Comments on: "I didn't love my wife before we got married."

"I didn't love my wife before we got married."

Kitteh — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:19:32 -0800

And even worse, it seemed that the harder I tried to be sentimental and lovey-dovey, the less it was reciprocated. "But eventually it became clear. Through giving, through doing things for my wife, the emotion that I had been so desperately seeking naturally came about. It wasn't something I could force, just something that would come about as a result of my giving." (SLHuffPo)

By: lydhre

lydhre — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:26:04 -0800

Of course, he seems to ignore all those people who date LONG ENOUGH to roll all the way around from infatuation to lasting love.

By: Greg_Ace

Greg_Ace — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:30:34 -0800

That fire I felt, it was simply that: emotional fire. From the excitement of dating a woman I felt like I could marry. But it wasn't love. Yeah, there's a word for that: infatuation. Is this another one of those things that every generation has to find out for themselves all over again?

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:30:55 -0800

Nice sharing! I wonder if they will still be together in 5 years. I kinda doubt it. Because as our marriage progressed, I found myself offering to help out around the house more and more. And after each time, there would be this look she would give me. This look of absolute love. One that was soft and so beautiful.

By: Greg_Ace

Greg_Ace — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:31:36 -0800

Or what lydhre said.

By: belarius

belarius — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:31:42 -0800

Given that we have a wide variety of fairly precise terms to describe different kinds of emotional investment and commitment (infatuation, lust, codependence, etc. etc.), I think I'm going to take my vocabulary cues from someone whose all-in approach to defining a single word continues to reflect his fairly narrow experience.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:33:04 -0800

"No, love isn't an emotion or even a noun. It's a verb. Better defined as giving. As putting someone else's needs above your own." This is pretty much a lesson most people would do well to learn, I think.

By: tylerkaraszewski

tylerkaraszewski — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:33:41 -0800

He does make a valid point that relationships are work and that making them last is a constant effort but at the same time this does not read like a piece written by someone who has actually been married and had a child. It's written as if by a high school kid who is retelling a story told by his parents. I mean, "I throw my socks on the floor and my wife doesn't like it!" Seriously? This isn't a caricature of what marriage is supposed to be like for people who've never been married?

By: EmpressCallipygos

EmpressCallipygos — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:35:32 -0800

Of course, he seems to ignore all those people who date LONG ENOUGH to roll all the way around from infatuation to lasting love. He's ignoring them because they already get it. He's talking to the people who don't learn the difference at all, no matter how long they date. Or how long they're married.

By: gilrain

gilrain — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:47:07 -0800

This is a simple and frequently-discovered theory of love, it seems. It was described to me hundreds of times in my adolescence, usually by eerily-smiling religious couples on the lecture circuit. They all independently discover that love isn't based in emotion, but in work and dedication. They redefine the word as understood by children and presume the hard-won love they base their relationship on is all there is. I was completely prepared for that. It's made me appreciate even more that my partner and I have never felt the glow fade, even after all these years. Not even a little bit in those first few months of cohabitation. We've been best friends and in love since the beginning (maybe part of it is coming to it in that order). We still have trouble maintaining friendships, because we'd rather spend every spare moment alone with each other. I almost feel embarrassed admitting this, but we've never even had an argument or raised our voices. I think the advice given in the article, that view of hard-won love leading to the hoped-for romantic love, is valuable for a lot of people. I'd have appreciated learning that it wasn't all there is, though. I got lucky, but what if I'd never realized it could be like how it turned out? Would I be stuck now in a sort-of happy relationship based on hard-won love?

By: roomthreeseventeen

roomthreeseventeen — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:50:09 -0800

In contrast, there are plenty of us who sort of do have marriages that resemble Disney relationships most of the time. My partner and I definitely still have the feeling of our first date much of the time, and that was more than five and a half years ago. There's other stuff, too, but loving each other is never work. Our relationship is never work.

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:52:16 -0800

So "love" is this dude discovering how to pull his own weight in a relationship? And then patting himself on the back for it? Hurrah, you're an adult now and no you STILL don't get a cookie. Christ.

