Dealing with financial conflict

[defogging]

How did the finance talk go?

It hasn't happened, she isn't ready for a real discussion so I'm not going there right now.  Every time the subject is broached, it quickly turns into accusations of me mishandling our finances and interrogations about every cent I spend out of our joint account.

Quick example:  This morning she wanted to know how we're going to pay for the prime rib I ordered for Christmas dinner.  We're feeding 30 people.  (It's no problem, we can afford it)  It spun out of control quickly - she wants me to pay for it out of my own money because her family members are apparently all vegetarians now.  This is the same family that destroyed the prime rib I made last year in a matter of minutes.  I'm happy to feed everyone and be generous, this tit-for-tat game that is being played is utter nonsense.

[formflier]

I  I'm happy to feed everyone and be generous, this tit-for-tat game that is being played is utter nonsense.

I agree.  Why play it?

FF

[defogging]

I agree.  Why play it?

I'm not.  I told her we can afford it and left it at that.  I've also made it clear that the door is open for a looking-forward financial discussion.

[defogging]

Who is she playing it with?  

She's attempting to engage me in the battle.  For example, this morning.  She kept repeating:  "I'm just trying to understand how we can afford the prime rib"  My response: "We can afford it, I'm happy to have a financial discussion with you at some point".  

Knowing her patterns:  This was an attempt to get me to fire back by asking who is paying for the vegetarian dishes, how much is my family contributing versus hers, do we plan to pay my sister back for the food we'll eat at her house on Christmas Eve, etc.  Even if I don't engage she still fires the initial shots, then repeats them until I do.

[Skip]

She kept repeating:  "I'm just trying to understand how we can afford the prime rib"  My response: "We can afford it, I'm happy to have a financial discussion with you at some point". 

Do you think her motivation could possibly be something other than to draw you into a fight?  Do you think, "we can afford it, I'm happy to have a financial discussion with you at some point", is invalidating?

My ex would often engage in conflict when I tried to help in the kitchen when she was cooking. On the surface it felt like drama making. When I dug into it I found out that she felt I was looking down at her cooking because I was a much better cook. After that I started complimenting her cooking and asking what I could do to help in the kitchen. In a few weeks, the problem was gone and it didn't come back.

What's possibly the most authentic and genuine reason for her concern about the cost of the prime rib? And how would one reasonable respond to that.

[defogging]

Do you think her motivation could possibly be something other than to draw you into a fight?  Do you think, "we can afford it, I'm happy to have a financial discussion with you at some point", is invalidating?

My ex would often engage in conflict when I tried to help in the kitchen when she was cooking. On the surface it felt like drama making. When I dug into it I found out that she felt I was looking down at her cooking because I was a much better cook. After that I started complimenting her cooking and asking what I could do to help in the kitchen. In a few weeks, the problem was gone and it didn't come back.

What's possibly the most authentic and genuine reason for her concern about the cost of the prime rib? And how would one reasonable respond to that.

It could very well be invalidating.  It's the best I could come up with during the interrogation.  She's too smart for simple validation techniques like "I understand that you are concerned about our finances" though, so validating her statements is not easy.  I also don't want to validate the invalid.  We can afford it and she knows that.

The financial arguments are connected to her desire to move.  She brought up the argument several years ago that we can't afford our house as a reason that we need to move.  When she brings up anything financial and I take the bait, the argument inevitably comes back to our house being too expensive.  I'm sure this morning was going to head there like usual.

We've been going in circles on this for awhile.  She spends freely, I cover her CC bills, then she complains we don't have any money.  Anything I spend money on (like prime rib) is bad and further proof that I mismanage money and we're poor.

I'm willing to move, I've told her this numerous times.  The trouble is she is not willing to compromise on what neighborhood to move to, or even hear my side.  The houses there are much smaller than ours and wouldn't work for our family.  (e.g., going from everyone having their own bathroom now, to everyone shares one bathroom on the upper floor... .yikes)

So, we sit in a stalemate.  We have solid net worth but the money sits untouched because we can't agree where to spend it.  It's nonsense.

[Notwendy]

Sometimes the initiation of argument is an invitation into a familiar pattern for both spouses. The routine of the interchange is somehow more comfortable than the discomfort of the moment.

