Taking a Spouses Side

[fastenatingguy]

If you are living with a spouse who won’t talk to you about anything substantial or intimate, figuring out how to proceed proactively to address that issue is a job for a professional counsellor. There are no guaranteed ways to do it, but there are ways that are more and ways that are less likely to find some measure of success. Once you get her talking, then you might have some better idea what to do next.

Prayer is the foundational underpinning, absolutely, but don’t stop there. Look into what you might try to do, too.

This might also take the form of gradually letting go of your desire to avoid conflict…gradually because you start practicing the art of gentle but firm assertion within your other relationships. It takes practice to learn how to voice hard truths in a gentle non-confrontational way that doesn’t leave the recipient either defensive or not on the spot at all. It takes practice to decide when it is right to assert your position and when humility counsels otherwise. You don’t get to where you know when it is the time to clear the Temple and how to do it in just a day.

–==---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a job for a professional counsellor.

I agree with you completely. I lobbied for a marriage counselor (or similar) for several months. I urged her to choose the venue and the counselor. No interest. Finally, I decided to go alone, and went to four sessions. The woman counselor told me that there was no reason for me to continue without my wife. It would be necessary for both of us to be there in order for a dialogue to take place, etc. She told me to expect that in the first session my wife would want to dominate the discussion with a lot of negatives, etc. I said that’s OK, let’s get started. Maybe if she can get it off her chest, that would be a an opening in the door for my little toe…

But my wife just said “too late, I’ve replaced you, the only thing you should do now is to be a good father to the kids…” and so that has been what I’ve tried to do. But it is an empty life, and so I have been filling it with the Church, friends, more activities with my son, work, etc. It’s a very difficult situation. I do understand your point, I just am not sure where to begin (again). Most of my closest friends have said “she has abandoned you” and that is grounds for divorce. That may be true or not, but I do not see it as am option. I cling to prayer and hope that anything is possible with God. Thank you again for caring.

 

[EasterJoy]

–==---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a job for a professional counsellor.

I agree with you completely. I lobbied for a marriage counselor (or similar) for several months. I urged her to choose the venue and the counselor. No interest. Finally, I decided to go alone, and went to four sessions. The woman counselor told me that there was no reason for me to continue without my wife. It would be necessary for both of us to be there in order for a dialogue to take place, etc. She told me to expect that in the first session my wife would want to dominate the discussion with a lot of negatives, etc. I said that’s OK, let’s get started. Maybe if she can get it off her chest, that would be a an opening in the door for my little toe…

But my wife just said “too late, I’ve replaced you, the only thing you should do now is to be a good father to the kids…” and so that has been what I’ve tried to do. But it is an empty life, and so I have been filling it with the Church, friends, more activities with my son, work, etc. It’s a very difficult situation. I do understand your point, I just am not sure where to begin (again). Most of my closest friends have said “she has abandoned you” and that is grounds for divorce. That may be true or not, but I do not see it as am option. I cling to prayer and hope that anything is possible with God. Thank you again for caring.

You might not want to see a marriage counsellor. You may just want a counsellor for you. You may want a very good spiritual advisor. I think from what you are saying, though, that even if you keep doing exactly what you are doing with the hope of eventually achieving a different result, you ought to stop on a regular basis and ask “how’s this working for us? For her? For our kids? For me?” The Grand Canyon wasn’t worn away in a day, but the river did achieve a little something every year.

It could be, after all, that by conceding to your wife her choice to abandon you emotionally, you are supporting her decision to do that. To tell someone “too late, I’ve replaced you, the only thing you should do now is to be a good father to the kids…” is emotional abuse, after all. How many times does an abused spouse mend his or her marriage by accepting abusive treatement? Would a wife who consented to her husband’s philandering, for instance, have any hope of stopping it by her tacit approval?

Note that canon law provides for a separation with the bond remaining (which can, if justice requires it, include a civil divorce for the purpose of dividing property):

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay…

Do not get me wrong. Your fidelity to the obligations of marriage are laudable and may even be a moral necessity. I don’t know your case. My concerns, however, are these: a) that it could do you irreparable emotional harm if you endure this without sufficient outside support, b) that the particulars of your strategy may not be the most likely of your options to lead to a reconciliation and c) if you are making choices that amount to acceptance of emotional abuse, witnessing that abuse might harm your children’s chances for their own successful marriages. You cannot just assume that they don’t know what you’re going through or that it does them no harm.