By: annekate

annekate — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:53:08 -0800

I appreciate the sentiment of this post and do think that more people could stand to hear the message. But something bothers me just a little about it, and I think it's the "cherish your spouse by picking up after yourself" trope. Putting someone else's needs before your own is a wonderful definition of love. But isn't being responsible for your own home & children kind of more like just... being an adult? I guess I'd prefer it if the specific example of how he loves his wife wasn't doing his fair share of the things that need to get done in their partnership. To me, that's a given when you are domestic partners, co-parents, etc. I think of love as not the fair share, but the above-and-beyond.

By: Frowner

Frowner — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:54:37 -0800

I don't know about this - it sure seems like a great narrative if you want women not to develop any sexual subjectivity. "Oh, love isn't instant! It comes through work! It's expressed through work! It's not about 'emotional fire' (or presumably sexual desire) but about supporting each other every day". So your partner is supposed to be a combination of a parent and a really great roommate. That might work really well if everyone involved had sex outside the relationship and relied on the relationship for practical life and emotional support. And of course, plenty of people are happy in relationships where there has never been much sexual desire. But we do already live in a culture which discourages women from having sexual subjectivity, in part because of narratives like this one.

By: rue72

rue72 — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:55:53 -0800

Jeez, what low expectations. Your self-satisfaction at declining to force your wife to do every iota of domestic drudgery herself isn't love, and neither is her relief when you pick up a sock so she doesn't have to.

By: Red Loop

Red Loop — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:56:00 -0800

While I believe him in speaking to his personal experiences, and I'm glad for him, my experience of love is very different. I mean, I've known my wife now for... let's see... 27 or so years, and certainly the relationship has slowly transmogrified over the years; but at the core I have pretty much the same feelings for her as I did when I first knew her, because it was her, and I knew her. But there's room for all kinds of love, so good for them (I hope).

By: Kitteh

Kitteh — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:03:06 -0800

I do want to be clear on my part. I find his perspective interesting, though I don't necessarily agree with it. I do think sometimes people don't understand that love and being in love are different. One is instantaneous and the other takes work. Hell, I've been married nearly five years now and it was still startling to learn (in a really good way) that marriage is not all Romantic Movie Montage and Roll Credits to Whatever Adult Contemporary Hit is Popular Now. It is work, but it's the kind of thing you never notice you make an effort at unless there is someone determined to point out that it's sort of like drudgery. If you're doing it right, it isn't and probably will never be.

By: a birds

a birds — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:05:58 -0800

OK to me it looks like this essay has two parts. Part 1: I thought I knew what love was, but then I discovered that my idea of love was for babies. It was a baby's idea of love, because I was a baby. Real Adult Love doesn't come so easy. But now I know. .. I feel like this is a pretty standard tale and even though I am only 23 and actually have not yet lived and experienced that, it gets written about enough, or made into movies enough, or music, or whatever, that I'm pretty familiar with the idea. Pretty cool. Nothing wrong with this. Part 2: ALSO, everyone having this false idea of love is specifically because they watched stuff like Disney movies and The Office. ALSO that's why people are divorcing and we can "fix the conversation around love" and then we'll fix divorces too! .. This seems a little less likely to me! But I also think Huffington Post's "The Blog" would not let you publish your personal essay about Real Love on their site if all you had was the first bit, so our author (also a young person, presumably?) probably had little choice but to add something about divorce. Or whatever.

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:08:30 -0800

So "love" is this dude discovering how to pull his own weight in a relationship? And then patting himself on the back for it? If you genuinely figure that out, it's one of the things that's probably worth patting yourself on the back for.

By: a birds

a birds — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:12:07 -0800

Not-on-preview, yeah. It looks like basically everyone's reaction is some variation on "Livejournal that way, kid ---->". We could have that discussion about the role of the internet in ensuring we even read this essay in the first place? Maybe? Like, far fewer sets of eyeballs would have ever viewed this in 1985, and so on.

By: kimberussell

kimberussell — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:16:20 -0800

This reminds me a LOT of the Kirk Cameron movie "Fireproof" where the secret to turning his marriage happy again was as simple as "give her things and don't be an asshole for 40 days." What I'd love to know is what his wife was doing before he decided that love is a VERB and he needed to pick up his socks. Was she cooking his meals and doing his laundry and running the household and single-handedly parenting the child(ren) while he sat at his writing desk all day musing about God? Is he confusing the chores that she is doing -- the chores that Hasidic society probably expects her to do without complaint, mind you -- as her love for him? I know I sound negative about the whole thing, but I was Ms. "Love is a VERB!!11!" for two years trying to save my 1st marriage. I bristle at the notion that if things are bad, you have to keep doing and giving more. Sometimes there are no more socks left to pick up.

