Just here to vent!

[whatevergirl]

hi bklynbrat! First ((hugs))

I know how you are feeling–we actually left one parish to join another, because of their constant asking for money to buy a playground. I can understand one time, two time…but every mass for weeks, this went on…and we just opted to join another parish who frankly, seems to spend their money wiser.
Not that playgrounds aren’t beneficial to the children of the parish, but they have a playground, and they seem to be as large as the first parish we went to…so…not sure what that was about.

But, probably more than the money issue, I see that perhaps not being on the same pages with your church lives, is what is causing the rift more. If you belonged to his church, then maybe you would ‘buy into’ it more…if he belonged to yours, this would be a moot point. lol That being said, maybe try to work towards an understanding of what church should be the family’s church…a house divided as the Bible states, is a house that (has the capacity) to fall. So, if you are divided on your family’s central church, it will probably stand to reason that this will not be the last conversation you have like this. I would continue to pray for unity on that stance, and once you both become united on that aspect, all the other issues will automatically work themselves out–I just know it. But, it will be a little trying at first–but it’s something I’d work towards for the peace of your household (and your own peace)

But for right now, I would definitely renegotiate that amount with your husband, especially if it’s for an extra item like a track, etc…that isn’t something necessary or for the poor, and if you were not living paycheck to paycheck, perhaps it would be ok. But, maybe just renegotiate the amount, and see where that leads.

But, after that-I would discuss becoming united with your family’s church…into one.

God bless you–I hope things work out.

 

[bklynbrat]

Thank you all who responded.

I did find out more about this drive his church is doing. From what I can tell the whole campus is getting revamped. Before this pledge drive, there were dinner meetings held for members to discuss the church’s visions, which my husband did not attend. He’s not a regular attendee btw. He attends about 3x a month on average.

We’ve been married 22 years & this is the first time something like this has come up. We’ve always discussed big ticketed issues beforehand. I think he just felt this is what he needed to do. And yes I wish he discussed it with me before committing.

Since then we’ve talked more about it & he has told me that he understands where I’m coming from, & that he was wrong in committing w/o my (name removed by moderator)ut, and he apologized. He also said that he wants me to start giving more at my church. It can be done. He’s committed to quit eating out so much during the week, & we also can cut out other things that are not necessities…

 

[jman507]

Thank you all who responded.

I did find out more about this drive his church is doing. From what I can tell the whole campus is getting revamped. Before this pledge drive, there were dinner meetings held for members to discuss the church’s visions, which my husband did not attend. He’s not a regular attendee btw. He attends about 3x a month on average.

We’ve been married 22 years & this is the first time something like this has come up. We’ve always discussed big ticketed issues beforehand. I think he just felt this is what he needed to do. And yes I wish he discussed it with me before committing.

Since then we’ve talked more about it & he has told me that he understands where I’m coming from, & that he was wrong in committing w/o my (name removed by moderator)ut, and he apologized. He also said that he wants me to start giving more at my church. It can be done. He’s committed to quit eating out so much during the week, & we also can cut out other things that are not necessities…

Ahh good.

Was just figuring you needed to vent. Life can always blind-side you with a crisis you didn’t think was coming. Sometimes its a good thing – if it gets you to talking and understanding the other more.

Good for both you, handling it well.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thank you all who responded.

I did find out more about this drive his church is doing. From what I can tell the whole campus is getting revamped. Before this pledge drive, there were dinner meetings held for members to discuss the church’s visions, which my husband did not attend. He’s not a regular attendee btw. He attends about 3x a month on average.

We’ve been married 22 years & this is the first time something like this has come up. We’ve always discussed big ticketed issues beforehand. I think he just felt this is what he needed to do. And yes I wish he discussed it with me before committing.

Since then we’ve talked more about it & he has told me that he understands where I’m coming from, & that he was wrong in committing w/o my (name removed by moderator)ut, and he apologized. He also said that he wants me to start giving more at my church. It can be done. He’s committed to quit eating out so much during the week, & we also can cut out other things that are not necessities…

hey that is great!