I don't think the moving issue is going to stop. From what I have observed, there is an external focus for the reason for internal discomfort. The pwBPD thinks that a solution to this issue is going to be the solution for the internal discomfort. Once the solution has been achieved, the discomfort remains, and so there continues to be an external reason. Moving may not be the problem but the projection of the problem. 

Logic doesn't address feelings. Her feelings feel like facts to her and she may articulate this with facts " can we afford the prime rib? " but responding with facts is invalidating as it doesn't address the feeling behind it. We can't read minds but you have to try to be a detective to hear what is going on when she says these things.

The sense of fairness can be  different. With the prime rib and the vegetarian family on her side, I get a sense that the "unfair" is at play. What is the source of her repeatedly bringing it up?

[formflier]

What's possibly the most authentic and genuine reason for her concern about the cost of the prime rib? And how would one reasonable respond to that.

I'm not so good at validating, I'm pretty good at avoiding invalidation.  One of the things I do in order to be better at validating, or have a chance to validate... .and to avoid invalidation is let them clarify the "argument"... statement... whatever.

Take Skip's question and insert "in that moment". 

Are you really saying that your wife got up and stewed for a while.  "That defogger... .I'm going to get him.  3 years ago I said this and he said that... and I'm still mad about it, so in 10 minutes I'm going to say xyz and he will say abc"

Do you really think the thought of all the details you suggested before expressing concern about meat?

Come back to Skip's question... .it's safe... it's us.  "in that moment"... what's the most authentic and genuine reason you can think of that she said such a thing.

FF

[defogging]

I have heard of this tactic as "badger and blame."  The partner will initiate an argument to the point where the non will engage in anger.  Then the pwBPD will feel free to fight. 

This happened to me a few days ago.  I feel foolish because I should have known better.  My uBPD/uNPD H egged me into it.  I should have seen it and not engaged.

Yeah, this is what happens on a routine basis.  Keep poking at random things until I engage.  I just do my best to let it roll off my back.  The trouble is, I hear so much of it I don't put much stock in her words anymore and it makes it hard to care what she says.

Moving - I'm fine with moving, but if it's not done as a partnership then it's not going to work.  I don't think any marriage can survive if one partner forces the other to accept their pre-determined solution regarding major life choices.  Giving in and accepting her solution without having a say in the matter would just be appeasing her, which there is already another thread on.

Prime rib - The whole thing is silly.  I know she has lobbied her parents into the idea of a vegetarian Christmas, and now it's turned into me being the bad guy because I'm buying meat.  This game has been played before - push people away from my ideas without me being aware, then I'm isolated from the crowd as the outsider.  There is calculation that goes into it beforehand.  I also know our relatives and if I don't have meat, they will ask why the heck not?   

I'm waiting to see what happens.  I already know at least half the people in our crowd of 30 that will want the prime rib based on past experience.  What will likely happen is there will be a lot of chatter about how great a vegetarian Christmas is while people are waiting for everything to cook, and then people will eat meat like they normally do.  I'm not going to engage in any of it, just let them talk up their new-found vegetarianism.

Bottom line - she lobbied 2 people to go vegetarian, there are 4-5 legitimate vegetarians in the crowd, and the rest eat meat.  I haven't heard from anyone but uBPDw that we need to go vegetarian, and I doubt she has tried to lobby the rest of them because they wouldn't go along with the idea anyways.

[defogging]

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas!  Posting for some closure on the prime rib conversation from before.

As I suspected, it was much ado about nothing.  Just another financial argument, finger pointing.  16 pounds of prime rib got demolished within 10 minutes, and everyone had a great time.  So silly to have that battle over $90 worth of meat.

The holiday went surprisingly well.  I definitely picked up on uBPDw being uncomfortable since Christmas Eve was with my family (11 people) and her parents,  and today was an even mix of my family and her family.  She seems much more comfortable when surrounded by her family.  In years past she has swayed it much more to her family being the focus.  All in all, it went well though. 

It was a great observation for me, in terms of understanding what other people are told versus what I am told.  The prime rib dinner was just one component. 