By: infinitewindow

infinitewindow — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:17:28 -0800

This guy is like a high schooler understanding that there was intuition behind Newton's calculus (but not what that intuition was or its second-order consequences). "It's so simple!" the high schooler exclaims. "Why didn't I notice before?" Meanwhile an army of post-docs, grad students and undergrad non-math majors are too busy doing their thing to spare a "duh" for what one teenager thinks.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:35:41 -0800

Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?

By: griphus

griphus — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:43:19 -0800

This reminds me a LOT of the Kirk Cameron movie "Fireproof" where the secret to turning his marriage happy again was as simple as "give her things and don't be an asshole for 40 days." Whoa whoa whoa whoa let's not cut the life-applicable lessons in that motion picture classic short shrift. He also had to completely stop masturbating forever.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:45:47 -0800

I tend to think that love is all about smell, you know, pheromones. And clitoral rubbing.

By: COD

COD — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:47:01 -0800

I'm concerned that there are 2 people on Mefi that have seen a Kirk Cameron movie.

By: Countess Elena

Countess Elena — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:47:10 -0800

I appreciate this message, but I liked it better the first time I heard it.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:49:26 -0800

COD: "I'm concerned that there are 2 people on Mefi that have seen a Kirk Cameron movie." Ummmm, three. But it was an ex-girlfriend's fault.

By: BigHeartedGuy

BigHeartedGuy — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:51:34 -0800

I am deeply relieved that there is at least one other mefite who's response was "I'm concerned that there are 2 people on Mefi that have seen a Kirk Cameron movie."

By: ftm

ftm — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:55:08 -0800

My cousin posted this on Facebook last night. It really made me think of asavage's famous comment.

By: griphus

griphus — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:58:25 -0800

Fireproof is amazing and everyone in a relationship should watch it. It's like Goofus and Gallant except there's no Gallant and the two Goofuses are obsessed beyond reason with masturbation.

By: Talez

Talez — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:33:17 -0800

So "love" is this dude discovering how to pull his own weight in a relationship? And then patting himself on the back for it? Obligatory Chris Rock reference.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:47:03 -0800

We need a deathmatch between this guy and a evopsych-babbling PUA.

By: MoxieProxy

MoxieProxy — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:55:41 -0800

Here's a big problem I have with this, and I'll try hard to be clear, and not all emotional. Because as our marriage progressed, I found myself offering to help out around the house more and more. . . . But eventually it became clear. Through giving, through doing things for my wife. . . I have a problem like this in a past relationship. This guy thinks he's doing these things for his wife? Really? And who is she doing them for? No, you're doing YOUR SHARE FOR THE HOUSE. You are both running a household, and you aren't "doing it for her" when you do YOUR SHARE. You're helping her with the kid? No, you're doing YOUR PART in caring for YOUR KID. Doesn't this piss anyone off? I mean, doing something for her would be doing your share, and then doing her share, you know? You don't get to pitch in a little bit, and then throw yourself a parade because your the most lovingest person for doing the fucking dishes. That's part of living in a house! Your ROOMMATE would expect you to do no less, so how is that a big gift for your WIFE? Ugh. Sorry. I'm done.

By: padraigin

padraigin — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:01:31 -0800

By: glasseyes

glasseyes — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:02:46 -0800

We need a deathmatch between this guy and a evopsych-babbling PUA. Ends with puke everywhere

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:18:19 -0800

We've just been married a month, so how can you love me. cart | horse

By: decathecting

decathecting — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:20:15 -0800

I don't think it's a coincidence that this reminds a lot of people of stuff like Fireproof, because it reflects a view of the kind of love that primarily occurs between two people who are tied together primarily by something other than honestly wanting to be with one another more than they would ever want to be with anyone else. In this case, we have two people who got married n large part because their religion considers marriage and family paramount, and they're not allowed to spend their 20s dating around and "finding themselves" and spending a lot of time with a significant other without being married. His story about learning what love means is, as much as anything else, a story about him figuring out who he is and how to be an adult. And he ties that to his wife, and he connects it with love, because that's the cultural script he's embraced. Also: I'm concerned that there are 2 people on Mefi that have seen a Kirk Cameron movie. If you were ever on the debate team, you need to see the 1989 Kirk Cameron classic Listen to Me. At the end of the movie during the national championship debate round, Kenmont College debater Tucker Muldowney, played by Cameron, gives an impassioned speech about why abortion is wrong and evil. The judges of the debate round: the United States Supreme Court.

