Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolute generalizations are rarely correct. Is this self-referential?
Currently the stock market has a severe problem. But not being a trader or a speculator, it is perhaps best to ignore it. Minor sores, infections or wounds can be ignored; the body is remarkably resilient in healing itself. An obnoxious neighbor can be ignored, instead of complaining or causing an altercation. A nagging boss can often be ignored; so many seemingly imperative problems at work have a habit of sorting themselves out, if quietly left alone.
Often the attempt to solve a problem precipitates more strife and backlash than letting the matter fester. This isn't because one is purposely indifferent, but because there is no good solution, or at least none at reasonable cost; and so ignoring the problem is the lesser evil. But sometimes the situation rapidly goes unstable, and what began as minor explodes past controllability. This I think is apt metaphor for divorce.
I do not advocate willful condescension. But it does seem to me that quite often doing nothing is the best course. If one turns out to be spectacularly wrong, this is deeply unfortunate, and sometimes the perpetrator of the inaction (is this a contradiction?) is blameworthy. But not always.
It seems to me that we retain a cultural construct, where it is the husband's responsibility to accede to the wife's requests, and very much less so in the complementary direction. How often do we hear of a husband who left the marriage because his wife didn't listen to him? This isn't to say that men are angels, and never leave their wives without cause. But it does seem that it is the wives that resent the lack of communication more so than the husbands, and regard this lack to be substantive cause for divorce, far more so than husbands would. One would hope that in an egalitarian society, such behaviors would be more gender-balanced.
There is no such thing as an egalitarian balance between the sexes no matter what the current culture teaches people.
The perpetuation in this thread of the stereotype of the nagging wife who must be acquiesced to, by posters who usually very angrily challenge the use of stereotypes nonetheless, is very amusing.
The perpetuation in this thread of the stereotype of the nagging wife who must be acquiesced to, by posters who usually very angrily challenge the use of stereotypes nonetheless, is very amusing.
Stereotypes are inevitable, as heuristics in making decisions. What's so indecorous to admit is how often and how astonishingly a stereotype might actually be true.
The stereotype driving this thread is that men whose marriages fall apart tend to be uncommunicative, aloof, socially obtuse and situationally unaware. As a divorced man of middle-age, I fit this stereotype, and I have excellent reason to suppose that most such men would fit this stereotype.
The issue in this thread is less about the "nagging wife", but the wife who imputes her life's disappointments specifically to her marriage. Continuing with the parade of stereotypes, men ceaselessly complain that married life constrains them and saps their youthful vigor, but in reality they are happier being married, and blame marriage for their woes, merely as rhetorical ploy. Women on the other hand are more likely to act on their dissatisfaction.
Hopefully the above litany of stereotypes was suitably amusing.
Ohio_peasant- From my viewpoint, the way to respond to unreasonable demands is not to ignore them, but to discuss it and show FROM YOUR VIEWPOINT why it is unreasonable, and to LISTEN to your partner's reason for asking it of you. To ignore it will result in the explosion we all hope to avoid. As the wife of someone who is definitely anal-retentive about SOME things and not others, I have learned that it is important to understand why certain things are important to him, and decide if this is really the hill I want to die on. We often have to find compromises that allow each of us to get what we want without impinging on the freedoms/feelings of our partner. I tried the ignoring thing and it only resulted in us fighting over tiny things that weren't the real issue, because the real issue had been ignored for so long that the resentment boiled over into something completely unrelated. Talking about things as they come up and working on a solution in the moment prevents the simmering anger that explodes into the "blind-side". If my husband simply ignored things I ask of him, I would be so angry. If he tells me he doesn't want to do it and why, I might understand and agree, or I might just say "fine, don't do it then" and let it go, but at least I would have the satisfaction of knowing that I was "heard".
So frequently wives tell their husbands about problems they want to address in the marriage, and the husband tunes it out for YEARS and then claims to be blindsided. I have heard that story time and time again. The men in this article are classic examples.
Or maybe the wife is CONSTANTLY telling their husbands about the problems they always seem to have...stupid little trivial crap...that the husbands just cant listen to it anymore???
Yes, it's very common. Eventually the wife gives up trying and the husband feels relieved that she has stopped "nagging" when in fact her silence should set off alarm bells. She has begun the process of leaving, if only emotionally at this point. He may claim to be shocked later, but he just wasn't paying attention.
constant nagging should set off alarm bells...don't marry this crabass alarm bells
unfortunately they hide this until its too late
Absolute generalizations are rarely correct. Is this self-referential?
Currently the stock market has a severe problem. But not being a trader or a speculator, it is perhaps best to ignore it. Minor sores, infections or wounds can be ignored; the body is remarkably resilient in healing itself. An obnoxious neighbor can be ignored, instead of complaining or causing an altercation. A nagging boss can often be ignored; so many seemingly imperative problems at work have a habit of sorting themselves out, if quietly left alone.
Often the attempt to solve a problem precipitates more strife and backlash than letting the matter fester. This isn't because one is purposely indifferent, but because there is no good solution, or at least none at reasonable cost; and so ignoring the problem is the lesser evil. But sometimes the situation rapidly goes unstable, and what began as minor explodes past controllability. This I think is apt metaphor for divorce.
I do not advocate willful condescension. But it does seem to me that quite often doing nothing is the best course. If one turns out to be spectacularly wrong, this is deeply unfortunate, and sometimes the perpetrator of the inaction (is this a contradiction?) is blameworthy. But not always.
It seems to me that we retain a cultural construct, where it is the husband's responsibility to accede to the wife's requests, and very much less so in the complementary direction. How often do we hear of a husband who left the marriage because his wife didn't listen to him? This isn't to say that men are angels, and never leave their wives without cause. But it does seem that it is the wives that resent the lack of communication more so than the husbands, and regard this lack to be substantive cause for divorce, far more so than husbands would. One would hope that in an egalitarian society, such behaviors would be more gender-balanced.
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Stereotypes are inevitable, as heuristics in making decisions. What's so indecorous to admit is how often and how astonishingly a stereotype might actually be true.
The stereotype driving this thread is that men whose marriages fall apart tend to be uncommunicative, aloof, socially obtuse and situationally unaware. As a divorced man of middle-age, I fit this stereotype, and I have excellent reason to suppose that most such men would fit this stereotype.
The issue in this thread is less about the "nagging wife", but the wife who imputes her life's disappointments specifically to her marriage. Continuing with the parade of stereotypes, men ceaselessly complain that married life constrains them and saps their youthful vigor, but in reality they are happier being married, and blame marriage for their woes, merely as rhetorical ploy. Women on the other hand are more likely to act on their dissatisfaction.
Hopefully the above litany of stereotypes was suitably amusing.
Funny how so many of them never saw it coming....They didn't realize they were unhappy? They didn't realize she was unhappy? I mean come on....some wives had affairs....one was pregnant by another man! Wife signs a lease....wife moves to Canada....how do you not notice any of these things? And if those things happen you think either one of you is happy? That's like banging your head on a wall a few dozen times and expecting different results on the 37 hit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