The unfortunate thing is tomorrow - my sister wanted to hang out with all of us and go ice skating with all the kids.  This was fine with me, last I heard everyone was available to do this.  My sister said she heard that our kids might go with uBPDw's parents tomorrow since uBPDw has to work, I wasn't aware of that.  Then after my sister left, uBPDw told me that my sister said she didn't want to hang out with little kids and do older kid stuff instead (sister's kids are teenagers).  I don't buy it - my sister only sees our kids once a year at best, she would love to see them tomorrow.  I think uBPDw is pushing the kids to be closer to her family and manipulating the situation.  I'll sort it out tomorrow.  It's sad to me.

[Enabler]

"If you loved me, you would __________ " roughly translated to 'if you loved me you would want what I need, and know what I need'.

I tend to find this is a pretty common thread that runs through my relationship. TBH, having had a pretty stress filled 5 years with various serious life event which left me in a pretty high emotional state I can give first hand account that this is totally typical thinking for someone who is emotionally charged (lets call if in fight or flight mode). At the time I couldn't understand why my W wouldn't take the pressure off me, why she still expected emotional support and why she insisted on adding to my already heavy emotional/financial/practical burden. Maybe I'm excusing or normalising my distorted thinking but ultimately I could not understand how she could not see nor want to supply what I deemed as my NEEDS. I expected her to want/need what I wanted and expected our thoughts to be aligned.

My guess is that you as a couple have lumps of cash around, the argument with regards to 'affordability' becomes subjective, as does the housing discussion. Essentially they are all high class problems to have. Buying the rib isn't going to bankrupt you and the inconvenience of moving to a smaller house isn't going to land the household into destitution. However, for each of you place a different value assessment on each thing. Assuming she is emotionally sensitive and is in a heightened emotional state. She cannot understand why you do not want to meet her needs. Her veggie Christmas idea possibly felt like a really good idea, I'd probably go so far to say that she believed it was important to her... .black and white thinking may push her towards extreme thinking that veggie Christmas is an important statement and in-line with her personal values (at that moment). You disagreeing with this is in direct conflict with her core values (at that moment). Your approach to compromise cannot be processed, for her, what compromise is there? We're either having a veggie Christmas, or we're not... .we're either in the new house which solves all of our problems... .or we're not!

When you define everything as NEED rather than want... .THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR COMPROMISE. You don't half save someone from drowning, you don't half give someone CPR, you don't half put out the burning fire, you either do it or you don't... .and "If you loved me, you would know what I needed and do what I needed."

My wife rolled this up another level as I questioned her needs too regularly... .maybe I would listen to God. "God is telling me to __________", "I feel that God wants me to ___________", "God sent this special relationship with another man in the village". Yes this is slightly disowning control of her own actions, but I also feel it was an attempt to give greater gravitas to a need which she needed to fulfill that she knew I was likely to question. Telling someone 'No' to a NEED is in their eyes abusive and cruel. Asking someone to justify a NEED is similarly confusing, almost taunting someone... .like throwing the life line intentionally short and then pulling it in whilst they are drowning.

Apologies, I am long on understanding and short on solutions... .work in progress.

Enabler

[Notwendy]

We aren't vegetarians but the kids and I eat a lot more variety of vegetables than my meat loving husband does.

Once I was making a vegetable/cheese dish for the kids- at their request. I offered to make a cheese one for him, without the vegetables he didn't like in it. He kept pressuring me to put  meat in his. I didn't quite understand it- he eats meat all the time, and it was an extra step to prepare it with meat and I didn't have it on hand. He then seemed to be upset when I wanted to only do cheese. I have no idea why, but I think it is along the lines of "if you loved me you'd make the extra effort to put meat in this dish".

So, I thawed some meat from the freezer and made his meat dish and he seemed happy after that. A small issue in the grand scheme of things, but it seems that these "little things" can be emotionally laden. I tend to default in these things- that's on me, but the arguments also take time and energy and sometimes I don't want to deal with that.

[formflier]

  So silly to have that battle over $90 worth of meat.
 

I agree... .now that you've seen it for what it is, how can you avoid these battles?

FF

[Notwendy]

How to avoid the battles?

