Michael and the Path of Least Resistance
Sometimes strangers I don't know are dead-on accurate. An anonymous reader wrote:You've known all along that your husband was only looking for the path of least resistance, and yet you continue to try to "make" him want the things you want. You've heard, I'm sure, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Your husband does not want the same things you do, and no matter how much you want him to want those things, you can't change him.
Last night Michael said he had read my last post. From time to time he will read my blog. I keep no secrets, and I've found that being hateful here is not very beneficial. In fact, I have deleted old postings that he said hurt him. If there is a chance he could read this, then I have to respect his feelings as much as I feel I can or should. He has said that the fact that he might read it should in no way limit my "freedom of speech", but I've learned that as much as he think he gives me permission to be the person I truly am, if I choose certain paths, I will face his punishment, however silent that may be. The punishment may be his silence or brooding, lack of touch or physical intimacy, or a lack of interest in me altogether.
It is true. Michael has and does choose the path of least resistance. He can't stand conflict, and will do everything in his power to avoid it, including leaving the room or walking away (though he has made progress as he used to leave the house and get in his car and go for a drive - sometimes for hours). He does not express his anger, but instead lets it build, or waits for it to dissipate. If he thinks he can make a decision, make a choice, or engage in a behavior to "make me happy" and avoid conflict, he does so as long as he perceives that he can tolerate the outcome. He tolerates a lot. He tolerates being married to me, my looking for a house to buy, my desire to have children, and my desire to socialize with other people and to get out of the house. It is true. The majority of the time that we have been together, I have felt "tolerated". It is only when we are doing something that he wants to do that I actually feel liked.
The decisions that get made in our life and in our household are typically made by me. That is because Michael usually says that things aren't important to him or that he doesn't care. Right now, I am looking for a house to buy and so far, Michael has had nothing to do with looking for one. When I ask him what kind of house he wants, he says he doesn't care and that I should pick whatever I want. It was this way with the engagement (which never happened because he never could propose or by an engagement ring), the wedding (okay, so I know most guys don't give a rat's ass about their own wedding) that was not at all what I wanted, the honeymoon (we had none because I couldn't afford one and Michael didn't care to make any plans), buying a house, or trying to have children. Major life decisions that I have found warranted the involvement of a partner I ended up doing on my own, and dragging Michael along for the ride. He usually was not "kicking and screaming", but he wasn't smiling either.
It is also true that I have tried desperately to "make" Michael want the same things I do. I have talked about my hopes and dreams until I feel like a complete moron. I have engaged other people to talk with us about their expereinces. I have shared stories and talked about the nice things we could do together in the future. The best response I get is: "Okay, that's fine."
Michael will tell you that his main goal in life is to be content and at peace. I like being content too, and I like peace. But my idea of peace and contentment necessitates richness and fullness. I am content when life is rich and full. Michael has often said that our main disagreements are over semantics. I couldn't agree more.
I asked Michael last night if he wanted children. He explained rather rationally as only he can do that he liked the children and having them in our house, and that he imagines he would like it more if there were more certainty. He said he imagined that if we had a child that was "ours" that he would like it a lot. (Notice he still cannot say that he wants children. Wanting children is my thing, not his.) Michael also has a principle he lives by that it is not good to want anything. Wanting, in his mind, stems from a lack of fulfillment and neediness. Wanting is bad.
An anonymous reader (perhaps the same reader) once commented about how horrible life would be for a child who was not wanted by one parent. I can't recall the specifics, but suffice it to say, I thought the comment was severe. It was, because it was right.
I don't think Michael would be a bad father. I do think eventually the child would come to understand that in daddy's eyes, he/she was "in the way". That would be awful. I know, because I had a father who did not care much for me. He loved me, but after I turned 12 or so, he stopped liking me. He still does not like me much, and especially does not like me because of the choices I have made (i.e. getting a divorce, marrying a black man, not finishing my PhD) and the life I have carved out for myself. While it was never abusive, it was certainly not a relationship I would call "loving".
I agree that no couple should have children unless both people truly want to have children. I'm sure if that were to happen with any frequency, we wouldn't have overpopluation problems. I'm sure we'd have a lower divorce rate. I'm sure many marriages could be saved if they had never had children.
I don't know what will happen to us. It is no secret that I have thought many times about leaving and starting over. When I have voiced this desire, Michael offers to help me financially. He offered that again yesterday - in an email (how intimate). Notice I did not say that he told me that he didn't want me to leave, or that he says he would be devastated. He merely tells me that I should do what I feel I need to do. He would never "fight for me". In fact, he has told me never to expect him to do that. He said if I felt the need to go, I could go. Why, he says, would he want to keep me in a state of misery? I wonder why he wouldn't see that as good enough reason to try to make things better. But really, it's me trying to change him again.
Perhaps I should just go and build for myself the kind of life I wanted. The life I have now is certainly not the one I wanted, and there are no signs of anything getting better. There was one small ray of hope when Michael went to "Promise Keepers" in Nashville this summer. He came back and was pretty quiet for a few days, then said he realized he hadn't been acting very adult-like (or something like that), and that he would be working on being a better partner. He treated me nicely for several days, and as quickly as his enthusiam had arrived, so did it leave. This does not surprise me, as I know that many "come to Jesus" decisions are made in the passion of the moment, and are quickly fleeting as soon as the person is back to the "daily grind". It would be very un-Christian-like for me to leave my marriage (my second marriage). I don't want to be a failure again. And I do love my husband - I just don't love the relationship we have, or the lack of intimacy in all its facets.
I'm not making empty threats. I just don't see this going anywhere. I tried to just live well and find my own joy. But in the process it exposed once again how alone I really am in my marriage. Here I was doing all this work, and Michael was just taking the path of least resistance - again.
So, my dilemma is this - if the anonymous reader is correct, which they are, now what am I to do?
posted by No Longer In Crisis @ 11/02/2005 11:45:00 AM
<< Home