Gentlemen, does your SO's earning intimidate you? (movies, separated, couples)

[stan4]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Perhaps the fight was for dominance? Territory? Self-defense?

Animals fight for those reasons, and they don't have any emotions either. They have instincts.

Certainly is not the paragon of rational thought or behavior, regardless of the source.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by smartalx

Well, did you read this?

I know it's posted after your reply but I wrote it as you were writing. From the very beginning, I've been trying to communicate that we are not on the same page, albeit not very well and of course I did get carried away with defending my position so I can't say that you are wrong. Once again.

I feel a bit victimized by a strawman. Probably some of my own making.


You should be a mod Urban.

No, I shouldn't be a mod. It would take far more time than I care to spend on things which ultimately I've got to learn may matter as grand issues in the larger scheme but about which people shall never agree and about which I can do bloody little.

Such as the subject of this thread.

Let's stop and examine it a bit, shall we?


I stated early on MY view of my spouse earning more than I -- which she now DOES. She didn't at the beginning of the marriage but I supported her during her period of furthering her education (she worked, but she was living with her parents -- I THOUGHT because it was more practical, later learning through the trial of time it's because she's the most horrible money-manager on the entire planet -- ergo, she traded one support-system for another) and now her salary has bypassed my own significantly.

It's ONE variation on the theme, and they're endlessly myriad.

I've wandered a bit, let me stop myself and return to my point to YOU as a man who is clearly feeling both indignation and passion regarding this:

You're never, ever going to "win" this one. If it helps any, neither will they. And perhaps that's a large portion, even the root of the problem: This whole "us and THEM" attitude.

Now, before it sounds like I'm criticizing or chastising, let me say that I know where you're coming from. Not because I necessarily believe it, at least not in entirety. Rather, because I see that you're attempting to point out certain larger realities which tend to TIE IN to the thinking which causes many men to feel a sense of emasculation if spousal salary passes their own.

You have, however, whatever reality DOES reside in your arguments, taken it too far in your attempts to explain yourself. How and why? Because of several reasons, some pertaining to you, some pertaining to the nature of people at large when it comes to volatile argument.

By way of example, let's refer to my earlier illustration of "REAL" housewifery. I cited a whole string of jobs which I truly feel pertains to real housewifery because I think being a true housewife is a REAL, painstaking, sometimes stressful, always vigilant, frequently action-packed JOB.

Some gals are cheering in their minds as I say that, but let me say that in my earlier illustration I also stated IF ONE ACTUALLY DOES THOSE THINGS.

Just because something is in one's job description and one holds said position doesn't mean everyone with that description or position is a paragon of virtue who fulfills the role faithfully.

Yet just as I shudder to see you painting men as devoted paragons of virtue (and yes, I know you don't mean to speak in absolutes but even generally people as a whole are lazy) so I shudder to see the women with whom you're arguing often doing the same for women. As the animosity builds on both sides of the argument I see both the Brown Cow Theorem and the standard area of Male/Female misunderstanding coming into effect.


The Brown Cow Theorem deals with the way people prefer argument over discussion. It actually has less to do with the degree of animation or tone than it does with productivity. It is often exemplified by people who take virtually ANY statement and try to pretend another person is speaking in absolutes, after which they'll deny it via exception as though this somehow disproves everything the first person said. I named the theorem thusly after countless repetitions of this approach by people, after which I decided it IS demonstrable if only one has a bit of patience, and after coming up with the illustrative example that if I had a field with 29 brown cows and one brown cow with a decidedly reddish cast to her fur, someone WILL argue with my assertion that I have a field full of brown cows by vehemently insisting I couldn't accurately say that because of the presence of the aforementioned red cow.

That would be their story and they would stick to it.

BOTH sides (not every person involved, but both sides certainly and I'm NOT going to waste my time wandering back and citing examples to people who should be capable of comprehensive and critical reading) have done this to some extent.