Good question. In my situation, it's thankfully mostly small stuff like fixing something special for my H to eat and I don't generally sweat the small stuff. Yet, I realize that's that's my co-dependent default.

The other part of the "if you loved me" is not telling why the seemingly small issue becomes a big deal. In general, if there is a bigger component to the small issue I think it is because something emotional is behind the request- the "want" is felt as a "need". Yet, for me, I am often in the dark about the emotional side because my H won't tell me that part. So it comes across as a pressing request like putting meat in a cheese-veggie dish when I wasn't planning to.

Then I am put in the position of: emotional caretaking ( fulfilling the request) or deciding not to take the steps to thaw the meat, cook it, and put it in the dish. The result of not doing an "if you loved me" is "you don't love me" and my H will feel emotionally hurt if I don't.

It feels crazy to cause a scene over a cheese dish, or having prime rib on the table at Christmas. To me, I could care less if someone wants to have meat or not. However, when this becomes a big issue it means- if you loved me you would not serve prime rib. You did and so therefore you don't love me. That's a big deal.

So, to avoid an argument, I do the little things. What is irritating is the hidden messages behind them. I don't mind doing nice things for people but I get irritated with feeling put on the spot to do them because of the hidden meaning.

[defogging]

How to avoid the battle?  There wasn't a battle, I was told the crowd wanted to go vegetarian and I knew that wasn't true so I went ahead and bought the prime rib.  Then I dealt with the verbal bomb droppings for a few days, up until the meat was served and everyone dug in.  Were my actions invalidating?  Didn't show I love her?  Probably, but the original claim of a vegetarian Christmas was invalid anyways.

It was a no win situation.  Option 1 - listen to uBPDw and don't buy a prime rib.  The result: this goes against who I am and I who I know our crowd is, to do this would be walking on eggshells.  We can't pretend to be something we're not to appease them.  Option 2 - Do what I did and buy the prime rib.  The result: verbal punches thrown my way for a week and then they go away as soon as we eat, then on to the next attack.

I don't care if people eat meat or not either, they should do what they want.  I didn't get in the way of the veggie Christmas or try to sway anyone's opinion.  uBPDw made a vegetable lasagne and it was pretty good, I tried some last night.

[Enabler]

To say it was an impossible situation would be taking it a step to far... .but it was a challenging situation which likely felt to you like a slow motion train wreck. There was a clear difference in opinion which was propped up on her side by some weak arguments/assumptions. If both parties (you and her) made an honest/accurate case for their wants, the proposal would have looked a lot like this:

DefoggingW - I would like to do a vegetarian Christmas dinner. I've been ruminating on it and think it would be a good/different thing to do which will be exciting and alternative. I think it will be good because ___________ (better for the environment, aligns with other veggies, meat is expensive, the fairies at the bottom of the garden told me that if I eat meat at Christmas they will come and wee in my mouth whilst I sleep).

Defogging - I like meat, I know that others like meat and I don't feel like it's a complete meal without meat.

When she adds weak arguments to her case you seek to dismantle the argument by 'attacking' that weak argument and then the case itself becomes unstable and falls apart in your mind. Because of her addition of a weak point her whole case collapsed and was a rubbish idea. In fairness to her, you can't do a veggie Christmas if there is a meat option, there is no compromise... .so her whole proposal falls apart dead at the side of the road because you overrode her.

Had she have proposed the idea on ethical or just as doing something different grounds, what would your thoughts have been? Would you have supported her vision for the day even if you had reservations as to whether it would be successful? I guess my point is, do you respect her rite to choose ideas that impact you that you don't agree with?

... .and I appreciate that your vision of partnership behavior is based around compromise and collaboration... .but this doesn't work with binary outcomes... .and she likes all or nothing thinking.

FWIW I'm planning on having a veggie Jan in response to a discussion I had with a friend about Amazonian deforestation. My argument was the Brazilians cut down trees to create pasture for cattle which we eat. If we want Brazilians to stop cutting down trees we should stop eating as much beef (simplification of the full discussion)... .he balked at the idea... .I thought I'd give it a go. 

