Big Fights over stupid things in marriage

[SquirrellyMama]

5 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I know. But my mother was a complete doormat and would literally say nothing back. I remember one such incident where my dad went ballistic over something super stupid and my mother did not respond at all. I was an adult when that happened and I decided at that moment I would never take that sort of abusive tirade in silence. 

Was he going ballistic AT her or just in the room? I'm not sure she was being Michelle Duggar, just wise to not get involved. Now, if he was yelling at her for something that had nothing to do with her then that would be different. 

Generally when these situations have come up in our life we've either just ignored the ranting spouse if it wasn't about the other spouse, or we just leave the room. Neither of us are yellers. I have flipped him off and cussed at him once out of the room. It is enough to make me feel better without causing any lasting harm to the relationship.

We each had a moment early in our relationship (mine while we were dating and his right after we were married) where we each had to tell the other "That will NEVER happen again". Fortunately, we were both receptive.

[BronzeTurtle]

5 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I know. But my mother was a complete doormat and would literally say nothing back. I remember one such incident where my dad went ballistic over something super stupid and my mother did not respond at all. I was an adult when that happened and I decided at that moment I would never take that sort of abusive tirade in silence. 

This brings two thoughts to mind.

1)I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting someone "take" an abusive tirade. if we're talking about abusive tirades, that would not be what my previous posts were speaking to. It is always okay to tell someone if they are yelling at you to 'please don't talk to me that way' or 'it's not okay to yell at me'. I was speaking to maybe more of the argument before it got to the worst parts. allowing him to say some ridiculous thing about your work policy without having to agree, but not having to make him see that you're right about it in that moment.

2)it strikes me that this sort of thing, by default, allows someone else dictate your actions. if you have told yourself you always have to respond in order to not be like your mom, it's just the flip side of your mom choosing to always be silent. it doesn't allow for any nuance in any particular given situation and may always lead to escalation when sometimes just letting someone have a vent about the inconsequential thing might be okay.

If you're truly walking on eggshells for this person and trying not to provoke them then that's a different thing. If there's bickering about unimportant things where the bickering could just...not happen and then therefore not escalate, then that's what I'm talking about. anyway, hope you got it worked out.

[pinball]

18 hours ago, Ginevra said:

Now - I know fights which are about “nothing” are actually about “something.” And the “something” in this case seems to be that I was discounting his “opinion”. But, to me, that is so dumb, because it does not matter what his opinion/my opinion is; it is policy. So I was saying about the thing, “No; you can’t do that! That is against the rules!” And he was arguing why his view is right. 🙄 And then arguing even more because I was dismissive of his “opinion”. And then I continued arguing that it wasn’t an “opinion” in the first place; it’s a policy and opinions are totally irrelevant. 

 

He can’t have an opinion about a policy? 

It sounds like you are more concerned about putting him in his place than anything else

[SKL]

I do think that "bending like a willow" is a life skill, as it really is the best response in some situations.  It's another version of  "pick your battles."

I think most "fights" happen because neither participant was being a mature adult in the moment.  Usually because it's not a good time for that particular discussion.  (And often, waiting until it is a good time for a discussion reveals that the topic isn't worth an argument.)

I deal regularly with someone who is never wrong.  I also don't love being wrong.  However, only one of us knows how to "agree to disagree."  We've had some incredibly long and disruptive arguments over things that definitely weren't worth it.  I have become much better at deciding which matters are worth an argument ... and frankly, very few really are.

So when the other person wants to "discuss" an issue where I don't agree, I will often try to find the best words to satisfy them without selling my soul, LOL.  For example, "you're probably right.  If this were your project, you probably would do it better than me."  I recall ending a mild argument with my sister about childrearing by saying "I'm sure you're right, and when you have kids of your own, you'll do a much better job."  Another conversation ender:  "I agree, that's an important point.  Unfortunately, I can only focus on a few things right now, so that will have to wait."

When I do feel like an argument is brewing and that walking away isn't the right action, I try to remember to be the adult in the room.  😛  It doesn't always work out that way though.

[rebcoola]

Yes we have they happen less often and blow over faster aw we get older.  We actually got into a food fight once so ridiculous!!

[Ginevra]

1 hour ago, SquirrellyMama said:

Was he going ballistic AT her or just in the room? I'm not sure she was being Michelle Duggar, just wise to not get involved

AT her. The three of us were in the car. It was vitriol directed AT my mother because she forgot something (momentarily) that she was supposed to do. Like all ugly tirades, I think this had a different history and triggered some abandonment fears in my dad. But - whatever the reason, it was hideous. And my mother did not defend herself nor tell him he was being an ass. So I don’t roll that way in my life. 

[Ginevra]

37 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

it strikes me that this sort of thing, by default, allows someone else dictate your actions. if you have told yourself you always have to respond in order to not be like your mom

It’s not, “well, I always have to meet fire with fire”, but it IS, “I’m never going to sit there mutely while someone hurls accusations with no basis in reality at me.” 
 