 

[marietta]

From where I sit, no matter what the $3,000 was spent on, the issue is still the same: religious pledge or plasma t.v., the husband should not have earmarked those funds without discussing it with his wife first.

An apology after the fact may be enough for her, but amends would be far better. If he does not repeat the behavior today or tomorrow, then something has been learned.

marietta

 

[jman507]

From where I sit, no matter what the $3,000 was spent on, the issue is still the same: religious pledge or plasma t.v., the husband should not have earmarked those funds without discussing it with his wife first.

An apology after the fact may be enough for her, but amends would be far better. If he does not repeat the behavior today or tomorrow, then something has been learned.

marietta

If he doesn’t stand down from his position, then what?

 

[marietta]

jman507:

If, after negotiating and bargaining and presenting her case for fairness, she finds he doesn’t stand down from his position, then she should put on her pearls and shirtwaist dress (the one with the poufy petticoats) and stilettoes, make him a nice Manhattan, give him the evening paper, and get the tuna casserole in the oven, because she has been put in her subservient place.

What does she have? Nothing.

marietta

 

[robert_ambrose]

if your hubby is giving 3ooo over 3 yrs, and lets say 8000 of the others give the same, that’s approx 24 million dollars over 3 yrs. , i would be asking questions

 

[jman507]

jman507:

If, after negotiating and bargaining and presenting her case for fairness, she finds he doesn’t stand down from his position, then she should put on her pearls and shirtwaist dress (the one with the poufy petticoats) and stilettoes, make him a nice Manhattan, give him the evening paper, and get the tuna casserole in the oven, because she has been put in her subservient place.

What does she have? Nothing.

marietta

Then that’s that. Which may be fine, but would be a shame if you got to an unnecessary impasse, because of the way negotiations are handled. In this case I could see the money actually being a side issue, but the heart of it is a power play for who is subservient to whom. It seems all or nothing, when it really doesn’t have to be, that would be a shame.

Just because one thinks one is presenting a fully just case for fairness, your argument may be coming across differently. It’s not all about what you think is right. Your really not ready to negotiate until you understand the other’s position, and you fully understand the fundamentals of your position. Then your in position to try to reconcile an agreeable arrangement without risking being defensive. If your attitude ends up being too defensive to refine any coveted position, there is a good chance the other party may pull back and do the same. If your attitude seems to be thoughtful of the other party, and asking how they see the situation, you can much easier get them to be open to your position.

In the end, he may actually never had any intention of wanting to feel like you must be completely subservient to him. He may have just wanted to feel like he wanted to have a bit of say with some of the money, and he may not mind if she does the same with some of the money too. That can be worked with.

 

[marietta]

jman507:
If this husband had been up front about his intentions to use the $3K the way he did, the negotiations could have taken place then and there. It is the furtive nature of the act that is so disconcerting.

I’m not suggesting that the wife come out on the defensive. I think a good offense would have been in order. She had a right to feel angry about what he had done. She had a right to express that anger to him. I don’t understand all this tip-toeing around emotions like they’re land mines. Get it out, put it on the table, then negotiate.

marietta

 

[gardenswithkids]

**…**If, after negotiating and bargaining and presenting her case for fairness, she finds he doesn’t stand down from his position, then she should put on her pearls and shirtwaist dress (the one with the poufy petticoats) and stilettoes, make him a nice Manhattan, give him the evening paper, and get the tuna casserole in the oven, because she has been put in her subservient place…

**…I’m not suggesting that the wife come out on the defensive. I think a good offense would have been in order. **She had a right to feel angry about what he had done. She had a right to express that anger to him. I don’t understand all this tip-toeing around emotions like they’re land mines. Get it out, put it on the table, then negotiate.

marietta

**…**Money, and the mismanagement of it, is a prime factor in the dissolution of at least half of today’s marriages …

Serving tuna noodle caserole for dinner is passive-aggressive.