I’m not saying that it is harmful to stay in an unhappy marriage, per se, or that it is wrong to stay in one every time that it is painful to do so. Far from it. I am saying that there are ways to stay and there are ways to stay, some of those are better than others, and that the greatest measure of success you might expect will probably be achieved through the regular guidance of someone who is wise and knowledgeable concerning the pursuit of holiness.

If nothing else, consider this maxim, attributed to Steven Covey:* The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. *I’m suggesting that your case warrants substantial and ongoing help in identifying that “main thing” and to assess whether you are in fact doing your best in pursuing it with a constant eye to your best of hope of success and not just any course that seems to serve your best intentions.

Back to the OP’s main point: Support for your spouse sometimes absolutely means saying in no uncertain terms that their attitudes and actions are totally unacceptable. It may mean doing so in a way that could be obvious to others. While correction of a spouse is best done in a way that is discrete and helps them to save face, that allows them to speak freely to you, there are times when it is the needed correction and not the face of the situation that have to come first. That is what I meant by dragging in the story about the Prophet Nathan…saying “You are the man!!..Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight?” (from 2 Sam. 12) was exactly what fidelity and King David’s best interest required! She is angry because you didn’t agree with her enough; that doesn’t mean that agreeing with her now is best for either of you.

Your wife is remaining in your house but refusing to reconcile. That can only go on for so long before it does damage that it is your duty to prevent when it is possible. Sometimes a fire claims a structure and nothing can be done about it, sometimes all that can be done is to confine the damage, but what does not make sense is to roll up the hoses, send the truck away, and hope a deluge comes along to put it out. Either declare it a loss, or keep fighting and hope for whatever help Providence may send. Maybe find a different angle of attack, but don’t let your hope for a rainstorm break your resolve to keep fighting the blaze yourself, too.

 

[fastenatingguy]

You might not want to see a marriage counsellor. You may just want a counsellor for you. You may want a very good spiritual advisor. I think from what you are saying, though, that even if you keep doing exactly what you are doing with the hope of eventually achieving a different result, you ought to stop on a regular basis and ask “how’s this working for us? For her? For our kids? For me?” The Grand Canyon wasn’t worn away in a day, but the river did achieve a little something every year.

It could be, after all, that by conceding to your wife her choice to abandon you emotionally, you are supporting her decision to do that. To tell someone “too late, I’ve replaced you, the only thing you should do now is to be a good father to the kids…” is emotional abuse, after all. How many times does an abused spouse mend his or her marriage by accepting abusive treatement? Would a wife who consented to her husband’s philandering, for instance, have any hope of stopping it by her tacit approval?

Note that canon law provides for a separation with the bond remaining (which can, if justice requires it, include a civil divorce for the purpose of dividing property):

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay…

Do not get me wrong. Your fidelity to the obligations of marriage are laudable and may even be a moral necessity. I don’t know your case. My concerns, however, are these: a) that it could do you irreparable emotional harm if you endure this without sufficient outside support, b) that the particulars of your strategy may not be the most likely of your options to lead to a reconciliation and c) if you are making choices that amount to acceptance of emotional abuse, witnessing that abuse might harm your children’s chances for their own successful marriages. You cannot just assume that they don’t know what you’re going through or that it does them no harm.

I’m not saying that it is harmful to stay in an unhappy marriage, per se, or that it is wrong to stay in one every time that it is painful to do so. Far from it. I am saying that there are ways to stay and there are ways to stay, some of those are better than others, and that the greatest measure of success you might expect will probably be achieved through the regular guidance of someone who is wise and knowledgeable concerning the pursuit of holiness.

If nothing else, consider this maxim, attributed to Steven Covey:* The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. *I’m suggesting that your case warrants substantial and ongoing help in identifying that “main thing” and to assess whether you are in fact doing your best in pursuing it with a constant eye to your best of hope of success and not just any course that seems to serve your best intentions.

