Hi!

Yes the lack of respect sometimes bothers me. I'm not sure if it comes from me though. I am sort of reticent with my thoughts, and also overly sensitive to being ignored. For example if he asks me which way he thinks I should go somewhere, and he goes the way he thinks of, I end up wondering why he bothered to ask me. There have been many times where I have told him something, he doesn't listen, and I turn out to be right. It seems more than is reasonable. I have good ideas sometimes, it doesn't seem to me he considers that a possibility.

Because I take it personally, I don't stand up for myself in a comfortable way, and I clam up and give him the cold shoulder.

He admires me greatly, but that doesn't translate into listening to my ideas. For instance I really pulled myself up from the bootstraps, got myself from penniless drifter/alcoholic to a stellar college career and great career achievement in software, pretty much on my own. In my youth I had four years of over-the-top drinking between high school and college, which was delayed in my case, and I got sober for eight years from the beginning of college to when I met DH. During that time I was establishing my reputation in my career. What I just quit drinking from was a longer-term bout of attempting to drink in a controlled manner, which wasn't possible, ultimately. He knows a lot of the things I've had to contend with, and he has told me many times that he admires me. I admire him too. But to me admiration is a passive thing. I know he admires me and he knows I admire him - that is not high on our list of needs. Maybe I have the wrong idea about what it is. I will look for a relevant article.

Anyway I have seen some things more clearly since attempting to clarify on this message board.

First I do see things in black and white. That leads me to not see the little things that are good. Talking about it showed me for instance that we do work together on family matters, when they are important enough that it's necessary.

Second there are things I need to try. We did fill out the recreational survey. One thing that stands out is that we got a score of "3" for both downhill and cross-country skiing. But that was 3/0 vs. 2/1. DH has routinely had four weeks off per year. They are not always the weeks we would have wanted, for example we go to a summer family camp two weeks before labor day, every year. This has always been his #1 choice for vacation time, and he always gets it, however the two weeks starts on Tuesday of our vacation week.

Second choice, which he got two out of three years, was the kids' February vacation week. Again the time off starts on Tuesday of the vacation week. This year we had an incredible vacation, one of the best in memory. We recreated my lone trip to the Grand Canyon and Albuquerque, combined with a visit to my parents in El Paso, Texas. He had not been to see my parents for years, and they like each other. Gosh it was a great trip, I'm digressing but it certainly satisfied a lot of needs. The kids and I left on Saturday while he was still working, and he joined us afterwards, did a lot of things with my dad which was so wonderful, my dad is old and cannot get around, and as I said my mom doesn't treat him with much respect. So DH took him to see the lunar eclipse. They had to drive an hour East to get out from under the clouds. Then on Thursday we drove across New Mexico to the Grand Canyon (satisfying my road trip needs LOL), then turned in the car and saw Grand Canyon (sort of, it was snowing) for a day, then took the Amtrak to Albuquerque to see my sister, and flew home from there.

The point is he still had 1 1/2 weeks off after the kids went back to school. So he took them skiing the next weekend. I didn't go because I don't like downhill skiing. But if he would forego downhill and go x-country, I would do that. Somehow it seems OK for him to take the kids downhill skiing - why not? They will learn to ski, they don't seem to mind, it is time for them. But I see, they could learn to ski in college the way he did, or even school in the case of my older daughter. Eventually my younger daughter will go to the alternative school, and they could learn to downhill ski that way. I went the previous year, and I just hung out in the hotel. So I didn't want to do that again. Anyway I told him the principle was, sometimes it's better to do the second choice if the wife doesn't want the first choice. He didn't argue. I used to ice skate, that is 1 on both our lists, but I quit because my bones aren't getting any more flexible as I age. You know it is no tragedy for me to give up skating, it would probably not be a tragedy for him to give up downhill. I did remind him and he agreed that recreational companionship is HIS need though I think it will put a few tokens in my love bank as well.

I have to argue against your statement about arguing. LOL. I believe that argumentation can be a fruitful way to solve problems. I studied it as a course on CD, and learned that it implies a willingness to arrive at a common point of view, and a willingness to risk that your view may be shown to be invalid. I think that is more or less what we have been doing here. Argumentation can be cooperative, if both people argue in the spirit of truth-finding. It's not the same as quarreling.

OK another thing about game night. My little poor loser daughter is ten years old. She has a brain like DH, very scientific, logical, rational. I brought up the general idea of game night and she thought it would be a good idea. I have thought of this myself, and last Christmas I gave the kids some nice games, the Europe trip game for the little one and battleship for the older one, which she has played.

