Conflict and decisions in marriage
What do you do when you cannot come to an agreement about something with your spouse? It's one thing to talk about compromise, but what if you cannot agree on an appropriate compromise. This is one of my biggest fears for the future, and I am appauled at how little I can find written on the subject. In fact, it often seems that most of the sources I read don't give any advice or direction on how to handle this, instead they just offer up a solution for the couple to take if they cannot reach an agreement. Trouble is, if that solution is the solution one of them was going for in the beginning you end up with your marital advisor really just taking sides, or worse, if one spouse knows the default solution and wants it, he or she may simply refuse to enter the debate in the first place.
Dr. Harley says that in a marriage you should do nothing without the enthusiastic agreement of both spouses. On the face of it, it sounds pretty good, and in a lot of cases I'm sure it is. Particularly if both spouses wish to do something, but do not agree about what. But should the homebody spouse always get his way? Or take a more extreme case: one partner wants children and the other doesn't, and then an accidental pregnancy occures... what *is* the "do nothing" solution, is it "don't have an abortion" or "don't have a baby"? This depends a great deal on the personal beliefs of both parties. Or if the mother in law is continually inviting herself over or dropping by unannounced and one party doesn't want a confruntation while the other doesn't want to deal with the mother in law, what is the the "do nothing" solution?
The Catholic church has another approach to one of the biggest areas on which a husband and wife can disagree: children. The Catholic church essentially disallows the couple to take complete control of this decision. It is "left up to God", so there is little left to the couple to argue about in this regard.
Some people think that the final say in a marriage, or an absolute veto power, should be reserved for one spouse or the other. If you cannot reach an agreement, the husband decides. Certainly this could save a lot of time spent arguing, and if this power is not abused, the marriage need not end up feeling like a dictatorship (even if that's what it really is). Some (in my opinion nieve) people even see this as the idea government type--the benign dictator has the best interests of his people at heart, can gather all the relivant information and make a decision without a lot of energy being wasted debating the matter.
One might argue that this way of doing things, having certain default decisions, helps marriages run smoothly, and in turn leads to more fulfilling lives for the participants. It's not really a bad argument, and in fact, if the marriage, or even the date needed reinvented for each pairing, I wouldn't be surprised if the work and imagination required for good ones left many couples with less fulfilling marriages or relationships. Though most children will not completely copy their parents' marriage, children whose parents stayed together are more likely to stay married themselves, so we imagine that children do learn something from observing a good marriage which would be more difficult to figure out on their own (though some certainly do figure it out). The trouble is, one size doesn't fit all. Without getting into different sexual orientations, or poly, or open relationships, different people want different things out of their marriages. Many people are pretty accepting of choices to have or not have children, but most newly wed couples intending to remain childfree or have their children later in life will tell you about all the rude people asking them when the baby is coming. But society at large is less accepting of other choices a couple might make: the couple that makes the choice to spend an average of 6.9 evenings per week together is likely to be labeled as needy, where as the couple that chooses to spend 1 evening per week together is likely to be labeled as disconnected. These labels are meaningful if the couple deviates from the norm because one partner is overbaring, but what if the partner who WANTS the norm is overbaring and the other partner wants something else? Does the fact that it is "the norm" mean that the overbaring partner should get her way in the latter case but not the former?
Dr. Harley says that in a marriage you should do nothing without the enthusiastic agreement of both spouses. On the face of it, it sounds pretty good, and in a lot of cases I'm sure it is. Particularly if both spouses wish to do something, but do not agree about what. But should the homebody spouse always get his way? Or take a more extreme case: one partner wants children and the other doesn't, and then an accidental pregnancy occures... what *is* the "do nothing" solution, is it "don't have an abortion" or "don't have a baby"? This depends a great deal on the personal beliefs of both parties. Or if the mother in law is continually inviting herself over or dropping by unannounced and one party doesn't want a confruntation while the other doesn't want to deal with the mother in law, what is the the "do nothing" solution?
The Catholic church has another approach to one of the biggest areas on which a husband and wife can disagree: children. The Catholic church essentially disallows the couple to take complete control of this decision. It is "left up to God", so there is little left to the couple to argue about in this regard.
Some people think that the final say in a marriage, or an absolute veto power, should be reserved for one spouse or the other. If you cannot reach an agreement, the husband decides. Certainly this could save a lot of time spent arguing, and if this power is not abused, the marriage need not end up feeling like a dictatorship (even if that's what it really is). Some (in my opinion nieve) people even see this as the idea government type--the benign dictator has the best interests of his people at heart, can gather all the relivant information and make a decision without a lot of energy being wasted debating the matter.
One might argue that this way of doing things, having certain default decisions, helps marriages run smoothly, and in turn leads to more fulfilling lives for the participants. It's not really a bad argument, and in fact, if the marriage, or even the date needed reinvented for each pairing, I wouldn't be surprised if the work and imagination required for good ones left many couples with less fulfilling marriages or relationships. Though most children will not completely copy their parents' marriage, children whose parents stayed together are more likely to stay married themselves, so we imagine that children do learn something from observing a good marriage which would be more difficult to figure out on their own (though some certainly do figure it out). The trouble is, one size doesn't fit all. Without getting into different sexual orientations, or poly, or open relationships, different people want different things out of their marriages. Many people are pretty accepting of choices to have or not have children, but most newly wed couples intending to remain childfree or have their children later in life will tell you about all the rude people asking them when the baby is coming. But society at large is less accepting of other choices a couple might make: the couple that makes the choice to spend an average of 6.9 evenings per week together is likely to be labeled as needy, where as the couple that chooses to spend 1 evening per week together is likely to be labeled as disconnected. These labels are meaningful if the couple deviates from the norm because one partner is overbaring, but what if the partner who WANTS the norm is overbaring and the other partner wants something else? Does the fact that it is "the norm" mean that the overbaring partner should get her way in the latter case but not the former?
posted by Mary at 5:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home