Me vs You versus Us vs The Problem
September 24, 2018 4:30 PM Subscribe
To those of you in healthy relationships, how do you conceptualize issues as you and your partner versus a problem, instead of you versus them?
In my last relationship, my ex said that I tend to make issues into a me versus him mindset, rather than an us versus a problem mindset. I have a very hard time understanding what he meant; if he did something that bothered me (for example, being sarcastic when we fight), isn't the problem with him? So wouldn't it make sense that I tell him that he is being sarcastic, and it bothers me, so can he stop it? However, when I did that, he said he felt blamed and often times we would fight further (which was what led to the demise of the relationship). So I don't understand how in that case, how we could have reframed that issue into a problem that we could have fought together.
If anyone can help with this, or give examples of common issues that couples fight about (differences in time spent together, money spending habits, cleanliness, being late/on time). I know conceptually, and from this experience, that the me vs. you mindset is toxic, but for the life of me, I just can't understand how one sees issues as a "us" versus "problem" mindset!
In my last relationship, my ex said that I tend to make issues into a me versus him mindset, rather than an us versus a problem mindset. I have a very hard time understanding what he meant; if he did something that bothered me (for example, being sarcastic when we fight), isn't the problem with him? So wouldn't it make sense that I tell him that he is being sarcastic, and it bothers me, so can he stop it? However, when I did that, he said he felt blamed and often times we would fight further (which was what led to the demise of the relationship). So I don't understand how in that case, how we could have reframed that issue into a problem that we could have fought together.
If anyone can help with this, or give examples of common issues that couples fight about (differences in time spent together, money spending habits, cleanliness, being late/on time). I know conceptually, and from this experience, that the me vs. you mindset is toxic, but for the life of me, I just can't understand how one sees issues as a "us" versus "problem" mindset!
And as a postscript: there are couples who don't fight, or only fight over extremely high-stakes issues. Lots of people just sit down and talk about it, like "hey I feel like we're not spending much time together lately" "I know, I get it, but I'm a shopping mall Santa and it's December, let's plan some stuff to do together in January" or "I'm letting myself get really sucked into this side project, why don't I specifically hold X day free for us going forward so it's better for both of us". That's how healthy people navigate this stuff, by...navigating. Even when one person has something harder to ask, like, "it feels really unfair to me that I'm cooking all the meals" the other person doesn't immediately go to "I didn't say you had to!" but rather says, "well, I feel like I make all the lunches, but how can come up with a plan that feels okay to everybody? What if I bring home rotisserie chicken one night a week and we do cheap takeout on Fridays?" It doesn't have to be a fight, if you don't partner up with someone who needs everything to be a fight.
posted by Lyn Never at 4:47 PM on September 24, 2018 [39 favorites]
posted by Lyn Never at 4:47 PM on September 24, 2018 [39 favorites]
It sounds to me like he was a passive-aggressive jerk?
I mean, I've confronted plenty of problems with my spouse as an us v. the problem team but one of us being unpleasant to the other is not in this category, kind of by definition.
Things we've teamed up about are mostly logistical, financial, child-rearing, overcoming hardships, stuff that effects the entire family unit equally. After my first couple years of marriage I decided that me doing the emotional labor of acting like his attitude problems were equally my problem was no longer on. I told him to get his shit together, and then once that happened we could move forward as a team to accomplish our goals as a partnership. And he did! (I may have had some help from a mutual friend who came to stay with us for a weekend, saw how he was talking to me and had a little come to Jesus talk with him.)
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:49 PM on September 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
I mean, I've confronted plenty of problems with my spouse as an us v. the problem team but one of us being unpleasant to the other is not in this category, kind of by definition.
Things we've teamed up about are mostly logistical, financial, child-rearing, overcoming hardships, stuff that effects the entire family unit equally. After my first couple years of marriage I decided that me doing the emotional labor of acting like his attitude problems were equally my problem was no longer on. I told him to get his shit together, and then once that happened we could move forward as a team to accomplish our goals as a partnership. And he did! (I may have had some help from a mutual friend who came to stay with us for a weekend, saw how he was talking to me and had a little come to Jesus talk with him.)
