When it's a one-way street...part 6

[~ kd ~]

My post was a little jumbled. I meant your H's classic LBS mistake was the bit about bringing up his effort at the dinner.

Regarding this past convo, Walking is exactly spot on. That's how you "end" the conversation.

A lot of what appears to be going on in the dynamic of the convos is reacting. That's where the 48 hour rule is very important. Validate the feeling, keep doing what you are doing, and let it go.

IF it is something that needs to be discussed, it can be tabled again any time after the 48 hours.

IF during that part of the convo, emotions come into play again. Use the same technique to validate and again impose the 48 hour rule.

Eventually, convos about these types of things can become more logic based, than emotion based. You are changing yourself which can set the stage to work through issues without emotions getting in the way.

[Crazyville]

Walk off? Really? So....

H: Whenever I do something wrong, you apply some catastrophic consequence to our M.
CV: Catastrophic, like what?
H: Like sleeping in the other bedroom.
CV: (Reflective)..... Okay, I understand your point and how you feel about my response.
(Walk off...)

Really?

And this is somehow ultimately going to improve my M? I totally agree it will change it. I totally get how it makes for a short convo. But If I shared my feelings about something, and H gave me a token response and walked off, I wouldn't bother to share with him again. If he did that to me, I would simply shut off completely. Why bother?

I can't imagine the dynamic of this coming out in a more positive way.

[Crazyville]

BTW, what exactly is the 48 hour rule?

[Accuray]

CV, I loved that you posted this, I wanted to chip in my two cents if it's not too late:

This week while S was away at camp, I made a point to engage with H in a positive way. We didn't do any more walks because of his blistered toes, but we did go to dinner twice. At dinner, H didn't take any food off of my plate but made a point to mention it. I don't think he intended to be belligerent, but I still find it a bit awkward. I also suggested that he start looking forward at the calendar and plan a boating trip. I did not go overboard and over-invest.

Awesome! That's all good.

On Sunday morning, H made a comment to me that he thinks S watches too much tv and was asking me for my ideas on what to do about that. I turned and looked at him, and then looked past him at the tv that HE had on. I didn't laugh out loud but did think it was rather hypocritical of him. I didn't tell him that. Instead, I suggested that the best way to teach children is by example, that if you tell them something but then live something else, they can see right through it. H got extremely defensive about his tv watching, gave me a bunch of reasons why his programs (Glee, NCIS) are so much better than the cr@p cartoons that S watches, that he can still be productive while the tv is on, etc.

H took a risk here -- he opened himself up and came to you looking to engage and you kind of gave him a smackdown. Granted, given the situation, you could view it like no-win "does my ass look fat" type question. In situations like that, your best bet is not to give a direct answer, because doing so is just going to hurt the other person.

Here's how I would have handled it FWIW: I would have asked H what he thought you should do about it -- i.e. don't answer his question, turn it back to him, then just engage with him on discussing his ideas in a supportive way. Really, it's his problem, and you're not responsible for solving it, and he may not really want you to. Chances are he just wants to be listened to, and to feel that he engaged to work with you on something. If you view that as his real objective, then the answer to his question doesn't matter at all.

Now if you feel you MUST influence him, you can use a "Socratic Method" and lead him to the answer by asking him questions. This has to be done delicately and skillfully, as asking questions that are too leading or disrespectful defeat the purpose.

He wasn't calm when he was saying it, treating me very disrespectfully.

Yeah, too late at that point, you'd already nuked him so his emotions were up. Game over when you get to that point.

I planned on going to a potluck for boy scouts with him at noon, but I bailed because I didn't want to be around him. That made him even more angry because he wanted me there anyway.

That probably felt like punishment to him, maybe it was. If you need space it can be helpful to tell him as much before he leaves -- "I know you want me to go but I'm not feeling good about our discussion earlier, I need some time to regroup. I'll do my best to be back in a good mood by the time you return"

So, I'm looking for suggestions as to how I could have handled this differently/better, since I know I can't change him. Obviously, I could have gone to the potluck. That doesn't address the conflict in the morning which is more what I'm interested in.

