Archive

ShareThis Page
Life is too valuable to waste in a loveless, onerous marriage | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Life is too valuable to waste in a loveless, onerous marriage

Carolyn Hax
| Sunday, December 9, 2018 9:33 p.m
525312gtrLIVhax

Dear Carolyn:

I’ve heard “life is too short” a lot lately. It makes me think I’ve wasted significant time, energy and money in a 23-year relationship that has caused me so much pain and exhaustion.

My husband is difficult and controlling. Both tendencies come directly from his family: His mother is a controlling narcissist.

When I was younger, I thought I just needed to improve and that would relieve some of his anxiety, selfishness and control issues. It was not until I had children that his tendencies really caused me to question what I was doing.

We live close to his family, all of whom have — on several occasions in recent years — given me the silent treatment, called me names, and generally caused me a lot of stress. After therapy, I’ve been able to establish good boundaries with his family. And I’ve tried in many different ways to talk with my husband to make him understand what I am going through. Since his family is his norm, he doesn’t fully comprehend.

He now has meltdowns on a weekly basis that include the silent treatment and sometimes name-calling. I respond calmly most of the time, because I just have to accept him for what he is, since he refuses to seek help. I have three small children and a household to care for — he helps out at home only when and if he feels like it, and usually nothing too taxing. I also am the sole provider for my household. So, I work full time and have a full-time household with little support.

I may have the opportunity to move for my job. I think perhaps physical distance from his family might work. Does it ever help in these situations? It is the only thing I haven’t reasonably tried.

— Life Is Too Short

No, it’s not. You haven’t tried divorce.

I’m not saying you should have, just that you haven’t.

Generally I avoid pointing out things people hardly need to be told — I don’t explain there’s such a thing as adoption, for example, to people struggling to conceive, because duh — but the blind spot in your letter seems so vast I feel compelled to make an exception:

Divorce is a valid legal and emotional remedy for 23 years of pain and buffer against 23 more.

Life is too short? Maybe. I say life is too long to justify spending its duration with an apparently capable partner who doesn’t contribute emotional support, income, or proportionate domestic effort — you don’t even mention love, anywhere — and who does contribute selfishness, stress, poor boundaries, a nasty family, and weekly meltdowns/name-callings/silent treatments.

I’m glad you found therapy helpful and I’m glad your boundaries with his family have held. But allow me to suggest that wasn’t a solution unto itself, but instead was Part 1 of a difficult but overdue long-life/short-life overhaul.

Please explore Part 2 in private consultation with a very good lawyer, and in therapy again, solo. (If he miraculously relents, then he goes solo, too.) Read “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker. Don’t skimp on self- and child-preservation, or safety, especially given a possible relocation. Assume he’ll make this as tough on you as he can.

But ask yourself: If you were your child, would you want to grow up in this home?

Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, follow her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/carolyn.hax or chat with her online at noon Eastern time each Friday at www.washingtonpost.com .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.