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:49 PM on September 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
From your example the you v me version is “you always treat me poorly during a fight” and the us versus the problem is “what are our agreeed norms for when we disagree so that we both feel heard and respected.”
That being said, if he wasn’t doing some of the work to reframe it then it’s not really all on you.
posted by raccoon409 at 4:54 PM on September 24, 2018 [13 favorites]
That being said, if he wasn’t doing some of the work to reframe it then it’s not really all on you.
posted by raccoon409 at 4:54 PM on September 24, 2018 [13 favorites]
I think there are two kinds of problems and the “us vs the problem” mindset can only be broadly applied to one type.
Some things are like personal preferences: many household tasks can be carried out in different ways, for example. Levels of prioritization are also person-dependant. (Which of those household tasks are the most important?) These kinds of things are where the “us vs the problem” comes in. You can problem solve together. “I hate when you leave wet towels on the counter” might lead you to realize together that there aren’t enough hooks, so you install another one.
Something like sarcasm during a fight is a bit different, and if someone implies that it’s equally on both people to solve together (it’s 50% your fault for being hurt!) then there is something unhealthy going on. Let’s say you go to your partner and explain how [the sarcasm] is hurting you. In this case, there could still be teamwork, but the other party has to take responsibility. Like “when [we fight and I am stressed] I have trouble watching my mouth. I might need to [go calm down] so I don’t hurt you. Would [a or b solution for calming down] work for you? Can you help me [facilitate thing a or b]?” Notice the difference between asking for help and blaming you for being hurt. Them saying “I feel blamed” (for being mean and hurtful) is really transferring the blame onto you.
The other person accepting responsibility for being mean or hurtful is step 1. Step 2 is working to figure out what can be done to not hurt you in the future. Step 3 may or may not include you helping them implement the solution.
posted by delezzo at 5:27 PM on September 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
Some things are like personal preferences: many household tasks can be carried out in different ways, for example. Levels of prioritization are also person-dependant. (Which of those household tasks are the most important?) These kinds of things are where the “us vs the problem” comes in. You can problem solve together. “I hate when you leave wet towels on the counter” might lead you to realize together that there aren’t enough hooks, so you install another one.
Something like sarcasm during a fight is a bit different, and if someone implies that it’s equally on both people to solve together (it’s 50% your fault for being hurt!) then there is something unhealthy going on. Let’s say you go to your partner and explain how [the sarcasm] is hurting you. In this case, there could still be teamwork, but the other party has to take responsibility. Like “when [we fight and I am stressed] I have trouble watching my mouth. I might need to [go calm down] so I don’t hurt you. Would [a or b solution for calming down] work for you? Can you help me [facilitate thing a or b]?” Notice the difference between asking for help and blaming you for being hurt. Them saying “I feel blamed” (for being mean and hurtful) is really transferring the blame onto you.
The other person accepting responsibility for being mean or hurtful is step 1. Step 2 is working to figure out what can be done to not hurt you in the future. Step 3 may or may not include you helping them implement the solution.
posted by delezzo at 5:27 PM on September 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
One of the ways to avoid attacks in communicating about relationships, is to use "I-messages." These (usually) have three parts:
1) A statement of feelings
2) The behavior that you want to change
3) The reason the behavior that causes you problems, in concrete terms.
"I am unhappy when you wash dishes at midnight, because it keeps me awake and I'm sleepy the whole day after."
"I get angry when you use sarcastic comments when we argue, because I don't find them funny and instead they come across as extra attacks."
If the partner reacts to those as "you are attacking me," the issue isn't your presentation, but with the fact that you don't like something they're doing, and you're willing to say so directly. This is a common situation, where men demand that the women around them couch any complaints with a bunch of disclaimers and "I know you don't mean to hurt me" and "I'm sure you have a good reason for this, but" and so on.
In a healthy, supportive relationship, when one partner says, "this thing that you do, it bothers me," the other reacts with, "I'm sorry about that. Let's discuss what we can change - maybe I can not do that, or maybe we can figure out what bothers you so I can do something different." If the reaction is, "well, it's stupid and wrong for you to be bothered by that" or "well, I can't help doing it, so you need to get used to it," it doesn't matter what the topic is - the other person is insisting that they, not you, will set the terms of the relationship; they don't see you as an actual partner.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:32 PM on September 24, 2018 [18 favorites]
1) A statement of feelings
2) The behavior that you want to change
3) The reason the behavior that causes you problems, in concrete terms.