Then there's the standard Male/Female misunderstanding which always comes up. Someone accurately stated the imbalance of perception of worth with regard to work earlier (a FINE bit of writing, I'll later scroll back and rep you!) because it's true -- people tend to NOT see value in mere chore accomplishment without a specific monetary value being assigned. It denigrates the value of housewives or house husbands who really do put in time and effort.

But I see it over and over again: When a question arises for Men, asking how/why we feel regarding some aspect of relationships a ton of women will actually ARGUE whatever we say, at first under the guise of "I'm only asking WHY" and shortly in out-and-out denial.

Don't crow, guys; we do this too, and I'm learning it's just as often. I know I've certainly been guilty of it.

This is because each gender has a high degree of egocentricity when it comes to issues, each gender being certain they understand their side of the issue; and each gender perceives the actions of the other gender in a certain light and thus is certain based on their own observations and opinions they've weighed, measured and accounted for the other gender's thoughts and actions accurately.

Men and women alike resent perceived injustices. They also have a tendency to get carried away as to what constitutes an "injustice".

And neither is terribly interested in admitting the other side may have a point, more's the shame.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by stan4

Certainly is not the paragon of rational thought or behavior, regardless of the source.

But acting out of instinct IS rational, because it's for the interest of self-preservation, in the long run. It is rational to survive.

By the way, I'm not saying that some men aren't emotional. But I don't understand those types of men either.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by TKramar

But acting out of instinct IS rational, because it's for the interest of self-preservation, in the long run. It is rational to survive.

By the way, I'm not saying that some men aren't emotional. But I don't understand those types of men either.

Most victims of trauma are young men who do stupid sh*t despite their instinct to survive.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch

And neither is terribly interested in admitting the other side may have a point, more's the shame.

I think one side vs another arguing is fruitless (here) because message boards do not constitute essays where generalizations might have a place. The points are relative to the individual making them. They aren't points that can be imposed willy nilly to other individuals engaged in the conversation. If that's the goal, again, an essay would be easier to swallow, imo. Whenever individuals are involved, tho, I don't see how it can go any other way, regardless of topic.

For example, when I'm at work running experiments for my research it doesn't matter what the literature has to say about the results if my results do not align with the expected outcome. I have to run them again, review the protocol, my approach, and make changes where necessary. The variables involved in my approach need to be accounted for. Even when my results align with the literature, and I go to write up the paper that follows a successful project, I must include my methods and experimental design. I simply cannot write up a summary and state "this is how it is". I must include the details "this is how it is" under the following conditions A. B. & C. It's relative. I don't see much difference when conversing with individuals.

[Braunwyn]

Something else came to mind for me that I wanted to share before I head off with the dog. It echos what others sort of mentioned earlier in that some guys garner value in relation to their wives. It doesn't matter if they are poor or rich. It just matters that their work holds greater financial value ($5 or $50k).

I question whether this is a gender issue at all. Some people revel in the hardships of others. The kind of folk that can only be right if somebody else is wrong. It's the competing with the Joneses mentality. It doesn't matter what the Jones' particularly have as long as s/he has just a bit more. And gender doesn't seem to make a difference, so it's unfair to peg this trait onto men only.

[nuala]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I question whether this is a gender issue at all. Some people revel in the hardships of others.

You nailed it. It's not a gender issue, it's a personality issue. You have to earn less, or be more disabled than me, or be mentally feebler than me -- any of the above will make ME feel more powerful.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by nuala

You nailed it. It's not a gender issue, it's a personality issue. You have to earn less, or be more disabled than me, or be mentally feebler than me -- any of the above will make ME feel more powerful.

I agree. There are lots of men who couldn't care less how much their wives make (more, less, etc). But the fact that there are so many that do (I'd wager the majority, even if it's a slim majority) says something.