Another thing I thought of is that this requires some better planning than we've been doing. Because of his schedule, when we do have free time, we just sort of collapse.

Next weekend there is a church service project, which is the activity I like most at church. We are going to paint the interior of a respite center. I am going to invite him to participate. I never thought of doing this together. I have gone to New Orleans twice to do building rehab, and have done similar jobs 3x here at home.

By the way he gave singing a 2. So we are going to work on a duet. Knock me over with a feather.

Other things we both liked are computer programming (that's how we met, on the job writing software), and origami. I do massive amounts of origami, not all the time, it is not my #1 hobby right now. But he is interested in it too. I can see us sitting around the table together, folding. The kids like it too.

We had several 5 & 6 scores, 6 being the highest score. Unfortunately these are things like hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, which we do manage about once a year, and camping in a tent, which we have not had time to do for years. I think the last time we used the tent for camping, I was pregnant with my ten-year-old. So those are good activities for what they're worth, but we need more than just that. We both gave bowling a 1. That might work for a family outing.

Well madknitter, it looks like you now have quite a few potential recreational opportunities to explore together. That is great! I think you are right that it will put credit in both your lovebanks. It certainly is nice to find win-win solutions.

I will though have to disagree with your stance on arguments. As with any strategy, it needs to be used appropriately. Argument is not the best way to problem solve in most situations. It is OCCASIONALLY useful in certain circumstances -- such as when one needs to motivate someone with an opposite viewpoint quickly or one is dealing with someone who is unresponsive to normal discourse. it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE in many situations -- such as when you want to maximize the effort of others, or when you need voluntary cooperation from others.

This is based on my observations of problem solving in a team environment. I have worked on countless cross functional teams in fast paced Fortune 100 companies and have created and led several of my own teams. The people who like to problem solve by being argumentative are generally avoided unless absolutely necessary and they are given the minimal amount of input possible. Truly, coming off as argumentative is not a particularly good way to learn new things or solve problems. If you really want to show that you are willing to come to a common point of view and open to invalidating your own view, why not simply enter into a discussion? Most people interpret argument to mean quite the opposite and in this situation perception is reality.

I think a discussion in which one or both participant make claims with which the other may disagree, and each participant is willing to give evidence for the claim and evaluate the evidence the other person may give, is an argument in the best sense of the word.

Knowing the dynamics of argumentation can defuse what we normally call "arguing." For example, ad hominem attacks, where the person is attacked rather than the idea they are putting forth. Or opposing a trivial detail and not considering the main point.

I agree there are other, and in some contexts, better ways to solve problems, for example brainstorming in which the team is not allowed to shoot down anything out of hand. But if you are oriented towards argumentation the way I am, you will see it comes up all the time in natural conversation, even in an apparently cooperative scenario.


That's too bad, they might have a lot to offer. People who are capable of effective argumentation often have the kind of intelligence that can penetrate to the root of a difficult problem.


All the more reason to educate yourself on the true and constructive nature of bona fide argumentation! Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning. It is a way of justifying action under conditions of uncertainty, a way of knowing, and in a democratic society, a way of achieving political goals that benefit all. It's not bickering and quarreling, which is the perception. I don't agree that wrong perception is reality - reality is what it is, whether we perceive it accurately or not.

Well maybe when all is said and done, it is a personal choice. I was really never able to communicate well with others. I was very withdrawn and isolated as a child, and only felt comfortable with others when I was drinking. So a well-defined, analytical process of communication may have a special appeal to someone like me.

Maybe that's why MC didn't work out for me. Talking in front of the counselor just set me back to the whining, miserable wife of my early marriage. But writing things out here, clarifying my thoughts, etc. (which I consider a good argument) have caused me to feel hope and break the logjam of despair that has been the undercurrent of my marriage, the feeling that I'm trapped in a life that I didn't think would turn out "this way" which turns out to be a figment of my imagination.

Anyway, back to the main point. DH is going to the senior residents' dinner tonight. I have to attend dress rehearsal of the play that I'm working on. He isn't interested in working on the play, and I wasn't interested in going to the senior dinner, at least not enough to ditch the dress rehearsal. I am the props manager and will be required to be working backstage for six performances, the two weekends coming up, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Though this is a volunteer activity, it's the closest thing I have to a job, other than service projects at church. I think it could be considered recreation for most people. Most of the other people involved have "real" jobs and work this job evenings and weekends. The producer does this full time from what I can tell. I have noticed there are many husband/wife teams that work on plays together. But DH has neither the time nor the inclination for this kind of thing. Should I quit? I have to say I love the work and I am very good at it, and most of what I do, I do during the day while DH is working.