"I am unhappy when you wash dishes at midnight, because it keeps me awake and I'm sleepy the whole day after."
"I get angry when you use sarcastic comments when we argue, because I don't find them funny and instead they come across as extra attacks."
If the partner reacts to those as "you are attacking me," the issue isn't your presentation, but with the fact that you don't like something they're doing, and you're willing to say so directly. This is a common situation, where men demand that the women around them couch any complaints with a bunch of disclaimers and "I know you don't mean to hurt me" and "I'm sure you have a good reason for this, but" and so on.
In a healthy, supportive relationship, when one partner says, "this thing that you do, it bothers me," the other reacts with, "I'm sorry about that. Let's discuss what we can change - maybe I can not do that, or maybe we can figure out what bothers you so I can do something different." If the reaction is, "well, it's stupid and wrong for you to be bothered by that" or "well, I can't help doing it, so you need to get used to it," it doesn't matter what the topic is - the other person is insisting that they, not you, will set the terms of the relationship; they don't see you as an actual partner.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:32 PM on September 24, 2018 [18 favorites]
I currently have a similar issue with a friend, so I've spent a fair amount of time lately thinking about this dynamic. Naturally, this may not apply to you.
There's a way of saying "you are doing x" which assumes that you know the other's intentions and what you are angry about is their (perceived) intention and not the act itself. It's extremely frustrating to be on the other side of those kinds of accusations and spend all your time arguing about your intentions, particularly if they are not your intentions at all.
Real life example:
"You find my issues unimportant and ignore or change the subject when I bring them up. I want someone in my life who thinks my issues are important."
Me: "What? I do find your issues important."
"It's not the way I perceive it. Why aren't my issues important to you?"
Me: "What makes you perceive I don't care about your issues?"
Her: "Stop devaluing my feelings!"
What it finally worked out to was this--my friend and I often go hiking. I'm a keen photographer and often stop to take pictures of flowers or wildlife. Generally we talk about lighter topics-- work or politics. There were several occasions where she was trying to raise something more personal and weighty and instead of listening I would stop to take a picture. On these occasions, I didn't recognise that she was raising a personal topic or that the conversation was inherently more meaningful. She thought that it must be obvious to me that it was a more serious topic and therefore should give the conversation more weight.
If she had said to me: "Sometimes I try to raise issues which are important to me while we are hiking, and it seems you don't pay much attention. You still focus on photography and I feel hurt." it would have been very easy to resolve. Once we wrestled it to that point, it was very easy to resolve. She had a right to feel disrespected, but I had no intention of disrespecting her. I was misreading her cues.
I love my friend, but one of the things I find enormously difficult is that when there is a conflict, she immediately defaults to reading my intention instead of describing the bad dynamic. Luckily, we don't fight frequently. But when we do, it can be a humdinger because we have very different ways of approaching conflict.
Maybe it's true that your ex is a passive aggressive jerk in which case none of what I have said here applies. But if you take the sarcasm as an example, then you could reframe it using the I statements which ErisLordFreedom provides above : "Your tone of voice sounds very sharp to me. I read it as sarcastic and that hurts my feelings. I think it's better we not talk until we can talk in a more even way. I don't handle sarcasm well." If you say "You're being sarcastic!" there's an intention implied there which may or may not be accurate.
I hope this makes some sense.
posted by frumiousb at 6:16 PM on September 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
There's a way of saying "you are doing x" which assumes that you know the other's intentions and what you are angry about is their (perceived) intention and not the act itself. It's extremely frustrating to be on the other side of those kinds of accusations and spend all your time arguing about your intentions, particularly if they are not your intentions at all.
Real life example:
"You find my issues unimportant and ignore or change the subject when I bring them up. I want someone in my life who thinks my issues are important."
Me: "What? I do find your issues important."
"It's not the way I perceive it. Why aren't my issues important to you?"
Me: "What makes you perceive I don't care about your issues?"
Her: "Stop devaluing my feelings!"