Step one is that if H engages with you to help him solve a problem, see it for what it is, it's an "olive branch". Secondly realize that he's taking an chance an exposing himself to rejection and ridicule by making the overture, so appreciate the risk he's taking in an effort to connect with you. Then, try to figure out what H is really looking for here -- is he looking for a solution, is he looking to be listened to, is he looking for a discussion? What do you think he really wants? Tread carefully and try to tease this out by asking a couple questions. Try to build some rapport by probing. "Why do you feel S watches too much TV? Why does it bother you? What do you think he should be doing instead? How can we make the alternate activity more appealing?"

I also learned something about myself this weekend. I think I've touched on it before but was unable to put words to it until this weekend. I really resent that H is so comfortable with putting me in the traditional male role. Until the last 6 months, I've made considerably more money than him, and he readily admits it doesn't bother him.

Some would say a lack of ego like that is a virtue. Why is it important to you that he make more money than you do? Many would say it's more important to be happy than to be rich, so if he's achieved happiness at his current income level, that's a victory.

At the same time, I'm going back to school to be able to advance my career, and he has never done anything to improve his career.

Why does he need to improve his career? If he's happy with it, why isn't that good enough? Did he ask you to go back to school to advance your career, or was that your choice? If it was your choice, then you can't make him responsible for it. I think your resentment is justified if he pressures you to make more money but does nothing himself. If he puts no pressure on you and makes no comments about wanting you to earn more, then why does he owe you any action on his part?

I spent a good part of the week fixing the sprinkler system and rewiring the yard lights, because he "didn't know it was his responsibility so it wasn't on his radar." Well, we aren't rich and don't have a groundskeeper, which means he had to think it was on my list of responsibilities.

Not necessarily -- there's a difference between neglecting it because it didn't bother him and just assuming that you're going to fix it. He obviously didn't care that the sprinkler system was broken or that the yard lights weren't working, it wasn't high on his list. The fact that it's high on your list doesn't make you right. You could have told him that you noticed the sprinkler system and yard lights aren't working and that it bothers you and see what he says. If he says nothing you could ask him to fix them, or ask if he will help you fix them. If you decide instead to just do it yourself, then you own that decision. You're asking him to mindread here that these things are important to you and expected of him.

I also put a good amount of time into analyzing the work on the deck, making sure the builders are doing things the way we want them to. There have been several problems/mistakes that I've had to ask them to address.

Whose project is this, his or yours? Whose idea was it, who selected the builders, and who has been "handling" the project? You, him, or both of you together?

I told H a month ago that I need him to get more involved, to step up and share ownership of this deck project, that I need help, that this isn't my thing (I do computers, not decks.)

Is it his thing? Does he have expertise in this area that make him more qualified? When you told him he needed to be more involved, what did he say? Did you define what "more involved" means to you? In a situation like this, you may need to get more specific, and tell him exactly what you need him to do to be more involved -- i.e. "I'd like you to walk the deck every night and look over what the workers did that day. If you see anything that looks wrong, let me know and we can look at it together." That type of thing -- specific statements of your expectations that can be measured as "he did it" or "he didn't". Getting more involved is too vague.

Now you may think that's ridiculous and exhausting to have to manage him that way, and you're right. The problem is, though, that your partnership is broken and you're not working well as a team. Therefore, you need to go through a transition period to get the train back on the tracks, and that takes "over the top" effort in many regards. Once you get there, however, he'll better understand what "get more involved" means and you won't have to be as specific, but for now you do.

I mentioned it again Sunday afternoon, so H steps out on the deck, says he doesn't see anything wrong. I tell him there are at least a half dozen issues. I show him one thing, he starts telling me that I'm just a perfectionist. The thing I showed him was a spot in the deck where the boards dip and make a trough because the cross-supports are set down 1/4". After H takes a few seconds to look at it, he decides it really is wrong. So he goes from accusing me of being a perfectionist to the builders aren't meeting the minimal requirements of level and square. He's not helping in the process AND beating me up for what I'm contributing. It seems to be a lose-lose for me.

You can call him on that, tell him that's not helping, and is making you feel badly, but then follow up by telling him what you need (i.e. change the subject back to something productive)


CV, overall I think these overtures on behalf of H and willingness to enlist your opinions are very positive things. When I really thought you didn't love him, I felt very differently about your sitch, but now that I know you really would like this to work out, I'm very hopeful for you. I don't think you need to solve everything all at once. Pick one element of your interactions and focus on marginal improvement in that area alone, and then build from there.