Back to the OP’s main point: Support for your spouse sometimes absolutely means saying in no uncertain terms that their attitudes and actions are totally unacceptable. It may mean doing so in a way that could be obvious to others. While correction of a spouse is best done in a way that is discrete and helps them to save face, that allows them to speak freely to you, there are times when it is the needed correction and not the face of the situation that have to come first. That is what I meant by dragging in the story about the Prophet Nathan…saying “You are the man!!..Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight?” (from 2 Sam. 12) was exactly what fidelity and King David’s best interest required! She is angry because you didn’t agree with her enough; that doesn’t mean that agreeing with her now is best for either of you.

Your wife is remaining in your house but refusing to reconcile. That can only go on for so long before it does damage that it is your duty to prevent when it is possible. Sometimes a fire claims a structure and nothing can be done about it, sometimes all that can be done is to confine the damage, but what does not make sense is to roll up the hoses, send the truck away, and hope a deluge comes along to put it out. Either declare it a loss, or keep fighting and hope for whatever help Providence may send. Maybe find a different angle of attack, but don’t let your hope for a rainstorm break your resolve to keep fighting the blaze yourself, too.

---

Thanks, that is a lot to consider.

Pretty cool that “someone” (you) would take the time to provide insight to a stranger.

 

[manualman]

I think I’d put it differently than BlueEyed.

Instead of “always taking the spouses side”, how about “Always portary your spouse in the best light possible?”

This means always giving the benefit of the doubt. Always showing others your love and respect for her. Honoring her (name removed by moderator)ut and opinion, but not necessarily agreeing.

This prevents awkward moments and conflicts of principle when your spouse inevitably says something mindless (he’s going to, us guys ALWAYS do eventually!)

If he goes on a rant about “illegal aliens” and you have different opinions, you can respect his frustrations, but don’t have to agree publicly. You most likely WILL eventually differ on a politician, get ready for it. Surely you don’t expect that spouses must never argue politics in public?

Basically, I think its unrealistic to expect you’ll always and all times be able to publicly agree with your spouses opinions. But you can always honor him/her even in disagreement.

 

[Moore11]

I would defend my wife any time in public. I private I would not agree but in public absolutely. She could say that day was night and I would back her. However, she would not defend me in public.
It is just a difference in our personalities. And both have advantages. I know my wife will never be two faced or not give me her real opinion. And she knows I will defend my queen at any expense.

That being said she has told me that she would never give an alibi for a crime. For that, I guess I have to call my mom.

 

[EasterJoy]

---

Thanks, that is a lot to consider.

Pretty cool that “someone” (you) would take the time to provide insight to a stranger.

You seem a very good man, and very much willing to admit, be contrite, and amend with regards to your failures. I don’t know that my advice will avail you of more than what you paid for it, but I do hope you do get through to your wife, eventually.

You are wise to pray. That is the most neglected and yet most powerful way to change hearts. Pray to God, but row away from the rocks…but don’t get so busy rowing that you forget to pray! That is definitely part of the main thing!!

 

[chevalier]

I was always raised to believe that you stand by your spouse and take their side even when you feel that they are wrong.

Nope, sorry. Not mum, not dad, not the Pope, and not the wife.

It’s one thing if you won’t criticise and if you will defend your spouse, mention things in his or her defence or try to get others to find empathy for his or her views.

But if he or she is wrong, then her or she is wrong.

Even if you privately argue with them and try to change their mind, you defend them to the outside world and present yourselves as united.

You avoid showing a disagreement in public but you don’t lie.

But I do understand that that can sometimes be a difficult thing to do, especially when you have to stand by them over your friends or even family that you feel are right.

In such a situation your place may well be by your spouse’s side, not with your family, you may need to “recuse” yourself from the argument, but you don’t take steps or argue against people whom you believe to be right.

If I’m in the wrong, I want my hypothetical future wife to brief me in no ambiguous words and file for an injuction first before she let me do a seriously messed up thing. And as much as I might and probably would be sugary-brained about anyone I actually ended up marrying, I should do the same for her (minus the filing). If anything, right now I’m desiring to become stronger so that attraction and fondness and fear of rejection never again prevents me from being honest about what I think about someone’s behaviour (fiat iustitia pereant my chances).