[Sanderling]

Originally Posted by smartalx

I mean no disrespect and I apologize for any offense I've committed. But do you know any of your female friends who gave up their "dreams" after they had their first child? I know quite a lot. It's actually becoming more and more common today. Women as a matter of course change their minds constantly. I know I know. More sweeping generalizations. Well if it's sweeping then why do they call it Woman's prerogative? Men change their minds too but we don't do it enough to have a catch-phrase named after it. Many men understand that a woman's mind is like a tornado. You never know where it will turn next. So her dreams are in flux. That isn't to say that a woman's dreams aren't important. It's just you know... fool me twice... shame on me. Women have just cried wolf one too many times.

It's impossible to believe you "mean no disrespect" when you say things like this about women.

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

So, the exchange for default leader is preferential treatment. Are you telling me that you have a way of performing medical miracles? Because the only preferential treatment I can fathom at this juncture is for men to take on the responsibility of child birth.

There seems to be some confusion about what "preferential treatment" is. I have no idea what you interpret to be, but I think I explained it in an earlier post. I'll repeat again so you don't have to spend time looking it up. Preferential treatment is the right to be cared for. ESPECIALLY cared for. Yes a wife cares for her husband, but when the decision of which spouse comes first, the wife always goes first. You get the coat when there is one. You get the umbrella if it's too small for two people. The man runs to the car and you wait for him to pick you up. It means when there is an inevitable imbalance the advantage goes to the person with preferential treatment. And if you think there isn't any imbalance then you must really live a charmed life, or you get the preferential treatment so often you don't notice any imbalance. Preferential treatment is basically chivalry.

There is another point in your blog that I would like to address. I've come across these assertions in the past and I've always had a difficult time understanding the pov.

Smartalx's blog-"A problem with this is becoming obvious. Are they just supposed to do what she wants all the time? Of course not. If that were true then the leader wouldn't have any responsibility at all and leadership would certainly have no advantage. Occasionally the leader will have to contradict what the follower wants. Sometimes he can not go along with the follower's desires. But he needs discernment."

This ^^^ doesn't make sense to me.

It's a balance. Many times only one person can make a choice. See below for an example, although there are other scenarios too. Sometimes what is best for the couple or the family is what the follower wants. But sometimes what is best is what the leader wants. And sometimes it's neither. Obviously the best thing is to sit down and talk about it, especially for big decisions. But when the answer (for small decisions) is still not clear and a decision has to be made then there needs to be someone who gets to practice at deciding. Making a good decision beneficial for everyone concerned is a skill. It's not automatic. And you can't always take the time to talk about it. You have to be able to foresee consequences and side effects. The default leader takes note of these side effects and processes them for later. We all do this of course. It's part of what makes us human. We learn. Men and women both do it. But if you get to practice more often on small things, you can be more skilled at it when the big decisions come. That way, even when a big decision needs to be talked about, the person who has gotten to practice deciding on the small issues has a better chance to bring new ideas to the table. If your husband didn't have practice making decisions, he might not have thought to consider the plumbing problems and he might not have thought to itemize the costs for you. He might have just argued and fought for "his way." You both would have been pissed off at each other and you might have put your foot down because the danger to the house before hurricane season is so important. Then you'd be up the creek with this plumbing problem, literally. Maybe in your case it would have still worked out the same way but the couple down the street might have been a different case.

Someone practicing making decisions on the small matters can help to aid the couple to make wise decisions together for the big matters.

I certainly understand that this dynamic exists in some marriages. One spouse wants what s/he wants and the other has to put her/his foot down. But, I don't feel it's appropriate to lump all marriages into the same pot. Earlier in this thread it had to be explained to you that the women under discussion in this thread were of a different class where your approach did not apply. In that the expectation of not having to work has little place in the life of a professional woman. I differentiate marriages in the same way. Are the two people involved mature, reasoned adults, or does one need to be contended with as if they are a child? The broad brush just doesn't work.

Talk of class is offensive. Just because someone is professional and makes money doesn't mean they are better people or more capable of making decisions than the homemaker. I'd venture a guess that the homemaker multitasks a lot more than the busy person in the office. Frankly it's rude of you to think that you are a better person and you should be allowed to make more decisions because you aren't a homemaker. The fact that you would mention that proves how one-sided your vision is. If I was a homemaker or married to one I would demand an apology.