By: griphus

griphus — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:31:34 -0800

I look forward to the conclusion of Kirk Cameron's thematic trilogy Other People Fucking.

By: MrVisible

MrVisible — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:38:50 -0800

But it wasn't that she wasn't giving me love, it just seemed to come at different times. Like, when I offered to do the dishes. Or make dinner after she had a hard day. Or, once we had a daughter, when I shared the responsibility of watching over her. I don't think I noticed this consciously for a while. It just kept happening. But I think it had an effect on me. Because as our marriage progressed, I found myself offering to help out around the house more and more. That, to me, reads like the husband was the subject of a successful program of behavior modification using positive reinforcement.

By: Johnny Assay

Johnny Assay — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:50:09 -0800

Yeah, there's a word for that: infatuation. Is this another one of those things that every generation has to find out for themselves all over again? Yes, and then they call it "limerance" instead.

By: mmoncur

mmoncur — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:37:52 -0800

"No, love isn't an emotion or even a noun. It's a verb. Better defined as giving." As annoying as this article is in every possible way, the worst part is this. Dear writer of this article: PLEASE stop thinking you can bring emotional depth into your writing by trying to reorganize the English language to match your feelings. Love is (1) (noun) an intense feeling of deep affection and (2) (verb) to feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to. Yes, it can be a verb, but it's also a noun, and it isn't better defined as "giving". The best word to express the concept of "giving" is "giving". Also, cleaning your own socks off the floor, making dinner once, doing the dishes once, or doing your own share of childcare aren't examples of love, or of giving. They're examples of basic human adult responsibility. Sheesh. Sorry for the rant, I'm off to write a self-help book called "Love is an Adjective."

By: jaguar

jaguar — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:02:08 -0800

I'll cut him some slack because he seems to come from a culture where longterm courtship isn't a premarital option and it's likely that the "do your part around the house" thing wasn't part of his upbringing either, but yes, as the first comment notes, this is something a lot of people get to figure out before marriage by simply being in an evolving relationship. His bio does say that he wasn't raised Hasidic but converted a few years ago. I do think it'd be interesting to examine just how the Chabad Hasidic culture plays into all this, though. My exposure to the culture is very limited, and the one Chabad event/dinner I attended, the rabbi who hosted was lovely but his wife was very much relegated to the role of cooking, cleaning, and looking after their six or seven kids. I don't know if that was just their relationship, or part of the religious culture.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:03:48 -0800

1. So what does the wife think about all this? Guess that's not something we get to know? 2. When you put human relationships under extraordinary strain, like say, not letting couples do any dating prior to marriage and then expecting them to build a life together and raise a family even though they are virtual strangers, it does weird things to a person. I think this poor fellow is making the best of the corner his culture and family have forced him into. Because the alternative (refusing to marry a stranger, discarding his culture) was too scary. And I'm sympathetic, because that's a hard place to be in. I think he wants to believe that this is the best way to have a relationship, and feels good that he's gotten past the initial oh-fuck-now-what period when his feelings about having married an actual person, as opposed to his vision of a person, and not even knowing if that's what he wanted, threatened to ovewhelm him. Things have calmed down now and he feels better. Meanwhile, I can't help picturing the woman's POV, as something like this: No doubt since a young age she's known and accepted (and at least some of the time, resented) her destiny as having to be married off to someone and make babies with them, regardless of whatever other talents or dreams she might have. And she's accepted this because, like him, she doesn't want to cast off her family and culture. And so when the new husband came at her with all this lovey-dovey shit she rolled her eyes. Because she's always known that love and choice were not allowed, and you just make the best of it, and she's willing to do that, but this guy wants her to love him right off the bat? Like she had a choice in this whole deal, or romance is even really a thing in this setup? Ugh. Isn't just being a good wife enough? But hey, she discovers that he beams when she thanks him for picking up his mess and being a responsible adult, and thinks that means she's in love, so, let him think that. She can certainly appreciate it, he could be abusive or hideous or something, so as long as it lasts, she'll make the most of it and get on with the business of living. She even develops a certain affection for him, and at least she has her own place now and isn't at home anymore.