What it finally worked out to was this--my friend and I often go hiking. I'm a keen photographer and often stop to take pictures of flowers or wildlife. Generally we talk about lighter topics-- work or politics. There were several occasions where she was trying to raise something more personal and weighty and instead of listening I would stop to take a picture. On these occasions, I didn't recognise that she was raising a personal topic or that the conversation was inherently more meaningful. She thought that it must be obvious to me that it was a more serious topic and therefore should give the conversation more weight.
If she had said to me: "Sometimes I try to raise issues which are important to me while we are hiking, and it seems you don't pay much attention. You still focus on photography and I feel hurt." it would have been very easy to resolve. Once we wrestled it to that point, it was very easy to resolve. She had a right to feel disrespected, but I had no intention of disrespecting her. I was misreading her cues.
I love my friend, but one of the things I find enormously difficult is that when there is a conflict, she immediately defaults to reading my intention instead of describing the bad dynamic. Luckily, we don't fight frequently. But when we do, it can be a humdinger because we have very different ways of approaching conflict.
Maybe it's true that your ex is a passive aggressive jerk in which case none of what I have said here applies. But if you take the sarcasm as an example, then you could reframe it using the I statements which ErisLordFreedom provides above : "Your tone of voice sounds very sharp to me. I read it as sarcastic and that hurts my feelings. I think it's better we not talk until we can talk in a more even way. I don't handle sarcasm well." If you say "You're being sarcastic!" there's an intention implied there which may or may not be accurate.
I hope this makes some sense.
posted by frumiousb at 6:16 PM on September 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
If you are rooting for your partner in general, then you are rooting for them even in your own confrontations, so you enjoy when their point of view wins out.
posted by Buddy_Boy at 7:49 PM on September 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Buddy_Boy at 7:49 PM on September 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
I struggle with this sometimes, and I've realized that sometimes a small semantic reframing can also help me shift my mindset. This is true whether you're facing a big problem or even just one of the small decisions that come up several times a day as a couple.
Say, for example, my husband and I are trying to figure out when to leave for the airport. He tends to like having a bit more time there before a flight; I often prefer going through security and getting on the plane with little time at the gate. One way to handle this is to ask each other, "What time do you want to leave?" and pick a time in the middle. Another is to ask, "What time should we get to the airport?" and work backwards together--e.g., we need to leave a buffer for security and returning the rental car; I don't want to make him anxious about cutting it too close; he doesn't want to make me hang out there too long.
I've found that sometimes conflict arises when I think of a relationship as based on achieving middle ground between different opinions (though that's obviously an important skill) rather than working together to sift through the factors that affect a mutual decision. Sometimes, the "What do you want?"/"What do I want?" approach ends up framing us as oppositional when we tend to agree about most things. Starting from the perspective of the shared "problem" (or issue, or decision, etc.) rather than from the perspective of individual preferences can help.
posted by dapati at 9:09 PM on September 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
Say, for example, my husband and I are trying to figure out when to leave for the airport. He tends to like having a bit more time there before a flight; I often prefer going through security and getting on the plane with little time at the gate. One way to handle this is to ask each other, "What time do you want to leave?" and pick a time in the middle. Another is to ask, "What time should we get to the airport?" and work backwards together--e.g., we need to leave a buffer for security and returning the rental car; I don't want to make him anxious about cutting it too close; he doesn't want to make me hang out there too long.
I've found that sometimes conflict arises when I think of a relationship as based on achieving middle ground between different opinions (though that's obviously an important skill) rather than working together to sift through the factors that affect a mutual decision. Sometimes, the "What do you want?"/"What do I want?" approach ends up framing us as oppositional when we tend to agree about most things. Starting from the perspective of the shared "problem" (or issue, or decision, etc.) rather than from the perspective of individual preferences can help.
posted by dapati at 9:09 PM on September 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
It sounds kinda like he just wants you to solve/ignore whatever problems he may have, but I'm giving him the huge benefit of the doubt here. Yes there is almost always a way to frame a relationship problem as "We vs Problem". Examples from your question:
being sarcastic when we fight - "We should set some ground rules about ways to argue/discuss productively."
differences in time spent together - "We seem to have different expectations about how much time is best for us to spend together. How can we reconcile those different expectations?"