Enabler

[Notwendy]

Enabler- I think you made a good point about how the conversation would have gone if there was an honest conversation with some insight to the actual reason for the request for vegetarian meal. Yet, there wasn't- and the weak argument was given as the reason. I think this is part of the issue. When someone sends smokescreens out rather than reveal their true thinking - the request takes on a manipulative quality ( whether intentional or not). I think we can sense it isn't the real reason. Buying into the "reason" when it isn't believable is a sort of playing along to avoid conflict, but it also results in resentment- not over the meat, but at going along with the "reason" to meet the unexpressed need. This is what defogging didn't want to do. It's not about the meat.

I'm going to guess here with defogging's wife but I think it is about identity and appearance. I think it would have been more like " I need to appear to the guests as a vegetarian- this is how I want them to see me, and I want them to see that my husband supports me". So why not give in? Because the "reason" given instead of this wish was inauthentic and defogging didn't want to buy into that.

And because that is just one of many "requests" like this. I think anybody would jump through hoops to do something that could fulfill the emotional needs behind these kinds of requests, but we've done that countless times and it doesn't do it.

[Skip]

At times like this we chose to solve problems or we chose to try to win. It's a critical choice every man must make in a relationship when there is conflict - to support the relationship or to prevail.

Were my actions invalidating?  Didn't show I love her?  Probably, but... .

... .but you were right and you proved it and you are here taking a victory lap.  

uBPDw made a vegetable lasagna and it was pretty good, I tried some last night.

... .and you didn't even taste her lasagna at the party.  Why do you think that is?

In all fairness, defogging, this is all well and good for someone who is headed for divorce and is fine with that - you have made that clear. I am only commenting because you said keeping the marriage together for a few more years to raise the kids together is extremely important to you.  It's may help you to know that actions like this suggest that, deep down, "keeping the marriage together to raise kids" is not a high priority at all. Things like this, as you know, sit under the skin and fester resentment and one day, the lid will blows off and its payback time. PAS is a favorite payback.

It might be helpful to solve this cognitive dissonance on way or the other.

When I asked you for an explanation for her actions (other than your no-win scenario) that could have been authentic, I was trying to drive you toward something like this:

It is highly likely that everyone she called prior to the party and asked about a possible vegetarian menu validated it. Women will do this - especially at the holidays when they respect that many mothers are stressed out. Heck, I went to a party with old friends and the host asked me what I though of her menu and her idea for a group movie (both of which I don't like at all) and I told her "great idea" - the same thing that every other guest told her. That's kinda how it works in the adult world of 2018. Your wife likely got a lot of validation for having a vegetarian menu. She reported that to you. It was real.

This same courtesy was shown to you and your beef by your guests. Heck, I raved about about very dry, over-cooked meal and even had seconds.

So how do we (men) handle these things if keeping the relationship stable is important? If my partner wanted to do an artichoke party for Christmas, I would just go with it. If I happened to feel strongly about having meat there, I would have said, "hey we need to have a little beef for uncle bubba, because he's a picky eater... ." and finessed it from there.  In any case, I would have been the first man in line to taste her lasagna the night of the party and tell her it was great... .and it sounds like it was.

Does this make sense? You feel you won this one... .my question is did you? Think about that cognitive dissonance.

[Enabler]

The other part of the "if you loved me" is not telling why the seemingly small issue becomes a big deal. In general, if there is a bigger component to the small issue I think it is because something emotional is behind the request- the "want" is felt as a "need". Yet, for me, I am often in the dark about the emotional side because my H won't tell me that part. So it comes across as a pressing request like putting meat in a cheese-veggie dish when I wasn't planning to.

Then I am put in the position of: emotional caretaking ( fulfilling the request) or deciding not to take the steps to thaw the meat, cook it, and put it in the dish. The result of not doing an "if you loved me" is "you don't love me" and my H will feel emotionally hurt if I don't.

Looping this back to your point yesterday which I left overnight to mull over... .'the reason' is typically not so much known to them. The desire to have meat, the desire to have a veggie Christmas is not known, I'm not even sure they know why their desires are so strong... .but they are... .and thus in hindsight or in the heat of negotiation reasons are ascribed to those intense feelings to justify their existence... .alas since there was generally no really good reason the justification tends to be flaky.