As you noted, money is a prime factor in the dissolution of many marriage today, but it’s more accurate to say *fights *about money are what contributes to divorce, not neccesarily disagreements. Couples can disagree without fighting. I asked if you were married because you take an approach that seems likely to start a fight without actually resolving the situation. It seems your suggestions are either aggressive or passive-aggressive. I suggest diplomatic tip-toeing which relies on proper assertiveness that is sensitive to the other spouses position. You seem ready to drive your stiletto heels right through the husband’s foot, and perhaps you’d then call it “equal” if cost to the shoes and the medical bills came to $3000.

I’m sorry to the original poster for continually bringing up this thread when you and your husband of 22 years (who you say never did this type of thing in the past) have already resolved the original question. I am glad that you assertively handled the situation and found resolution. The continued discussion here now may serve to help others learn how to similarly resolve conflict in marriage rather than resorting to agressive and passive-aggressive behaviors that are likely to end marriages.

 

[marietta]

gardenswithkids:

It doesn’t surprise me that you interpret my suggestions for assertive behavior as aggression - even today, many women are uncomfortable with the spontaneity of their own emotions. In the case of the husband/wife/$3K spent unilaterally, the wife was entitled to feel betrayed and, consequently, angry. Because feelings are not facts, she could well have addressed the issue with a cooler head after she vented aloud - to her husband. I don’t think he would have crumbled under the weight of her disapproval or hurt.

Passive/aggressive behavior requires a stuffing of thoughts, feelings, ideas until they can’t be contained and they burst out in a hail of rage. I have never suggested that anyone be passive about the way they feel or about what they think. So, here, I think you have painted an inauthentic portrait of me.

Tuna-noodle casserole makes me gag, but stilettoes . . .

marietta

 

[gardenswithkids]

**…**Passive/aggressive behavior requires a stuffing of thoughts, feelings, ideas until they can’t be contained and they burst out in a hail of rage. I have never suggested that anyone be passive about the way they feel or about what they think. So, here, I think you have painted an inauthentic portrait of me.

Tuna-noodle casserole makes me gag, but stilettoes . . .

marietta

My comment about passive-aggressive related to your suggestion to serve tuna noodle caserole. I also find it repulsive–that’s why I used the face. Your description of the 50’s housewife makes me wonder: how many horrid recipes from that era were developed by angry housewives who served disgusting foods like tuna caserole or liver for dinner because they were mad at their husband. :ehh:

 

[jman507]

gardenswithkids:

It doesn’t surprise me that you interpret my suggestions for assertive behavior as aggression - even today, many women are uncomfortable with the spontaneity of their own emotions. In the case of the husband/wife/$3K spent unilaterally, the wife was entitled to feel betrayed and, consequently, angry. Because feelings are not facts, she could well have addressed the issue with a cooler head after she vented aloud - to her husband. I don’t think he would have crumbled under the weight of her disapproval or hurt.

Passive/aggressive behavior requires a stuffing of thoughts, feelings, ideas until they can’t be contained and they burst out in a hail of rage. I have never suggested that anyone be passive about the way they feel or about what they think. So, here, I think you have painted an inauthentic portrait of me.

Tuna-noodle casserole makes me gag, but stilettoes . . .

marietta

Well three-years old also have a spontaneous way of expressing their emotions. Nothing wrong with it in-itself, but what would is wrong depends on the exact way expressing the emotions is done. Yes she does have a right to feel angry, even a right to express it. If I remember correct from my business law, he has a right to spend any cash he has, and in general if his name is on a checking account, to spend money with checks tied to the account. A right is one thing, how to go out and use that right is more of an issue.

If you end up expressing your emotions in a way where you create another “reprehensible” situation, you may do more harm than good. What actually do you perfer, to be able to express your feelings of anger, or get him to not do it again? If you handle it wrong, you may end up with an additional infraction that needs which will need to be delt with.

I like the idea of assertiveness. Here is an exert from the wikipedia page on the subject:

"As a communication style and strategy, assertiveness is distinguished from aggression and passivity. How people deal with personal boundaries; their own and those of other people, helps to distinguish between these three concepts.

"Passive communicators do not defend their own personal boundaries and thus allow aggressive people to harm or otherwise unduly influence them. They are also typically not likely to risk trying to influence anyone else. Aggressive people do not respect the personal boundaries of others and thus are liable to harm others while trying to influence them.