money spending habits - "We should develop a budget and spending plan so that we are meeting our financial goals together and separately."
cleanliness - "We seem to have different expectations about cleanliness. Are there ways we can compromise on this? Are there ways we can develop schedules and systems to make cleaning easier?"
being late/on time - "How can we plan our schedules so that we are both happy with when we arrive somewhere?"
posted by Rock Steady at 4:59 AM on September 25, 2018 [6 favorites]
being sarcastic when we fight - "We should set some ground rules about ways to argue/discuss productively."
differences in time spent together - "We seem to have different expectations about how much time is best for us to spend together. How can we reconcile those different expectations?"
money spending habits - "We should develop a budget and spending plan so that we are meeting our financial goals together and separately."
cleanliness - "We seem to have different expectations about cleanliness. Are there ways we can compromise on this? Are there ways we can develop schedules and systems to make cleaning easier?"
being late/on time - "How can we plan our schedules so that we are both happy with when we arrive somewhere?"
posted by Rock Steady at 4:59 AM on September 25, 2018 [6 favorites]
If my partner was being sarcastic:
my feelings are being hurt,
and he doesn't want to hurt me,
and also there's some perspective he wants to be able to communicate that he is currently using sarcasm for,
and I'm not hearing it through the sarcasm.
so "the problem" is this package of problems we are sharing together.
and also, maybe the problem is that he's feeling sick and tired and is therefore short-tempered, and badly needs a break, and maybe the problem is also that I just had a nasty fight with a friend and I completely misinterpreted something he said because I was feeling so raw.
There's a lot of this that is about extending the benefit of the doubt, which is both giving the most charitable interpretation you can to the person's intentions, and also, taking into account their extenuating circumstances and trying to give them the same compassion and leniency people often easily give their own less-than-ideal behavior.
It's a lot about it not being "the mean jerk/the oversensitive shrew" "the reckless spender/controlling pinny pencher" etc etc. Seeing the full person and where they're coming from and how we can deal with this friction together, seeing their needs as equally valid and important as our own and therefore being motivated to find something that meets their needs to, not just ours.
But, like... a really, really important part of this process is an assumption of good faith. Like, I genuinely believe my partner doesn't want to hurt me, and he genuinely believes that if I claim I'm hurt I'm telling the truth, not attacking him. We are two decent people with some different needs and perspectives and stuff, muddling through things together while trying to be good to each other.
But here's the thing: I am able to have this with my partner because he has consistently earned my trust by treating me with kindness and consideration. I think it's important to state this, because there's a lot of habits which are healthy in a healthy relationship and not so healthy in an unhealthy relationship. I spent so much energy on pretzeling things into charitable interpretations in my unhealthy relationship, and convincing myself the problem was somehow "equally shared" between us, I needed to help solve it, etc. Because I was so used to the idea that relationships are compromise, you work together, yadda yadda yadda. But when one side doesn't care about the other person, it doesn't work that way. It took outsiders' perspectives to say "wait no this isn't normal". Sometimes the situation genuinely isn't us vs the problem because the "us" isn't there. So I encourage trying to view problems as a shared thing for you to attack with teamwork, yes. But if that feeling doesn't gel, maybe it's because the teamwork wasn't really there.
posted by Cozybee at 5:42 AM on September 25, 2018 [8 favorites]
my feelings are being hurt,
and he doesn't want to hurt me,
and also there's some perspective he wants to be able to communicate that he is currently using sarcasm for,
and I'm not hearing it through the sarcasm.
so "the problem" is this package of problems we are sharing together.
and also, maybe the problem is that he's feeling sick and tired and is therefore short-tempered, and badly needs a break, and maybe the problem is also that I just had a nasty fight with a friend and I completely misinterpreted something he said because I was feeling so raw.
There's a lot of this that is about extending the benefit of the doubt, which is both giving the most charitable interpretation you can to the person's intentions, and also, taking into account their extenuating circumstances and trying to give them the same compassion and leniency people often easily give their own less-than-ideal behavior.
It's a lot about it not being "the mean jerk/the oversensitive shrew" "the reckless spender/controlling pinny pencher" etc etc. Seeing the full person and where they're coming from and how we can deal with this friction together, seeing their needs as equally valid and important as our own and therefore being motivated to find something that meets their needs to, not just ours.
