Lopsided relationships?

[Chicken lady]

My Dd has a very good job. She bought her husband a car. They bought a house. She did not have to clean anything in the house. She tosses her dirty clothes on the floor and “they magically appear clean in (her) closet”. Her dh recently got a full time job and she is sad because “I had to clean up the kitchen!” And “he actually likes his job. He is messing with my life plan! Daycare is expensive!”

Their relationship drives my father insane, because not only is her dh “unmanly” he is enabling my Dd to be “unfeminine”

[Zoe Girl]

It interests me that your comparisons are being made largely on the basis of "stuff" (or not having it) and not on what the partners see in each other (admittedly, much less visible/knowable). Could it be that, for them, what the partner brings to the relationship and how they fill their soul matters more than how much they make or whether they live in a nice neighborhood?

Maybe the actual goal of being not so attached to our stuff goes both ways, that having a lot or a little is not as important as the relationship to the stuff. Stuff includes earnings and material objects but also degrees and prestige. You can be loosely attached to a Phd, or be so caught up in whatever your education is that you see everything through that lens. Same with money and stuff. I also have realized over the years that you can wear minimalism like a badge as much as your stuff, My best friend is a minimalist which is great. She went through a bad divorce, lived in a crappy studio apartment and still has very little materially. However she is pretty content with things, does a lot of hiking, enjoys things, and doesn't talk about stuff all the time or judge people based on it. She has a good relationship with her boyfriend she lives with, he is also not a big stuff person but there are differences.

It is interesting to note what you used to define lopsided. You didn't pick political or social views, or age, or race. They are either very similar or not an issue you would see as a challenge. For me I would see some of the financial differences as an issue in the dating stages, one person is interested in a nice restaurant meal and the other a picnic, but in a committed stage those differences are often taken care of with shared finances and understanding. If I was in a committed relationship with someone who earned less, and we needed to go to a fancy event then of course I would buy him an outfit for example. On a day to day basis splitting bills would be equitable, and include more than our income. I am financially conservative so I would not get along with someone who didn't like savings accounts regardless of their income.

For the lopsided I would have chosen different factors, things like openness as compared to control, flexibility as compared to structure, individuality as compared to partnered or group focus. I think that for me these things would come up very early in a relationship and spell doom early on. So someone who wants to do everything together would be hard for me to deal with, or someone who wanted to do everything alone and just have me off to the side. I could be with a person with different beliefs who had a high level of openness as well, or someone who earned a lot more (not many people earning less) but who was flexible, put people above stuff, and valued social engagement.

So I don't see the lopsided when I look at these couples from my point of view, but I am sure they get a lot of people looking at them for the reasons you stated.

[herbgeek]

I think everything in your Universe is telling you to be more open minded, and not keep looking for a clone of yourself.

[Zoe Girl]

I think everything in your Universe is telling you to be more open minded, and not keep looking for a clone of yourself.

I must agree,

[SteveinMN]

ZG, I'm not sure your post was directed at me (despite the pull quote).

My point to UL was that what he defined as lopsided seemed to center around income, socioeconomic status, or possessions, and not around less-visible personality traits that the partners sought to reinforce or complement. I agree that it would say something about me that I was able to complete a law degree and pass the bar exam and now could choose to (and did) spend my money on a nice new car rather than keep driving the old Dodge. But the car eventually will die. So healthy relationships will depend on what's beneath how people "vote" with their time and money, and that is far less knowable than where someone lives or their preference for new name-brand clothing. Maybe the new car is the bauble of the moment and it goes back as soon as the lease is up. Maybe it's a grand vehicle but it will be driven into the ground just like the Dodge. Maybe the Dodge couldn't carry the kayak that's the preferred hobby. I just think it's risky to compare our insides with someone else's outsides.

[JaneV2.0]

My impression of what your assessment is:

”I consider the following relationships lopsided because one person brings far more of the things I consider valuable to the table than the other person does.”

True? That is all about you and nothing about them.

here is what makes a relationship work:
person A values set X in a partner
person B values set Y in a partner
the intersection of sets Xand Y can be the empty set, or they can be identical. The important thing is that person B brings enough of set X to satisfy person A, and person A brings enough of set Y to satisfy person B.

it is important that you come to understand that, so that if a beautiful, successful, atheist, woman of color without stuff or kids ever shows interest in you, you can accept that you might actually be what she is looking for. Because currently, I predict you would shoot yourself in the foot.

Don't forget the intoxicating substance prohibition. I totally did.

[iris lilies]

... I just think it's risky to compare our insides with someone else's outsides.

This strikes me as very wise.

[JaneV2.0]

The 38yo woman who was renting the house we bought here had a PhD and teaches at the prestigious private college nearby. Her live in boyfriend was a 50yo waiter and had a recent felony conviction for domestic violence with a lengthy probation. Now that was one relationship we always wondered about as it seems it would jeopardize her moving up in the academic world.

Or reaching 40, for that matter...

[Tybee]

This strikes me as very wise.

Me, too!

[Zoe Girl]

ZG, I'm not sure your post was directed at me (despite the pull quote).

My point to UL was that what he defined as lopsided seemed to center around income, socioeconomic status, or possessions, and not around less-visible personality traits that the partners sought to reinforce or complement. I agree that it would say something about me that I was able to complete a law degree and pass the bar exam and now could choose to (and did) spend my money on a nice new car rather than keep driving the old Dodge. But the car eventually will die. So healthy relationships will depend on what's beneath how people "vote" with their time and money, and that is far less knowable than where someone lives or their preference for new name-brand clothing. Maybe the new car is the bauble of the moment and it goes back as soon as the lease is up. Maybe it's a grand vehicle but it will be driven into the ground just like the Dodge. Maybe the Dodge couldn't carry the kayak that's the preferred hobby. I just think it's risky to compare our insides with someone else's outsides.

Yes Steve, I think WHY we choose something is more telling then WHAT the thing is. So I wouldn't write off someone with a large house and a nice car any more than I would write off someone with a small apartment and old car. Now I would steer clear of someone who talked constantly about how much or how little they had and why. Tell me about kayak and the activity more than the vehicle that carries it, new or old. Does that make sense?