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree or disagree with it?

Oh, sorry. I spoke out of turn again and already gave you that, unsolicited, a paragraph ago. I trust you will find it in yourself to pardon me for this one.

And before anyone asks this question is not stemming from a problem in my or anyone else’s relationship. It’s hypothetical. But as a young woman preparing for marriage I am interested in other’s thoughts on the matter.

You probably shouldn’t be listening to me if you don’t want to be single forever.

 

[fastenatingguy]

You seem a very good man, and very much willing to admit, be contrite, and amend with regards to your failures. I don’t know that my advice will avail you of more than what you paid for it, but I do hope you do get through to your wife, eventually.

You are wise to pray. That is the most neglected and yet most powerful way to change hearts. Pray to God, but row away from the rocks…but don’t get so busy rowing that you forget to pray! That is definitely part of the main thing!!

---

Easter,

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Lots of awesome insight.

When it comes to disagreements about politics, sports, whatever I have no issue with publicly disagreeing. I was thinking more in terms of conflicts with other people.

Your mom and wife have an issue you back your wife. Husband and sister don’t get along, you back your husband. Even if you think that your spouse is in the wrong. At least that’s what I was always taught.

Now of course in cases of abuse that goes out the window.

 

[AthenaC]

Your mom and wife have an issue you back your wife. Husband and sister don’t get along, you back your husband. Even if you think that your spouse is in the wrong. At least that’s what I was always taught.

Now of course in cases of abuse that goes out the window.

Oh I see what you’re saying.

So thinking about our family dynamics, there is quite a bit that my mom is wrong about with regard to my husband. So much so that my husband refuses to go with me when I go to my parents’ house. The extent to which I defend my husband to my mom is basically that I tell her the topic is not open for discussion and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, I can’t boycott my parents completely because they are great grandparents and I wouldn’t want to deprive my kids of that. It stinks, though, because time with my parents is time away from my husband, but whaddaya gonna do?

On the other side, his mom prefers to just deal with me when making plans with us. Also his mom will yell at him if she thinks he’s not taking good care of our relationship (not doing enough romantic stuff, for example). So I really don’t have that issue.

In general I agree though. In engaging with other people or the children, you definitely do not want to undermine your unity. Now, having said that, both spouses should be prudent in things they announce without discussing with the other spouse. It could put the other spouse in a position where they really have no choice but to side with the kids / other family member.

 

[Moore11]

Lots of awesome insight.

When it comes to disagreements about politics, sports, whatever I have no issue with publicly disagreeing. I was thinking more in terms of conflicts with other people.

Your mom and wife have an issue you back your wife. Husband and sister don’t get along, you back your husband. Even if you think that your spouse is in the wrong. At least that’s what I was always taught.

Now of course in cases of abuse that goes out the window.

Ohhhhh I get it. In that case. Then both my wife and I agree. We always side with each other. We agree that my family are demons and hers are saints. It is true and it makes for a happy marriage. I’d trade my MIL for my own mother in a heartbeat.

 

[chevalier]

Your mom and wife have an issue you back your wife. Husband and sister don’t get along, you back your husband. Even if you think that your spouse is in the wrong. At least that’s what I was always taught.

Now of course in cases of abuse that goes out the window.

Side with people who are in the wrong and abuse will follow.

Obviously, being there and providing emotional support is different from knowingly assenting to a false claim (let alone against people who are actually right). I’d expect my wife to be with me but telling me if she thought I was in the wrong, and why (as opposed to hanging out at the opposing camp, which would be a mighty bad thing to do). I’d appreciate her all the more for sticking with me, like that friend in my adolescent years who’d still walk home with me when she thought I was wrong and everybody else was right in a 1v30 thing but she was still a good friend. Same way, I’d be with my hypothetical wife explaining to her how and why she were wrong (obviously not talking about silly stuff like which football team is the best, where it would primarily annoy me to no small extent that people would actually go ballistic on their own families and friends about that sort of trivia). If she had a disagreement with a child, however, or something of the sort, then I’d try to make the contention disappear and gently force (yes, I know) an ADR solution in the most natural way possible. But if I really had to take a stand, it’d be with the person who were in the right. Just like I tell my family and friends when they badly misunderstand their legal rights.