But, like... a really, really important part of this process is an assumption of good faith. Like, I genuinely believe my partner doesn't want to hurt me, and he genuinely believes that if I claim I'm hurt I'm telling the truth, not attacking him. We are two decent people with some different needs and perspectives and stuff, muddling through things together while trying to be good to each other.
But here's the thing: I am able to have this with my partner because he has consistently earned my trust by treating me with kindness and consideration. I think it's important to state this, because there's a lot of habits which are healthy in a healthy relationship and not so healthy in an unhealthy relationship. I spent so much energy on pretzeling things into charitable interpretations in my unhealthy relationship, and convincing myself the problem was somehow "equally shared" between us, I needed to help solve it, etc. Because I was so used to the idea that relationships are compromise, you work together, yadda yadda yadda. But when one side doesn't care about the other person, it doesn't work that way. It took outsiders' perspectives to say "wait no this isn't normal". Sometimes the situation genuinely isn't us vs the problem because the "us" isn't there. So I encourage trying to view problems as a shared thing for you to attack with teamwork, yes. But if that feeling doesn't gel, maybe it's because the teamwork wasn't really there.
posted by Cozybee at 5:42 AM on September 25, 2018 [8 favorites]
I wonder if it would help at all to start by paying more attention to those situations where you do work well as a team? Some wise MeFite, I'm afraid I no longer no who, wrote a comment some years ago about how they make a specific effort to notice and congratulate themselves and their partner on GOOD teamwork. I ended up trying it out and I still do it now - even though it's sometimes a little silly, dropping a "yay teamwork!" here and there is fun and nice and reminds us both that we are Team Us, and I think having that a a baseline mindset more often has made it easier to work through the times when it's less easy to be Team Us.
I think in your specific example, I might try reframing it something like, "Our disagreement style is preventing us both from communicating well. Sarcasm seems to be your default, and it really bothers to me to hear that tone so I get very defensive, and we get into a bad cycle." Then you might talk about things like - does he know he's being sarcastic, and/or why he does it? Can you explain what about it bothers you? Can he explain what about your response felt like blaming to him, vs. constructive problem-solving? Understanding better where each of you is coming from might help in the moment. Maybe you can agree on something like a thing you can say when either of you senses that dynamic starting up, and you agree to take a five-minute cool-down break, or some other mood-resetting thing that seems worth trying.
posted by Stacey at 8:38 AM on September 25, 2018
I think in your specific example, I might try reframing it something like, "Our disagreement style is preventing us both from communicating well. Sarcasm seems to be your default, and it really bothers to me to hear that tone so I get very defensive, and we get into a bad cycle." Then you might talk about things like - does he know he's being sarcastic, and/or why he does it? Can you explain what about it bothers you? Can he explain what about your response felt like blaming to him, vs. constructive problem-solving? Understanding better where each of you is coming from might help in the moment. Maybe you can agree on something like a thing you can say when either of you senses that dynamic starting up, and you agree to take a five-minute cool-down break, or some other mood-resetting thing that seems worth trying.
posted by Stacey at 8:38 AM on September 25, 2018
Meh. The older I get the more I believe that compatibility is over-rated. WILLINGNESS is the most important thing in a relationship not compatibility. I tend to value the people I engage with in life whether they are friends, colleagues, whatever and I've been in super-compatible relationships with people who were simply unwilling to place any value onto our relationship and it therefore deteriorated. I've also been in very incompatible relationships where the other person was willing to do the little things that showed they put value in. The latter, always, ALWAYS ends up lasting longer and working out better than the former despite the inherent difficulties.
I see it happen all the time with people around me too. Obviously having compatibility along with willingness is ideal, but it really doesn't matter how well suited you are together if one person simply isn't willing to take responsibility and value the other person's needs. Your ex sounds like he simply wasn't willing to value your needs in the relationship at all. "I" statements are always encouraged, but I don't see how that relationship with him would've lasted no matter what you did.
posted by fantasticness at 10:14 AM on September 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
I see it happen all the time with people around me too. Obviously having compatibility along with willingness is ideal, but it really doesn't matter how well suited you are together if one person simply isn't willing to take responsibility and value the other person's needs. Your ex sounds like he simply wasn't willing to value your needs in the relationship at all. "I" statements are always encouraged, but I don't see how that relationship with him would've lasted no matter what you did.
posted by fantasticness at 10:14 AM on September 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
You used the word "fight" three times in your question. As a datapoint, my wife and I have "fought" maybe three times in the course of our relationship, where "fight" = a tense argument or raised voices.
