their request as possible. I assume they have
>reasons for the way they want it done. I don't have to agree
>with them. If I can't do specifically what they request, we can
>often come up with a variation or alternative that is helpful to
>them and feasible for me.
But what happens if you can't come up with a variation or
alternative that is 'doable' for both of you? Do you still go
ahead and do the favor, knowing that your friend will re-do
it or that it will tick them off because it wasn't done 'right'?
>I have never been in the position where I was trying to
>do a favor for someone with whom I disagreed about
>everything.
Boy, *I* have! All last winter at my mother's <grin>.
--
Tracey
"Commitment isn't a chore. It's a
challenge."
--Solomon Short--