“A person communicates assertively by not being afraid to speak his or her mind or trying to influence others, but doing so in a way that respects the personal boundaries of others. They are also willing to defend themselves against aggressive incursions.”

 

[marietta]

jman507:

If the husband has a checking account with his name ONLY on it then he has a right to spend that money as he chooses. If, however, it is a JOINT account, he has a duty to confer with any other parties listed on that account as to how funds are to be spent BEFORE the transaction takes place.

This is my point precisely: he should have an account of his own, as should she; in addition, they should have a joint account. It does not matter how much income is generated by this couple, or any couple; the money issue is negotiable with one income or two.

I believe, given this set of circumstances, that I would prefer to express my anger and then discuss the transgression. Your suggestion that I could “get him to not do it again” by diluting my feelings about his behavior is, in my opinion, a misstep: I cannot manipulate anyone into “acting right”. That would be his own little epiphany generated by whatever guidance he received from God and his conscience.

marietta

 

[Marsha_Adams]

My comment about passive-aggressive related to your suggestion to serve tuna noodle caserole. I also find it repulsive–that’s why I used the face. Your description of the 50’s housewife makes me wonder: how many horrid recipes from that era were developed by angry housewives who served disgusting foods like tuna caserole or liver for dinner because they were mad at their husband. :ehh:

Hey!! I like tuna casserole and liver. If they are nasty, it is because they weren’t properly prepared.

 

[jman507]

jman507:

If the husband has a checking account with his name ONLY on it then he has a right to spend that money as he chooses. If, however, it is a JOINT account, he has a duty to confer with any other parties listed on that account as to how funds are to be spent BEFORE the transaction takes place.

This is my point precisely: he should have an account of his own, as should she; in addition, they should have a joint account. It does not matter how much income is generated by this couple, or any couple; the money issue is negotiable with one income or two.

I believe, given this set of circumstances, that I would prefer to express my anger and then discuss the transgression. Your suggestion that I could “get him to not do it again” by diluting my feelings about his behavior is, in my opinion, a misstep: I cannot manipulate anyone into “acting right”. That would be his own little epiphany generated by whatever guidance he received from God and his conscience.

marietta

Well you also, have the right to express your anger, but you also have a duty to make sure it is managed in a proper way on condition you don’t want a dysfunctional relationship. It seems to compliment the idea that on a joint checking account, one has the right to use the checking account, but one also has the duty to properly manage it in coordination with the other person.

My percise point is they can make arrangments how ever they see fit. They should be prudent to make it in such a way that both will be relatively comfortable and secure in the arrangement especially with regard to the patterns of how they act.

I guess what I want to know is if you think that if you cannot “manipulate anyone into doing what is right”, and it is only due to “his own little epiphany generated by whatever guidance he received from God and his conscience,” what difference does it make if you express your anger in a “diluted” way or not? Why exactly is it a misstep? I just want some idea of what you are trying to acheive by the whole thing.

 

[marietta]

jman507:

My point is this:
The misstep for me would be in the denial or suppression of my feelings in response to the husband’s actions. In my opinion, failure to acknowledge raw emotion is dysfunctional. I believe
anger is appropriate here.

You posed an either/or question in an earlier post: did I prefer to express my feelings of anger or “get him to not do it again”? I would not have the power to “get him to not do it again.” He has to come to that crossroads on his own, ideally with God’s help and guidance. I am powerless to make anyone conform to anything. My preference, again, is to be free enough within the relationship to express anger when I’m angry, and any other emotion when it arises. The short of it is, if he were my husband, he wouldn’t get a pass on this one.

I’m not trying to achieve anything at all, except perhaps to view the whole idea of marriage with less dismay and a little more understanding. The experiment thus far has been a miserable failure.

marietta

 

[jman507]

jman507:

My point is this:
The misstep for me would be in the denial or suppression of my feelings in response to the husband’s actions. In my opinion, failure to acknowledge raw emotion is dysfunctional. I believe
anger is appropriate here.