Accuray

[jks]

Accuray, I don't know what you do for a living but I think marriage counseling could make you millions... just sayin.

[RoRoinMD]

CV, Accuray is giving you some good advice. I agree...take it one thing at a time. I like everything to be great all at once too so I can relate to that.

I think you are very brave to keep digging deep to get the answers you seek.

[Accuray]

Thanks you two...

CV, you know I'm reading "His Needs, Her Needs" and you've read it too. One of the 10 core "emotional needs" outlined is "Financial Support", and it says that's a common one for women. If you feel your resentment is triggered by the fact that this is a top need for you and he's not meeting it, then that may beg a different course of action.

In that case, once you get things on a better footing, I think you have that discussion and start a negotiation process with him to get that need better met.

It's interesting to me because you and your H seem to agree on the goal -- both of you want a better marriage, more respect, less criticism, etc.. You're perfectly aligned on the fact that you want something different than what you have now. That's good, that means you're both motivated to work on it.

The next level down you're not aligned, your vision of having your needs met is in conflict with some of his vision of having his needs met, and that's where negotiation comes into play.

In my sitch, we're not aligned on the goal -- I want a better marriage and W wants to leave well enough alone -- that's a fundamental disconnect that causes my actions to tend to spin in circles.

I think you should view it as a positive that you and H share the same high level goal.

Accuray

[Crazyville]

I think you should view it as a positive that you and H share the same high level goal.

Is that an advantage? At least in your sitch, you can base your future decision on the reality that lays before, you instead of on a dangling carrot that you may or may not ever reach in an infinite timeline.

Here's how I would have handled it FWIW: I would have asked H what he thought you should do about it -- i.e. don't answer his question, turn it back to him, then just engage with him on discussing his ideas in a supportive way.

I actually learned this technique from H; he rarely ever answers a direct question. I've tried using it on him but it just pixxes him off immediately. He says that he's not creative and knows that I am and that he wouldn't have bothered to ask me if he didn't want my input. Then he rarely likes my input. It makes me feel like he just asks the question so that he can criticize my answer. I agree what you're suggesting should work though; so I'll make a mental note to apply it next time and try to remember how the convo goes for feedback. And, no, I don't feel like I MUST influence him.

Yeah, too late at that point, you'd already nuked him so his emotions were up. Game over when you get to that point.

Can I just walk away at this point? He denies his pixxy attitude, so I'm sure he'll think I'm nuts.

That probably felt like punishment to him, maybe it was. If you need space it can be helpful to tell him as much before he leaves -- "I know you want me to go but I'm not feeling good about our discussion earlier, I need some time to regroup. I'll do my best to be back in a good mood by the time you return"

I did tell him something pretty close to that. It didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was that I wasn't there so he could feel "normal." Even my having a migraine is hardly a valid reason for him.

Some would say a lack of ego like that is a virtue. Why is it important to you that he make more money than you do? Many would say it's more important to be happy than to be rich, so if he's achieved happiness at his current income level, that's a victory.

My concern is not his ego, it's his sense of responsibility. He's not happy at HIS income level, he's happy at MY income level. Before we got married, we discussed this aspect of our R. He promised that when we had our first child together, that I could quit working and be a SAHM. Circumstances haven't prevented it, lifestyle has. He's had a number of bouts of unemployment, during which I was earning the money to pay the household bills, including his child support judgment from his first M. Didn't bother him at all, at least not enough after six months of unemployment to prevent him from buying an RV to tow his boat around. I'm going back to school because I know I NEED to have another job when my current contract is over, and if I want to be able to compete with the other people applying for the same job I might want, I need to have something to offer. I've done more than enough in my career to appease my ego; now it's about a sense of survival. The computer industry moves so fast, if you're not keeping up with technology, you're already obsolete. He does the same thing I do, and it doesn't get easier to find a job at his age.

We have talked about it in the past. I resent it, I know I do. I'm not sure I would have married him if I knew his lifestyle was going to prevent my plans for being a SAHM. Regardless, no response from him.

Not necessarily -- there's a difference between neglecting it because it didn't bother him and just assuming that you're going to fix it. He obviously didn't care that the sprinkler system was broken or that the yard lights weren't working, it wasn't high on his list. The fact that it's high on your list doesn't make you right. You could have told him that you noticed the sprinkler system and yard lights aren't working and that it bothers you and see what he says. If he says nothing you could ask him to fix them, or ask if he will help you fix them. If you decide instead to just do it yourself, then you own that decision. You're asking him to mindread here that these things are important to you and expected of him.