Like you Notwendy, I like to buy into something which I am convicted in, even if that conviction is based on my belief that 'it' will bring happiness to my W or others in the family. We start with a problem and look for a solution... .rather than starting with a solution and seeking justification in the form of a problem.  

[Notwendy]

I agree with you Enabler,  but some times, it is annoying. I tend to "give in" anyway- not from the feeling of wanting to see the other person happy, but to avoid the hurt and the consequence of not doing it.

When you have the combination of an accommodating person and someone who digs their heels in over something minor, the default is  to give in on these things and do emotional caretaking. It's a fine line between not sweating the small stuff and walking on eggshells.

[formflier]

You feel you won this one... .my question is did you? Think about that cognitive dissonance.

For some guys "military thinking" works better in these situations/questions.  

There is a "tactical" evaluation of this particular engagement (the battle) and there is a strategic engagement (the war).

So, did defogging "win" this particular engagement and what effect did this engagement (win or loss... .or perhaps that the skirmish happened at all) have on the "war" (substitute relationship for war and this might make more sense)

Very interested in defogging's reflections on his actions.  I'm reflecting on some of mine this morning as I get ready for my first post in a while.  Perhaps I made a misstep yesterday or perhaps I just need to be uncomfortable while an episode plays out.

Happy Holidays!

FF

[Enabler]

Back in 2016 when my marriage reached crisis I remember sitting in a marriage counselling session saying that trying to negotiate with my wife was like negotiating with someone with a gun. When someone is prepared to threaten divorce rather than compromise the non-gun-holder is always going to back down... .unless that is they put the gun in their mouth and say... ."Go on punk, make my day!"

This is still win/lose thinking though... .and I get Skips points, this is not the way forward. My question is though, and one coming from a position of experience... .If one builds the bridge to their entrenched position the entire time, and they typically are entrenched positions, how does one not wake up 5yrs down the track with the realisation that one has rarely if ever achieved the things they wanted to? The current stance is good for stopping the rot, which is great and sits perfectly with the stance of preserving the "marriage", but from experience it doesn't move the relationship closer towards a partnership, but more towards W having complete autonomy.

For example, my W has distorted beliefs about the amount of exercise she does, and the amount of family time is 'fair' to utilise for her own leisure. Although she does not see exercise in this way, and cognitively prefers the 'I'm keeping physically healthy' narrative, I see her need to run/cycle as self medicating her emotions... .I have re-framed what I thought was a 'want' to be a 'need' for her and attempt to facilitate it as much as I can... .this I thought was a good thing, a kind thing. In a typical relationship (which I know I am not in) my W might come back from the run and say, "wow, I feel great after that, is there anything you need to do now?" or even better "I really need to go for a run but if you have anything you need to do I can fit around you?"... .but no... .she's running (literally) on fire into the lake and I'm just getting in her way. She now goes for longer, more regular runs and comes back with similar levels of contempt for the fact that I've been manning the fort whilst she's been gone. I identified her need, I built the bridge, yet she wants more and more and more in an insatiable appetite for everyone else's resources... .time, money, emotional strength. I made it not about win or lose, but outcomes... .and maybe I got the outcome prediction wrong, but like a ratchet I've given ground and taking it back will involve putting the gun in my mouth again... .and again... .and again.

So, as much as I advocate giving ground... .you aint ever getting it back unless you want a gun battle.

Enabler

[formflier]

When someone is prepared to threaten divorce rather than compromise the non-gun-holder is always going to back down... .unless that is they put the gun in their mouth and say... ."Go on punk, make my day!"

I had more success when I essentially told the gun holder that I would respect their decision to use the gun or not... .but wouldn't argue about it.

So... .not quite ignoring that a gun is pointed at you, but certainly not "taunting" them with "go ahead... make my day".

Then after a pause... .try to lay something out there that they can "grab hold of" to move things forward or away from the gun thing.

So... .say something succinct about the gun... pause... .then ask if they want to talk about some neutral thing.  Then go on about your day or perhaps engage on the neutral subject if they bite on that.