 

[jmcrae]

Side with people who are in the wrong and abuse will follow.

What is “in the wrong”? We are talking about the little things where one thoughtless word deprives you of your nice soft bed, for no good reason - for example, should the family go to the movies, or go rollerblading?

Your spouse wants to go to the movies; your Mom wants to go rollerblading - guess what, even if you were just about to say “hey, let’s go rollerblading,” the sentence that actually comes out of your mouth is, “I want to go to the movies, too.” Because you love your spouse. And you like sleeping in the same bed with him or her, instead of in the dog house.

We’re not talking moral dilemmas, here.

Hopefully, your spouse does the same for you, and everybody gets to sleep in a nice soft bed every night.

 

[SwizzleStick]

What is “in the wrong”? We are talking about the little things where one thoughtless word deprives you of your nice soft bed, for no good reason - for example, should the family go to the movies, or go rollerblading?

Your spouse wants to go to the movies; your Mom wants to go rollerblading - guess what, even if you were just about to say “hey, let’s go rollerblading,” the sentence that actually comes out of your mouth is, “I want to go to the movies, too.” Because you love your spouse. And you like sleeping in the same bed with him or her, instead of in the dog house.

We’re not talking moral dilemmas, here.

Hopefully, your spouse does the same for you, and everybody gets to sleep in a nice soft bed every night.

Are you sure moral dilemmas aren’t being discussed rather than recreational pursuits (or some other light topic)? It seems to me that moral issues might be the issue, at least that is my take according to the OP.

I was always raised to believe that you stand by your spouse and take their side even when you feel that they are wrong. Even if you privately argue with them and try to change their mind, you defend them to the outside world and present yourselves as united.

But I do understand that that can sometimes be a difficult thing to do, especially when you have to stand by them over your friends or even family that you feel are right.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree or disagree with it?

And before anyone asks this question is not stemming from a problem in my or anyone else’s relationship. It’s hypothetical. But as a young woman preparing for marriage I am interested in other’s thoughts on the matter.

I think one should always side with right and truth on certain issues, though try not to make a big deal out of disagreement when out in public. Hubby and I agree on the non-negotiables, that abortion is intrinsically evil, that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage and there can never be homosexual marriage, that raising our children as faithful Catholics is our most important goal, etc., etc., so we don’t argue about many non-negotiables anyway. We did have trouble coming to a decision about attendance when his sib married outside the Church, but I supported him. Though I still wasn’t sure if it was the right thing to do, I went along to get along and to ease some pressure for him.

We have two very different personalities and we do disagree on some other big issues, i.e., child raising issues. Those are big too, but I wouldn’t argue in public, though I don’t side with him either. I do sometimes state my opinion in public when it differs from his. I certainly talk to him privately.

We also disagree on pizza toppings. I let him get the toppings he wants and do not disagree with his choices, though I prefer the whole garden on a pizza and not just meat and cheese and a few peppers. Actually, truth be told, I could go years without pizza again, but he likes it, so…

 

[EasterJoy]

Side with people who are in the wrong and abuse will follow.

Obviously, being there and providing emotional support is different from knowingly assenting to a false claim (let alone against people who are actually right). I’d expect my wife to be with me but telling me if she thought I was in the wrong, and why (as opposed to hanging out at the opposing camp, which would be a mighty bad thing to do). I’d appreciate her all the more for sticking with me, like that friend in my adolescent years who’d still walk home with me when she thought I was wrong and everybody else was right in a 1v30 thing but she was still a good friend. Same way, I’d be with my hypothetical wife explaining to her how and why she were wrong (obviously not talking about silly stuff like which football team is the best, where it would primarily annoy me to no small extent that people would actually go ballistic on their own families and friends about that sort of trivia). If she had a disagreement with a child, however, or something of the sort, then I’d try to make the contention disappear and gently force (yes, I know) an ADR solution in the most natural way possible. But if I really had to take a stand, it’d be with the person who were in the right. Just like I tell my family and friends when they badly misunderstand their legal rights.