It seems to me, if he has a job, why shouldn't I have a job? I don't think it matters that it doesn't pay. In fact there is cause to think that the gap between pay in community vs. professional theater is due to the fact that there are laws prohibiting non-union theater workers from being paid. So in another world, I might be paid for what I do. Though that is a stretch of the imagination. Anyway, there was a time at the outset of his medical career that he was working in a lab as a volunteer. But I don't want to have this turn into a case of dueling hurting each other. If his choice of career has hurt our family life, I don't want to turn around and stubbornly work on my plays in order to be able to say, "you can sit home alone ten nights every four months so now you can see how I feel when you're working long calls."

I guess I am just wondering what you think. What I think is that we aren't going to change our ways overnight, he had planned on the senior dinner and I am committed to the play. Of course if I was in a car wreck the play could go on without me, but that would not be a good thing for the production.

Another thing I am afraid of is ramping down my attendance at AA. I guess I can manage this by going during the day. Right now my home group is on Friday night, and I attend another closer to home on Wednesday night. I am operating under the assumption that commitment to the home group will keep me from going back to drinking. I have never had trouble quitting drinking, the problem always has been that after a couple of months, I think a little glass of wine will be OK, and I can even manage to have that little glass of wine and then stop. But that opens the door to getting drunk again on a weekly basis, that has been the pattern of my life. So I am clinging to these evening AA meetings as a way of never having this happen again. Alcoholism really was at the root of a lot of the resentment I had towards DH in the past. Because drinking was holding me back from being a competent wife, mother, worker, housekeeper, etc., I was blaming all that on the people around me. I said I suffered because DH didn't help me enough around the house. Which is false, he didn't do half the work by a long shot, but he helped me more than enough, because in reality I am fully able to do the housework on my own. I was drinking when we did the EN questionnaire before, and I put domestic support very high on my list of needs.

The point is, I need to balance AA/marriage better. But as they say in AA, anything you put in front of sobriety, you will eventually lose.

Saturday there is a service project at church. I have already committed to go, this is the other "job" I have. I asked DH if he wanted to go, he didn't seem to want to. He made the face he makes when I ask him to do something he doesn't want to do. But he didn't say yes or no. I think he wants to swim and sail.

I guess Saturday is a good day to see if we can come to mutual agreement on something to do. OK I see now we need to have a talk about this and I need to tell him my ideas that I'm getting from here. Which I have been doing all along, but as you can probably tell, I tend to talk a lot and my point is often lost. At least it feels that way, I seem to have to explain myself at least three times for every idea that I try to express.

Has your husband asked or hinted that he would like you to quit your prop manager job or going to AA as much? If so, what did he say about why he wanted that? To me it really depends on factors such as how important these activities are to you personally, how bothersome they are to your husband and what alternatives you have to find acceptable substitutes.

I don't think it matters at all if you get paid or not. Unless your husband's issue were that the family didn't have enough money or that he felt it was too much pressure to be the sole breadwinner of course. But assuming money is not an issue, it should be your choice as to what work you find fulfilling. Just like it was his choice to pursue a medical career because that is what he finds fulfilling.

If I were you, I would ignore your husband's not-my-cup-of-tea face. He's free to choose to go or not go. If he chooses to go, don't spoil it by fixating on the idea that he doesn't really want to be there. If he's there, just appreciate it.



There is a bit of a syllogism hidden here, isn't there? Argumentative people are intelligent. Intelligence is needed to solve problems. Therefore argumentative people are needed to solve problems. Again, your thinking is too black and white. You miss completely the most important point which is that the dynamic argumentative people create costs the group more than their input is worth. Argumentative people, even the most effective, are not in any way superior problem solvers to non-arguers as a group. A particular arguer may be more intelligent than a particular non-argumer, but his/her ability to solve problems is not sourced from being argumentative. Argument is simply not an effective tool for problem solving. It is actually a rather defensive posture disguised as an offensive strategy.

What is this CD you learned about argumentation from?! It has really bent your mind. The true study of effective reasoning is philosophy and specifically logic.



Why is your perception that being argumentative is not bickering or quarreling, more valid that the other person's perception that it is? Reality is what it is, applies to concrete things in the world, but not to judgment based things. Argument, bickering and quarrels do not exist in the world like a pen or glass of water, they are entirely perceived and thus ... perception is reality.