The sprinkler system hasn't been working for 3 years, at least (meaning some of the heads are frozen and don't rotate.) H would tell me he was going to turn the sprinklers on, I would point out that there were bad heads all over the place. He would turn it on anyway and walk away. H was involved in the decision to put it in, he still uses it albeit broken, he sometimes schedules the turn-up or shut-down, so to me he seems interested in having/using it, but not being responsible for maintaining it. It reminds me of his oldest daughter that asked us once when she was a teenager if she could use our car instead of hers, because she didn't like to have to pay for gas.

The part that disturbs me is that I did get offered assistance from a neighbor and from the contractor. I didn't have to ask them. They seem to have the concept of chivalry, my H I have to ask. I own that need of mine. I don't know what to do about that. I want my H to treat me like a lady (to open the door for me without my having to ask him to open the door for me, for example.)

But you are absolutely right -- I own it. I feel responsible for having my things maintained. I'll at least get in and see if I can figure it out. If I can't do it myself, I'll hire someone. (Last time I hired a handyman to do a few things, H was mad.) I wish I had a partner. With H, I feel like I'm dealing with the responsibilities of life all alone, or working with a child that I have to ask/tell every little thing, which simply doesn't meet my definition of a partner. I'll own that it's my definition.

Whose project is this, his or yours? Whose idea was it, who selected the builders, and who has been "handling" the project? You, him, or both of you together?

The deck was rotting and needed to be taken down. I found a deck style that I liked and showed H and we agreed. We both pursued quotes from builders and agreed on the one we have. That was about the last that H had to do with it. It is not his thing either. I've asked him for specific assistance and he doesn't deliver. I've been handling it pretty much ever since we hired the builder. Again, I wish I didn't feel like I was alone with the responsibility, especially since I have no skill in the area to fall back on.

I don't think you need to solve everything all at once. Pick one element of your interactions and focus on marginal improvement in that area alone, and then build from there.

What one element should I start with? It all seems so overwhelming. I'm not sure I have the stamina. I'm not sure it will be worth it when I arrive, with everything I need to compromise to call it successful.

I'm whining. Feel free to ignore. I just needed a 15-second pity-party. But I'm over it, so now what?

[~ kd ~]

Walk off? Really?

Yes, really.

Here's the thing. What needs to happen is SOMETHING needs to change. What the results will be? None of us know UNTIL you try it. Then, let's review the results. One time will not make a change. It needs to be consistent, over a period of time.

Lets just say that MAYBE things would get worse. Then you can always go back to the original way, or a new way can be tried.

What HE (likely) KNOWS, is that when he triggers, he probably comes at you in order to feel better (it serves him). You're removing the ability for him to serve THAT need through you. He'll find a different way to vent, rather than venting on you, because you are choosing not to play his game. It is his choice to trigger on what sounded like a very valid response from you.

BTW, what exactly is the 48 hour rule?

48 hours before responding to what appears to be a direct question or request for advice.

Many things can happen in that 48 hours. He might solve his own problem. He might decide that it is not a problem. He might even decide it's not a hill he wants to die on. (ie. Arguing with you, so he may approach you in a more constructive way.)

And yes, Accuray's suggestion is also a great option:

Here's how I would have handled it FWIW: I would have asked H what he thought you should do about it -- i.e. don't answer his question, turn it back to him, then just engage with him on discussing his ideas in a supportive way. Really, it's his problem, and you're not responsible for solving it, and he may not really want you to. Chances are he just wants to be listened to, and to feel that he engaged to work with you on something. If you view that as his real objective, then the answer to his question doesn't matter at all.

A couple reasons I did not put that up:

+ first, I did not have the time

+ second, too many options means the possibility of doing nothing

+ third, I simply want to be SBT rather than discussing the pros and cons of any particular sitch or possible option. SBT is "there is no bad choice. Only lack of doing. Results are monitored and SBT course corrections are made."

[Crazyville]

He'll find a different way to vent, rather than venting on you, because you are choosing not to play his game

Yes, he will. He takes his anger out on S. Not physical, just crabbing and yelling at him for no appropriate reason.