Im not opposed to just letting someone be wrong and I have chosen that many times, especially with dh. (Actually just had done so the night before when we were having dinner with friends of ours and dh said some wrong belief and I just went deaf.) In this case, I had no awareness that he was getting elevated until he yelled and changed what I thought was a spirited discussion into something much uglier. 

[SquirrellyMama]

7 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

AT her. The three of us were in the car. It was vitriol directed AT my mother because she forgot something (momentarily) that she was supposed to do. Like all ugly tirades, I think this had a different history and triggered some abandonment fears in my dad. But - whatever the reason, it was hideous. And my mother did not defend herself nor tell him he was being an ass. So I don’t roll that way in my life. 

Got it, yeah that is something different all together. 

If you had told your husband that you understood his opinion, but there wasn't anything you could do about the rule would that have been the end of it? It just sounds like you both wanted to be right. Yes, it is a policy not an opinion, but people can have opinions on the policy.

ETA: reading the comment you posted right above this one, it sounds like what I just suggested wouldn't have helped either. He just likes to be right and not corrected? 

I wouldn't apologize then, and just let him decide he was too much.

 

Edited February 27 by SquirrellyMama

[Ginevra]

1 minute ago, SquirrellyMama said:

Got it, yeah that is something different all together. 

If you had told your husband that you understood his opinion, but there wasn't anything you could do about the rule would that have been the end of it? It just sounds like you both wanted to be right. Yes, it is a policy not an opinion, but people can have opinions on the policy.

I don’t know. He was saying it like, “This is the way it should be!” And I was stuck on, “but it’s not!” It is probably true that we both wanted to be right but in my view, I actually am right. In my view, his opinion did not even make sense. 

[SHP]

16 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

"This is important to you."

 

And this

Validation is so important and has been the key to diffusing tensions with spouse and kids. 

 

So eat and validate, two ways to diffuse an argument 

[Garga]

From other posts, you are opposites politically. Ever since 2016, a lot of people have lost respect for the opinions of people they used to respect. It’s been very difficult for everyone to navigate. You don’t respect his political opinions and he doesn’t respect yours. You both think the other’s politics are wrong.

When married people discover that they have polar opposite opinions on big topics, it creates intensely negative feelings, as you know. You and he haven’t been able to come to terms with how you both feel politically, so you have agreed not to discuss it anymore. The feelings are too intense and you can’t talk reasonably together without getting upset.

So, when you had a disagreement over something silly, I’ll bet you $1 that it momentarily roused those intense feelings from over the past 8 years when you disagreed on big issues. And even though this issue was small, the feelings are big.

You’ve agreed not to talk about the political issues, but you are allowed to talk about stupid office policies, so all those feelings about big issues spilled into this conversation about stupid office policies.

I think he’s spot on that he feels that you don’t respect his opinion. Of course, it’s not really about the office policy that you don’t respect, but it’s about his politics. And since politics is often tied to our sense of morality and identity, once he got a whiff that you might not respect his opinion about the office policy, he felt all those feelings he felt when he realized you don’t agree with his politics (morality/identity, etc) and he got over-the-top emotional.

As far as what to do about it, I don’t know exactly. Others have posted some good de-escalating terms.

[Garga]

And yes, my dh and I used to have big, emotional fights every few years. Somewhere along the line I just stopped caring and I think he did too. (Stopped caring about being right, stopped caring about whether we agreed, stopped caring about being in perfect synch, etc.)

We didn’t do anything special to get here. It just happened as we aged. (Fingers crossed we don’t yell at each other tomorrow after I’ve posted this!)

Edited February 27 by Garga

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Garga said:

From other posts, you are opposites politically. Ever since 2016, a lot of people have lost respect for the opinions of people they used to respect. It’s been very difficult for everyone to navigate. You don’t respect his political opinions and he doesn’t respect yours. You both think the other’s politics are wrong.

Men and women / husbands and wives have statistically disagreed about politics for at least 100+ years, and probably much longer.  Somehow that hasn't put an end to the institution of marriage. 

Adults need to learn how to speak respectfully to people they disagree with.

[HomeAgain]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Men and women / husbands and wives have statistically disagreed about politics for at least 100+ years, and probably much longer.  Somehow that hasn't put an end to the institution of marriage. 

Adults need to learn how to speak respectfully to people they disagree with.

I'm sorry, are you negating decades of cultural change and women being able to have a voice in order to attempt a comparison between 1900 and 2024?

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I'm sorry, are you negating decades of cultural change and women being able to have a voice in order to attempt a comparison between 1900 and 2024?

Not sure how you got that.  Though I am of the opinion that even women in 1900 had brains.

My point is, we shouldn't exaggerate the power of the last 8 years over our ability to be civil when it matters.  To imply that couples simply always agreed on politics before 2016 is inaccurate and unhelpful.

Edited February 27 by SKL

[HomeAgain]

Just now, SKL said:

 

Not sure how you got that.  Though I am of the opinion that even women in 1900 had brains.

And yet, didn't have the same rights to divorce.....work...support themselves and their children if they needed to get away from a bad situation.