What spouse in the world is going to believe that an attorney is incapable of siding with someone who has the evidence stacked against her? After all, between the extremes of asserting the wrong and asserting the right, there is the middle ground of keeping your mouth closed because you are ethically joined with the defendant at the hip.

 

[chevalier]

What is “in the wrong”? We are talking about the little things where one thoughtless word deprives you of your nice soft bed, for no good reason - for example, should the family go to the movies, or go rollerblading?

Those are not really things where someone can be wrong and another right. Disputes coming down to someone feeling wronged by a family member or friend was more what I had in mind, but I primarily reacted to the part about explicitly siding with one’s spouse even when in the wrong.

Your spouse wants to go to the movies; your Mom wants to go rollerblading - guess what, even if you were just about to say “hey, let’s go rollerblading,” the sentence that actually comes out of your mouth is, “I want to go to the movies, too.” Because you love your spouse.

Naah! That’s a simplistic solution, and a wrong one! There is not necessarily any dichotomy between mother and spouse, we only create it by artificially putting them on opposing sides, reducing the whole situation to a black and white conflict, which it is not. The good solution is to find a way to appease both women (okay, I know, pardon me ), while painstakingly working to prevent a proper conflict from forming. Diffuse the situation. Come up with a creative solution. Don’t divide the existing pie, create new value! Do it with a smile and overwhelm any malcontents with a warm, kind, happy, unwaveringly positive disposition (like cats do). Make them feel slightly ashamed for being petty and hope the lesson sticks. Or just joke to let the steam off.

And you like sleeping in the same bed with him or her, instead of in the dog house.

I would be shot dead cold, I hope, before I turned against my own mother merely to keep a warm bed for myself.

Less importantly, but I would probably be shot dead cold before I married the type of woman to act like you described or cowtowed to one. A man who can’t look a furious female being right in the eye and get her to back down shouldn’t be marrying.

We’re not talking moral dilemmas, here.

We are. The entire thread testifies to this. Everybody is making distinctions between moral or not moral matters, serious and trivial etc.

Hopefully, your spouse does the same for you, and everybody gets to sleep in a nice soft bed every night.

An undisturbed conscience is softer than any pillow. If my hypothetical wife is assertive and wrong, I expect to tell her. If I am assertive and wrong, I expect her to tell me. It would be more loyal to tell me I were wrong than to pretend I were right.

 

[chevalier]

What spouse in the world is going to believe that an attorney is incapable of siding with someone who has the evidence stacked against her? After all, between the extremes of asserting the wrong and asserting the right, there is the middle ground of keeping your mouth closed because you are ethically joined with the defendant at the hip.

I’ve tossed glasses on the table and used ‘f’ words at full volume when asked to go against my ethics, you know. Realistically speaking, I could probably only ever end up married to a similar person and we’d probably be able to understand this part of each other.

For the record, just like it would be wrong to lie for one’s spouse’s benefit in court, it would be wrong to be partial and side with one’s spouse when actually forced to take an opinion in a family dispute. And not only family. You just don’t defend a false position or put forth a false set of facts. Family or not family.

We also disagree on pizza toppings. I let him get the toppings he wants and do not disagree with his choices, though I prefer the whole garden on a pizza and not just meat and cheese and a few peppers. Actually, truth be told, I could go years without pizza again, but he likes it, so…

Knowing myself, I would be physically unable not to like a pizza topping my girlfriend liked, let alone wife, but even then I’d still be pretending and being very obvious about the pretending, all for a good laugh. I’m a joker, you see. I wasn’t there when they were removing senses of humour surgically in the last year before graduation. Come to think of it… when was graduation, after all? I probably was ardently playing a computer game as the ceremony went on. And, for the record, the big news is that not everybody has to eat the same pizza. You just need to talk the staff into selling you smaller pieces of different kinds (easily done with pizza al taglio). And tip appropriately for the effort.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ve tossed glasses on the table and used ‘f’ words at full volume when asked to go against my ethics, you know. Realistically speaking, I could probably only ever end up married to a similar person and we’d probably be able to understand this part of each other.