It was a no win situation.  Option 1 - listen to uBPDw and don't buy a prime rib.  The result: this goes against who I am and I who I know our crowd is, to do this would be walking on eggshells.  We can't pretend to be something we're not to appease them.  Option 2 - Do what I did and buy the prime rib.  The result: verbal punches thrown my way for a week and then they go away as soon as we eat, then on to the next attack.

Was it really a dichotomous choice?  Also sometimes known as "black and white" thinking. Upon reflection... .can you think of other options?

FF

[defogging]

The only win I see is that everyone got to eat what they wanted and had a fun time.  The vegetarians had options, and there was meat available too.  I don't enjoy unnecessary battles, I like peace and compromise.

I don't know how to resolve matters like this in a positive way, when my W starts from the position of "everyone wants to go vegetarian" - and I know this is not true based on experience.  I would love to have adult conversations with her that end in compromise.  My position from the start was "that's completely fine with me if people don't want meat, but I'd like to accommodate those that do as well".  Ideally, my W and I would take a head count and agree on what certain people would like to eat and buy the appropriate amounts.  If I had heard from people that they all wanted to go vegetarian I would accommodate that.  Heck, if I was the only one that wanted meat I'd be willing to buy myself a single serving of prime rib.

I don't think that makes my position "entrenched", since I was looking for a compromise.  Compromise is something that doesn't seem to be a possibility in our house.

I have to say I feel like I get mixed messages from this forum.  I hear the advice that us non's should focus on ourselves and sometimes we risk upsetting our pwBPD.  One the other hand, it seems like the advice is to give in because pwBPD have such strong emotions about everything that we shouldn't risk invalidating them.  Which is it?

I would like to hear how others would have handled this.  Would you have bought prime rib or pretended that everyone was vegetarian for the holiday?  How do you handle a situation when their argument isn't based on reality?

[Cat Familiar]

If in your shoes, something that I might have thought about is to call everyone invited and ask “Vegetarian Christmas or prime rib or both?”

This takes anticipating all the potential wackiness coming from your wife’s direction and would likely have upset her anyway, had you taken the initiative to do this.

Since I’m a Thinker rather than a Feeler, I miss out on a lot of cues pwBPD send, but perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing since I don’t walk on eggshells trying to keep the peace and it’s somewhat easier to ignore my husband’s upset feelings, “somewhat” being a key word, because his discomfort still makes me uncomfortable anyway.

“Honey, I took a head count and we have 3 Vegetarians, 5 Meateaters, 2 Combos. Now we can plan our shopping list.”

[Skip]

I would like to hear how others would have handled this.  Would you have bought prime rib or pretended that everyone was vegetarian for the holiday?  

I take it you didn't read my post and possibly your question is a rhetorical one.

It's not about the meat - it's about the kids.

[defogging]

I take it you didn't read my post or your question is a rhetorical one.

It's not about the meat - it's about the kids.

I agree it's about the kids.  I would like to eliminate conflict.

It is a serious question.  The undertone I hear is that I did the wrong thing and ignored her feelings.  It seems I had two choices, buy meat and upset her or don't buy meat and appease her.  Discussions were attempted and not fruitful.  Which direction is the answer?

[Skip]

Did you read my post? I answered this question and asked a few others.

[formflier]

  Would you have bought prime rib or pretended that everyone was vegetarian for the holiday?   

I would have NOT cast the issue as a dichotomous choice/issue.  

Much much more pragmatism is needed in your thinking... .much much less right/wrong thinking.

People change their minds all the time.  I likely would have used the big picture thinking of "handing the issue back to her to solve".  

"Oh goodness babe... .I talked to Uncle Steaklover the other day and he was anticipating our prime rib.  How do you want to handle the apparent disconnect we are dealing with?"

Then... .wait for an answer that answers the question you asked... .not the question she may want to deal with.

Perhaps she says something halfway reasonable... ."I just want to do vegetarian... "... .then you support your wife vice support those that want to eat meat.

Hopefully that answered the question about what I would do... .if you want me to flesh it out more I can.

FF

[formflier]

  It seems I had two choices, buy meat and upset her or don't buy meat and appease her.  

If this really is how it seems to you... .then stop here and let's examine that for a while.

FF