By: bleep

bleep — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:08:24 -0800

Not paying attention to yourself or anyone around you and being dragged around by your emotions like a chained animal and treating your wife like shit, these are not traits limited to any one culture. So then, after this asshole finally realizes that you have to do things to take care of the people you love and not treat your wife like the hired help, we're treated to a diatribe about divorce, as if people realizing they don't want to be together anymore is a bigger problem than him not treating his wife right. Nobody was lied to, you just weren't paying attention. That's nobody's fault but your own. This article is an embarrassment to the human race.

By: Daily Alice

Daily Alice — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:22:05 -0800

Sorry for the rant, I'm off to write a self-help book called "Love is an Adjective." That sounds like it will be a very love book!

By: straight

straight — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:08:26 -0800

When you put human relationships under extraordinary strain, like say, not letting couples do any dating prior to marriage and then expecting them to build a life together and raise a family even though they are virtual strangers, it does weird things to a person. Historically, this is an utterly ordinary "strain."

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:22:42 -0800

On one hand, I feel like I've heard this whole "Love isn't like in movies or pop songs, y'know where you enjoy sex and look forward to seeing each other, no, love is like a business, or a gristmill, where approval and affection is doled out in controlled measurements based on an unspoken exchange rate of favors and scheduled actions!" schtick before. It's usually from someone trying to tell themselves that their dry tomb of a 'relationship' is just as fulfilling as all those couples they see who actually seem to enjoy hanging out with each other, just in a different way that no one can see or understand. On the other hand, yeah, pick up your damn socks, dude, what the hell.

By: Talez

Talez — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:35:28 -0800

Historically, this is an utterly ordinary "strain." Historically, you also had couverture to keep the woman in line.

By: Cannon Fodder

Cannon Fodder — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:15:07 -0800

Its always a little embarrasing when people share insights like they're the first to have them. For a dull for instance, I found that when I begun to live with my now wife I was much happier doing the washing up, because it was something I was doing for both of us, while when I lived with friends it felt less essential. Which is nice and all, but its not the be all and end all of love. The thing that bugs me most about the article is that I've been to my fair share of weddings, and during the sermon bit the priest/reverend/person who is talking will mention precisely that marriage is more than just a wedding and that love is about sharing and giving. Its an important message, but its a bit embarrasing he didn't already know this. Don't most adults?

By: mippy

mippy — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:28:23 -0800

Sorry for the rant, I'm off to write a self-help book called "Love is an Adjective." Aw, you're a love, you are.

By: drlith

drlith — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:48:47 -0800

Lovely isn't an adverb, even though it ends in -ly. Lied to by Sesame Street, YET AGAIN

By: Rykey

Rykey — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:48:21 -0800

Kirk Cameron movie "Fireproof" where the secret to turning his marriage happy again was as simple as "give her things and don't be an asshole for 40 days." They didn't actually use the word "asshole" in a Kirk Cameron movie, though, did they?

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:10:13 -0800

Metafilter: the two Goofuses are obsessed beyond reason with masturbation

By: Dasein

Dasein — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:11:42 -0800

From Disney movies, to my favorite shows like The Office, to practically every pop song released, love is constantly sold as an emotion we have before we're married. Yes, that's because it's seriously abnormal to get married to someone you don't love. It's why is a terrible idea to get engaged to someone you've only known for two months. Why would you do something stupid like that? Like most Hasidic Jews (we both became religious later in life), our dating period lasted a very short time. Ah, right. Religious fanaticism: also a stupid idea.

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:22:35 -0800

My dream: a line of inspirational books with meticulously grammatically correct titles that start vaguely plausible (Love is a verb in certain contexts; Unconditionally is an adverb), get uninspiring pretty quickly (God is definitely not a verb) and then veer off into utter irrelevance (Inasmuch is a subordinating conjunction; 'S is a possessive enclitic) — all the while continuing to maintain that the grammatical detail in question can teach us an Important Lesson About Life.

By: gilrain

gilrain — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:09:56 -0800

Even such a niche series could have its bestseller: There Actually Really Isn't an 'I' in 'Team'! But sales may be harmed by the subtitle: And the Letters That Spell a Word Are Very Rarely Relevant to Its Meaning.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:17:16 -0800

Actually, love is not an adjective nor is it a gerund nor a conjunction nor an indefinite article. Love is a battlefield.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:18:42 -0800

...the rabbi who hosted was lovely but his wife was very much relegated to the role of cooking, cleaning, and looking after their six or seven kids. I don't know if that was just their relationship, or part of the religious culture. The latter. In most forms of Chasidic Judaism, women are wholly responsible for the household and childrearing.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:21:08 -0800

Sometimes I feel bad that I don't do more around the house but then I remember I'm a man! A-ha haha!