For the record, just like it would be wrong to lie for one’s spouse’s benefit in court, it would be wrong to be partial and side with one’s spouse when actually forced to take an opinion in a family dispute. And not only family. You just don’t defend a false position or put forth a false set of facts. Family or not family.

Knowing myself, I would be physically unable not to like a pizza topping my girlfriend liked, let alone wife, but even then I’d still be pretending and being very obvious about the pretending, all for a good laugh. I’m a joker, you see. I wasn’t there when they were removing senses of humour surgically in the last year before graduation. Come to think of it… when was graduation, after all? I probably was ardently playing a computer game as the ceremony went on. And, for the record, the big news is that not everybody has to eat the same pizza. You just need to talk the staff into selling you smaller pieces of different kinds (easily done with pizza al taglio). And tip appropriately for the effort.

I don’t think anyone is asking you to go against your ethics. It is possible, when there is a family squabble, to just keep your mouth shut and refuse to pile on with the side that’s against your spouse. In real life as in court, you are rarely forced to testify against the person you married.

*It is even possible to bite your tongue when your spouse gets her way and later turns out to be incontrovertibly wrong! *Yes, it can be done! Not only possible, but very much worth the effort!

Lawyers I have known have had some wicked, impossibly clever, and nearly incorrigible senses of humor. I think if they didn’t have something of a sense of humor, they’d all slit their wrists a year into the game. You have to take the human race with a grain of salt to practice law, don’t you think?

Now, if you’re in human resources, that is something else again…

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Less importantly, but I would probably be shot dead cold before I married the type of woman to act like you described or cowtowed to one. A man who can’t look a furious female being right in the eye and get her to back down shouldn’t be marrying.

…Oh really? Well I’ll tell you this much, if you’re with a woman long enough you will eventually screw up, and it will be big, and she will be furious. At some point in time or another everyone does. If you think that you have the right, much less the responsibility to make her back down with just a look you need to seriously adjust your attitude when it comes to relationships, and more specifically communication.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t think anyone is asking you to go against your ethics. It is possible, when there is a family squabble, to just keep your mouth shut and refuse to pile on with the side that’s against your spouse. In real life as in court, you are rarely forced to testify against the person you married.

*It is even possible to bite your tongue when your spouse gets her way and later turns out to be incontrovertibly wrong! *Yes, it can be done! Not only possible, but very much worth the effort!

I believe correcting the wrong is more wholesome and more worth the effort. Shutting up for the sake of ordre public is a half-measure and a solution that already contains a taste of defeat. Perhaps because it is a concession for the sake of appeasement. Appeasement is not really an efficient policy. In appeasing them, you join them (in being wrong). In converting them, you make them join you. People are not as immune to logic as it might seem, they generally eventually budge if you speak with enough clarity and authority.

Lawyers I have known have had some wicked, impossibly clever, and nearly incorrigible senses of humor. I think if they didn’t have something of a sense of humor, they’d all slit their wrists a year into the game.

You have a point there but not with all of them. There are some types of lawyers you haven’t met.

You have to take the human race with a grain of salt to practice law, don’t you think?

A whole bunch of salt. Just watch it because a lethal dose of salt is surprisingly low and not so difficult to consume in one go for a normal person.

Now, if you’re in human resources, that is something else again…

HR is foreign territory.

…Oh really? Well I’ll tell you this much, if you’re with a woman long enough you will eventually screw up, and it will be big, and she will be furious. At some point in time or another everyone does. If you think that you have the right, much less the responsibility to make her back down with just a look you need to seriously adjust your attitude when it comes to relationships, and more specifically communication.

With all due respect, if you’re going to defend a woman’s right to go ballistic and have things her way lest she go even more ballistic, then it’s more probably you who need to learn a bit more about communication.

And when a man does screw up, he needs to own up to it and apologise. But you’re arguing a general rule out of an exception because you provided a very specific, unique example and then tried to cover the entire spectrum of the discussion with it. In other words, you inserted an assumption of your own that the man had acted wrong before and even majorly so but tried to make the conclusions general for all cases as opposed to specific to the one unique case you had provided or at least defeat a general rule with a marginal exception that’s only true for a limited narrow scope of cases. I hope I’ve managed to help you see the error of your ways.