For the most part, we talk about stuff. It helps that we are both naturally pretty calm people, but I think the other major component is that we trust each other, and the assumption is always that the other person cares about you and is entering the discussion in good faith.
If one of us raises an issue or a problem, e.g., "Hey, there are days where I ask about your day and you don't ask about mine, and it makes me feel like you don't care" - the first response isn't to challenge the premise ("no, I always ask you about your day") or the feelings ("that shouldn't make you feel bad; you know I care"). Instead, the response is along the lines of "my partner, who I care about, says that when I do this thing it makes her feel bad. I don't want her to feel bad. I'm going to try and change my behavior."
This works 100% of the time where the "ask" / change in behavior is relatively minor. If Partner is asking you to leave your job and move across the country, it's not so straightforward, but that's not usually the sort of thing that drags people down. Instead, it's the day-to-day stuff -- repeated conversations, allocation of chores, how somebody stacks the dishwasher like an idiot. Those things will generally matter more to one partner than they do to the other. And for the most part, if the more-caring partner calls their shot, the other partner should care about their feelings enough to change their conduct (though obviously if only one person cares and they care about everything, this can get thrown out of whack).
But basically, if you trust that you and partner both truly want each other to be happy, and one party's unhappiness is a problem for BOTH of you, you'll get away from this me vs. you issue.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:30 AM on October 1, 2018
For the most part, we talk about stuff. It helps that we are both naturally pretty calm people, but I think the other major component is that we trust each other, and the assumption is always that the other person cares about you and is entering the discussion in good faith.
If one of us raises an issue or a problem, e.g., "Hey, there are days where I ask about your day and you don't ask about mine, and it makes me feel like you don't care" - the first response isn't to challenge the premise ("no, I always ask you about your day") or the feelings ("that shouldn't make you feel bad; you know I care"). Instead, the response is along the lines of "my partner, who I care about, says that when I do this thing it makes her feel bad. I don't want her to feel bad. I'm going to try and change my behavior."
This works 100% of the time where the "ask" / change in behavior is relatively minor. If Partner is asking you to leave your job and move across the country, it's not so straightforward, but that's not usually the sort of thing that drags people down. Instead, it's the day-to-day stuff -- repeated conversations, allocation of chores, how somebody stacks the dishwasher like an idiot. Those things will generally matter more to one partner than they do to the other. And for the most part, if the more-caring partner calls their shot, the other partner should care about their feelings enough to change their conduct (though obviously if only one person cares and they care about everything, this can get thrown out of whack).
But basically, if you trust that you and partner both truly want each other to be happy, and one party's unhappiness is a problem for BOTH of you, you'll get away from this me vs. you issue.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:30 AM on October 1, 2018
This thread is closed to new comments.
The reason he "felt blamed" was because he was blamed, correctly, for being a jerk. It is correct to feel blamed when you do something shitty, it's called empathy and responsibility. But to some people those things burn like holy water.
Now, it is possible for people to be accidentally shitty - they come from one of those families that enjoys a culture of verbal abuse or they're just loud as a whole or the family culture is blunter than yours - and you can say "it's really uncomfortable to me to be spoken to like that" and while they may feel a moment of "but but but that's just normal, that's what I do" they then also feel a sensation of "but it makes my partner feel bad, and that's NOT what I want, so I should grapple with this thing that's not good for them because it's not actually going to damage me to be less mean, and now I feel a little guilty about that but I'm going to do better and my partner will be happier and everyone wins!"
THAT is teamwork. Respecting and appreciating boundaries, and making compromises like "not being mean".
At least now you know what that particular red flag looks like and you can run at the first sign of it in the future.
posted by Lyn Never at 4:41 PM on September 24, 2018 [44 favorites]