 

So really, are you comparing the status of women from 100 years ago to now and claiming they have the same situations to deal with, and that's why their marriages didn't end?  This is not a valid comparison and I would urge you to consider the matter deeper.

[Toocrazy!!]

Kind of unrelated- DH and I disagree on some politics, but I can see where he’s coming from most of the time, and he’s such a good person to those in his actual life, I really do think his views come from a good heart. The main reason we don’t talk politics too much anymore is that he loves to debate and would argue almost any case. He really missed his calling. I am not a good arguer, and really need to think things through. I hardly ever have a fast reply, so we generally don’t discuss too much politics anymore. Sometimes I find articles aligned with my feelings and ask him to read those because they’ve put it much better than I can 🙂 

[SKL]

Just now, HomeAgain said:

And yet, didn't have the same rights to divorce.....work...support themselves and their children if they needed to get away from a bad situation.

 

So really, are you comparing the status of women from 100 years ago to now and claiming they have the same situations to deal with, and that's why their marriages didn't end?  This is not a valid comparison and I would urge you to consider the matter deeper.

You are reading a lot into what I wrote.

Please read my added edit from the above post:  "My point is, we shouldn't exaggerate the power of the last 8 years over our ability to be civil when it matters.  To imply that couples simply always agreed on politics before 2016 is inaccurate and unhelpful."

[Garga]

This is new territory for the OP and her DH, though. It’s not 100 years old to them. They used to agree. They discovered they don’t. The feelings are strong on either side. They have not resolved the feelings. OP has told us in the past that she was on the verge of leaving him until they agreed not to discuss politics. 

That’s what’s bubbling to the surface in this instance. Of course they should be able to talk without falling apart. But there is a lot they can’t discuss that is simmering and is probably what caused this most recent upset.

It’s a good start that the DH apologized. I’m not sure what they should do going forward.  

Edited February 27 by Garga

[SKL]

Just now, Garga said:

This is new territory for the OP and her DH, though. They used to agree. They discovered they don’t. The feelings are STRONG on either side. They have not resolved the feelings.

That’s what’s bubbling to the surface in this instance. Of course they should be able to talk without falling apart. But there is a lot they can’t discuss that is simmering and is probably what caused this most recent upset.
 

It’s a good start that the DH apologized. I’m not sure what they should do going forward.  

It's possible that the political disagreements / related disrespect is a factor.  However, OP says this has been happening about every 3 years for decades.

The reason I replied to your previous post was that I dislike the trend toward accepting a lack of mutual respect because of political differences.  That attitude seems to be somewhat popular these days, and I think it's very problematic for society and for individuals.  I may have read too much into your post though.

I do feel that society benefits from being able to respectfully disagree, more than from "agreement" that is due to lack of courage to "go there" on matters of importance.  (Of course, one needs to pick an appropriate time and manner to "go there ....")

[SHP]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

The reason I replied to your previous post was that I dislike the trend toward accepting a lack of mutual respect because of political differences.  That attitude seems to be somewhat popular these days, and I think it's very problematic for society and for individuals.  I may have read too much into your post though.

I do feel that society benefits from being able to respectfully disagree, more than from "agreement" that is due to lack of courage to "go there" on matters of importance.  (Of course, one needs to pick an appropriate time and manner to "go there ....")

I am not sure how to even start here. You are aware that there is a very loud to your face group who not only believes that some people are "wrong" for EXISTING and that those people should be denied not just their civil liberties but also life, to the point of committing violence against them? 

What is the "right way" when the rhetoric is from politicians? Can you point to times in US history where those in power sat down at a round table with those they oppress, gave them equal representation, listened, and enacted police change to eliminate all legal inequalities and then worked very hard to ensure social change as well? No? OK. Can you point to a peaceful movement for equality by the oppressed that wasn't met with violence and was successful? 

There are people who want me dead because I exist and am one of Those People. There have been attempts on my life and general wellbeing for being one of Those People. There is no way that my shouldering the burden of respectful dialogue will make a difference the next time a politician goes on a rant about me or a member of the general public is so disgusted by my existence that they attack.

Some lives are more valuable in the US. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

My point is, we shouldn't exaggerate the power of the last 8 years over our ability to be civil when it matters.  To imply that couples simply always agreed on politics before 2016 is inaccurate and unhelpful.

While remaining general to avoid specific political discussion, I think for most people, political disagreements prior to 8 years ago were of much less consequence. My dh and I sometimes voted alike and sometimes didn’t and it didn’t matter. It matters in very much different ways right now. Hopefully soon we can return to the place where it’s more of a “you win some, you lose some” scenario.

57 minutes ago, SKL said:

The reason I replied to your previous post was that I dislike the trend toward accepting a lack of mutual respect because of political differences.  That attitude seems to be somewhat popular these days, and I think it's very problematic for society and for individuals.  

Hopefully you have some lines you would have difficulty respecting someone if they crossed. I would find it concerning for someone to have no line ever.

[Rosie_0801]

I think this thread has come to the end of its useful life span.