Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

"Two days ago, I decided to stop doing the dishes. I make all the dinners and I am tired of having to do all the cleaning too. SINCE THEN..."

"... this pile has appeared and at some point they are going to run out of spoons and cups and plates. Who will blink first? Not me."

Tweeted Miss Potkin, with lots of photos (keep scrolling). 

Via Metafilter, where somebody says "So it’s like Wages for Housework, except you get Twitter faves instead of wages, and instead of a deep feminist critique of capitalism, you get a resentful critique of your shitty family?"

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

"Kipling Williams has studied the effects of the silent treatment for more than 36 years, meeting hundreds of victims and perpetrators in the process..."

"A grown woman whose father refused to speak with her for six months at a time as punishment throughout her life. 'Her father died during one of those dreaded periods... When she visited him at the hospital shortly before his death, he turned away from her and wouldn’t break his silence even to say goodbye.' A father who stopped talking to his teenage son and couldn’t start again, despite the harm he knew he was causing. 'The isolation made my son change from a happy, vibrant boy to a spineless jellyfish, and I knew I was the cause,' the father said to Williams. A wife whose husband severed communication with her early in their marriage. 'She endured four decades of silence that started with a minor disagreement and only ended when her husband died,' Williams said. Forty years of eating meals by herself, watching television by herself—40 years of being invisible. 'When I asked her why she stayed with him for all that time... she answered simply, "Because at least he kept a roof over my head."'" 

From "What You’re Saying When You Give Someone the Silent Treatment/Social ostracism has been a common punishment for millennia. But freezing someone out harms both the victim and the perpetrator" by Daryl Austin (The Atlantic)(paywall challenge to overcome).

Thursday, March 18, 2021

"For years I’ve told my clients to avoid talking about politics on the first date, but in D.C., and in a year like this one, that’s somewhat impossible. Plus, for Claire..."

"... who worked on the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton and is passionate about progressive issues, where someone lands on the political spectrum is very important. So, she flat-out asked him, 'Who did you vote for in the Democratic primary?' Ben stammered a bit. He revealed he admired Andrew Yang’s ideas but didn’t end up voting in the 2020 primary.... By this time, the conversation had started to drag and Pistachio needed to go outside to do her business. Ben asked for Claire’s number and texted her while they were still on the date to make sure she received it. A few minutes later, they said good night and signed off.... Claire had a burning question that couldn’t wait: 'I had to know what he thought of Andrew Yang running for New York City mayor.' She texted Ben that one question after the date. Not surprisingly, as part of the Yang Gang during the presidential race, Ben declared his admiration for Yang and confidence that he could be the right person to run the city. Then he followed up with, 'Totally fair question but only if you share your thoughts as well.' Feeling that there are many other candidates (in particular women of color) who would make better mayors, Claire was put off again by Ben’s politics and couldn’t bring herself to reply."

Writes dating coach Damona Hoffman, in "Date Lab: Talking politics on a first date is usually a no-no. But it couldn’t be avoided after a year like this one" (WaPo).

Pistachio is a dog, supposedly a Chihuahua, though it's huge. By the way, "Date Lab" sounds like a dog.

Anyway, throughout this article, before I even got to the part I'm quoting, I thought Ben was much better than Claire. In the end, he gave the date a 4.25 (out of 5) and she gave it a 3.5. They had no further contact.

Ben's statement "Totally fair question but only if you share your thoughts as well" is a bit devious. He's already answered the question, so there's no option to withdraw the question. She can only answer or be deemed unfair. And she doesn't answer! The truth is it's not about fairness. She genuinely only wants someone who shares her politics. That could have been known before the date was arranged, so she wasted his time. 

And maybe if he'd just been asked would you like to go out with a woman who will only be interested in you if you share her politics, he might have said no — even without first hearing what her politics were.