By: gilrain

gilrain — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:22:32 -0800

I believe you will all find that love is a highway. Woop, new book idea incoming: Love is a Highway: Toll Your Way to Romance.

By: gilrain

gilrain — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:24:30 -0800

Welp, just found out I've been mishearing Life is a Highway my whole life. My version is better.

By: gilrain

gilrain — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:28:00 -0800

The double entendre doesn't even work if it's about life, what the fuck. This is going to take a few days to process.

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:53:57 -0800

Rascal Flatts are gonna life you all night long, ooh baby, and yes they're aware that that makes no sense but they're not gonna let that stop them. Baby.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:17:37 -0800

Maybe I was wrong... maybe it is love indefinite article...

By: chundo

chundo — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:19:51 -0800

This guy thinks he's doing these things for his wife? Really? And who is she doing them for? No, you're doing YOUR SHARE FOR THE HOUSE. You are both running a household, and you aren't "doing it for her" when you do YOUR SHARE. You're helping her with the kid? No, you're doing YOUR PART in caring for YOUR KID. Running a household can be a full-time job too, and if that's how they've chosen split their roles (which is often the case in very conservative religious cultures, for better or worse) then it's not unreasonable for him to view his actions as helping her even if it is to both of their benefit. "YOUR SHARE" is predicated on the idea that they both have full-time work outside of the home, which I'd guess is unlikely in this case.

By: MoxieProxy

MoxieProxy — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:14:16 -0800

"YOUR SHARE" is predicated on the idea that they both have full-time work outside of the home, which I'd guess is unlikely in this case. I disagree. Even if Parent A is a full-time homemaker/childcare-giver, it's still Parent B's home and child. It's still Parent B's partner. It's still Parent B's relationship. If two people agree that Parent A will focus on the kids & the house, it doesn't absolve Parent B from being a parent, or contributing to the home. Even if the bulk of the responsibility falls on Parent A, based on an agreement between the two, whatever level of work Parent B contributes to the house and the children (in my opinion) cannot be seen as a "favor" for Parent A -- it's simply Parent B's contribution to the (his/her) family.

By: straight

straight — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:44:57 -0800

Even if the bulk of the responsibility falls on Parent A, based on an agreement between the two, whatever level of work Parent B contributes to the house and the children (in my opinion) cannot be seen as a "favor" for Parent A -- it's simply Parent B's contribution to the (his/her) family. Unless their agreement is that Parent A will do parenting/housework X and and Parent B will do parenting/housework Y (in addition to paid employment Z), and Parent B uses some free time to help with Parent A's workload X.

By: MoxieProxy

MoxieProxy — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:01:59 -0800

Straight, again, I disagree. They aren't building widgets. This isn't like: my quota of widgets is 10 per day, and my partner's is 5 per day, so if my partner makes more than 5 widgets per day, and lets me count them toward my quota, then that's a favor. NO, it's like this: if I'm the at-home caregiver/homemaker, and you change a diaper, or do the dishes, or take out the garbage, when you get home from work, you've done something for your kid or your home or your family. You've contributed to the household. We are a family. We are not two employees working toward a predefined goal. (So, I think my emotions around this issue are not as firmly rooted in the past as I'd like to think, so I'm going to stop, because I may have inadvertently crossed the line into obnoxious poster.)

By: bleep

bleep — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:30:35 -0800

We are a family. We are not two employees working toward a predefined goal. My theory is that this is a modern idea. But not a new idea. The old fashioned way is that yes, we are two employees working towards the common goal of growing a family. I think this guy thinks the rest of us were stuck in the old fashioned mode like he was, talking about the modern way like it's a new idea nobody knows about, which annoys everyone else because by saying that it feels like he's accusing us of being old fashioned like him.

By: straight

straight — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:31:50 -0800

MoxieProxy, all I know is that if my wife cleans up the kitchen when it's my turn, I'm grateful and don't think, "She's not doing me a favor, she's just contributing to the household." And her reaction is the same if I clean up on her night.