You being a professional isn't why your husband didn't "put his foot down" on the plumbing issue. It was his love and respect for his wife. That's the way it should be. Love and Respect guide our actions towards our spouse. Class and career choice have nothing to do with it.

I've been with my husband for ~decade and we have never reached a point of contention when it comes to big decisions.

And these cases usually don't happen for big decisions. Big decisions like tree/plumbing are too important for one person to handle amicably. But the arguments over small decisions can add up and lead to strife.

There has never been something I wanted or he wanted of an unreasonable nature where the other had to put a foot down. I'm not saying there hasn't been disagreement, but when disagreement arises we will present our argument and compromise ensues.

Compromise isn't always an option. And let me ask you this. Is every little decision important to you? Where you go to dinner? Who decides? Are there times when you don't care and are too tired to make a decision about where to eat dinner? Maybe it's not dinner. Maybe it's picking a present for your child. Or maybe it's choosing what card to send out at Christmas. Or maybe it's which car to drive to the inlaws. Or maybe it's which gas station to get gas at. Or maybe it's which grocery store to go to. Or which movie to see. I could go on but you see my point. You don't always care about the decision but you know one needs to be made so you just want a decision made? Surely there are times when you just don't care enough to make a decision. And of course there are times when he doesn't care too, but you do. Obviously if he doesn't care and you do then you choose. 99% of the time I'm sure someone just chooses. But what happens when neither of you care and someone has to buck up and make that decision? That decision belongs to the "default leader." In the 1% of the scenarios the default leader has to make a choice. The other person gets to sit back and relax.

Sitting back and relaxing while the other person isn't... that's preferential treatment.

For example...

...The budget was to come from my yearly bonus.

Do you have separate bank accounts? Why did it have to come out of your bonus? Is it just that the bonus was the source of the extra money at the time or did your DH have a few thousand dollars in the bank he didn't want to touch?

When the time came my dh approached me with concerns. We were getting ~6k+. Not much, but enough. He noted A. we'd lose ~2k to taxes. He was correct. B. He was concerned about our plumbing since we had a problem some months ago in the basement. That's been his thing in the home and I don't get involved with it. He broke it all down, showed me the numbers, and it was risky. After a 2hr conversation, with my dad involved on skype, we decided to purchase a few power tools (<$500) and tackle what we could on our own. A few weeks later we indeed had a plumbing problem and that absorbed my bonus.

Notice you got the other big man in your life involved. Naturally we are talking about the shell of the home so it's not surprising that the men were interested in getting involved. (Accuse me of generalizing all you want but more men choose careers in Architecture and more women choose careers in Interior Design.) Still it's interesting that you involved the two most important men in your life. But that's perfectly fine and I don't think you are less of a human being for it. It's smart to turn to people with knowledge to help you to make decisions. And again, big decisions don't belong to the default leader. Small decisions do.

That's how it goes in a marriage between two adults, imo. There is no reason for him to contradict what I want and put his foot down. OTOH, when I consider my boss at work, as a leader, my opinion at the end of the day doesn't have much power. She'll make the decisions as she sees fit, for better or worse and I have to go along with it. Again, that is not how marriages work, not marriages between adults.

Husband and wife are equal... life partners.

What you have in mind is a marriage that includes a partner that is emotionally stunted where power must be exerted.

I get that a lot from people who pick and choose what they want to hear from me. They make the blanket statement that I am forcing one person to be a doormat and the other person an overlord. I keep telling you that this isn't the case and you keep ignoring me.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? It's early, so I apologize if I'm communicating well.

No, you are NOT communicating well. You did after all forget to put the word "not" in there. LOL

Really your entire post is only applicable if you ignore what I wrote here:

"In general though, the context of this blog post is about the 1% of the time in which the leader is not obvious. In 99% of the situations in life the two will either collaborate or one will be an obvious leader."