You posed an either/or question in an earlier post: did I prefer to express my feelings of anger or “get him to not do it again”? I would not have the power to “get him to not do it again.” He has to come to that crossroads on his own, ideally with God’s help and guidance. I am powerless to make anyone conform to anything. My preference, again, is to be free enough within the relationship to express anger when I’m angry, and any other emotion when it arises. The short of it is, if he were my husband, he wouldn’t get a pass on this one.

I’m not trying to achieve anything at all, except perhaps to view the whole idea of marriage with less dismay and a little more understanding. The experiment thus far has been a miserable failure.

marietta

I’m still not exactly clear if you feel you’ve “diluted” your feeling of anger, why that means you have not expressed it. Granted one problem here is that expressing anger is rather vague. There are many ways to express your raw emotions, some are better than others.

I worry that when you say you want to go on the offensive and express your anger and not have it diluted, you mean that your going to turn it into blind rage. If you do that, you could really end up adding another transgression on top of the other transgression that never fully got solved. You can express your anger, but you need to be mindful that your not going to be transgressing against his sense of boundaries.

You are not powerless to get anyone to do anything. On one hand you are saying that if you cannot express your anger on this, then you must be subservient and serve him tuna noodle casserole. On the other, you say that one cannot get one to do another thing. From this logic, it would seem you cannot influence anyone, yet at the same time others can have influence over you.

I know I posed that question in an either/or way, I just did that to try to see which part you were leaning towards as more important. Personally, I think you can do more than just express your emotions. You can be more persuasive than what you give yourself credit. You seem to be able to convey your position fine to me. While you actually cannot get anyone to do anything, you can persuade another to do one thing over another.

In the end if you would like less dismay in a marriage, and more understanding, I’m guessing in general a spouse would tend to want that too. If you do want understanding that requires you to understand his position, along with him understanding yours. Also you need more understanding than just raw emotions.

Raw emotions are never a substitute for application. If you want understanding you must understand the issue more than just the raw emotions it stirs up. If the only thing the other person really gets from you is the raw emotions, it can be really disconcerting for the other person to not really understand if he is fuzzy on the exact reasons. Raw emotions are a good thing they can give a needed warning, but you need to further processes them.

You need to be able to understand and express what you want, and what may be up for negotiation. You also need to let him express to you what he wants, and what may be negotiable. Chances are you could probably talk the issue into terms you are both relatively comfortable with.

 

[marietta]

jman507:

It seems we could be arguing the same point here. I do not want to have to squelch my immediate emotions and walk on egg-shells because someone’s boundaries might be temporarily shifted out of place. Boundaries also need renegotiation from time to time. And the husband here certainly had no regard for the wife’s boundaries in the first place. Therefore, it all needs to be reassessed.

What I said was, “get it out, put it on the table, then negotiate.” I’m not talking about blind rage, which is more for show than it is substantial. I understand how that would be a setback in the discussion. But I am a person who must be true to myself in the emotional arena; if someone has done something to violate my basic sense of wellness (food, shelter, economic security, reasonably good health, etc.) I am going to a) have a gut response to that, and b) express the emotion that arises from the triggering event. Sometimes, such as in the workplace, I have to make an appointment with a supervisor to discuss a perceived infraction. This frustrates me, but it does give me time to gather my thoughts and prioritize the components of the issue. At other times, I will spontaneously erupt, as we all do when we hit our thumb with a hammer. Once the major eruption has died down I can discuss the issues. But to meekly go into negotiations cowed, with a soft little voice and a need to just be done with it - that’s not me.

Anyone and everyone can be influential and persuasive. But in the end we each make our own decisions about the next (right) thing to do. I am powerless to make anyone do what I want. That’s where acceptance comes in. And it is my experience that, after a time, when one partner is the only one practicing dialogue and acceptance, month after month, year after year, then that’s where divorce comes in.

I don’t want less dismay in the marriage. I want less dismay in considering what marriage can be as opposed to what it so often turns out to be. I don’t want my life to be filled with contention anymore. All this discussing and renegotiating and agreeing to disagree is exhausting. It’s a high price to pay to have someone handy to drive me to the doctor or change the oil in my car.

marietta