|
|
Post by baza on Jun 18, 2016 22:58:09 GMT -5
Sister elle, I've finally got around to this subject (that we discussed briefly on another thread).
Of the assorted examples I note below, I have deliberately not named names (as I have not sought the permission of the relevant members to do so. They are a bit of an amalgam of various members).
-
Any way, this is (yet another) of my theories, and I am putting it out there for the membership to kick the shit out of.
-
In my opinion, there are two costs in winding up a dysfunctional relationship.
#1 - the logistical / financial cost.
This one will vary from person to person, circumstance to circumstance.
From the "not actually married, no kids, little joint property" person - - - to the "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc" at the other end of the spectrum.
Very variable in levels of complication.
#2 - the emotional cost.
This one is common to all in its' intensity irrespective of the logistical / financial cost.
The "not actually married, no kids, little joint property" person is going to find it just as emotionally challenging as the "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc" person to call a halt to the dysfunctional situation.
There is not much variation in this aspect. It is hellishly difficult for all.
-
In short, the emotional cost is going to be pretty much the same whether you are male / female, young / old, religious / heathen, rich / poor, or any other point of difference you care to name. It is going to be hellishly difficult for *you* whoever *you* are, and whatever *your* logistical / financial circumstances are.
-
And THAT, the emotional challenge, is your biggest obstacle, not the logistical / financial aspect of your situation.
-
The logistical / financial aspects can be managed, with appropriate professional advice, a solid plan, and discipline (and this applies generally - not just to dysfunctional marriages but in the financial aspects of anyone's life) It is sober boring arithmetic at its' core, not wizardry.
-
The REALLY tough bit is managing the emotional costs.
-
Sometimes in here (and in the old EP group) a member writes a story along the lines "my spouse is a dud, we've been married for 3 years, no kids, minimal joint assets" and the membership oftentimes launches in to "just run" suggestions, based on how simple the logistical / financial aspect appears from the outside.
Yet the member can NOT do so. And it is NOT because of the logistics / finances.
Rather, it is the emotional costs that are the big hurdle.
And in that context, those difficulties are just as real and just as imposing as they are to the member with "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 5:50:48 GMT -5
Sister elle, I've finally got around to this subject (that we discussed briefly on another thread). Of the assorted examples I note below, I have deliberately not named names (as I have not sought the permission of the relevant members to do so. They are a bit of an amalgam of various members). - Any way, this is (yet another) of my theories, and I am putting it out there for the membership to kick the shit out of. - In my opinion, there are two costs in winding up a dysfunctional relationship. #1 - the logistical / financial cost. This one will vary from person to person, circumstance to circumstance. From the "not actually married, no kids, little joint property" person - - - to the "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc" at the other end of the spectrum. Very variable in levels of complication. #2 - the emotional cost. This one is common to all in its' intensity irrespective of the logistical / financial cost. The "not actually married, no kids, little joint property" person is going to find it just as emotionally challenging as the "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc" person to call a halt to the dysfunctional situation. There is not much variation in this aspect. It is hellishly difficult for all. - In short, the emotional cost is going to be pretty much the same whether you are male / female, young / old, religious / heathen, rich / poor, or any other point of difference you care to name. It is going to be hellishly difficult for *you* whoever *you* are, and whatever *your* logistical / financial circumstances are. - And THAT, the emotional challenge, is your biggest obstacle, not the logistical / financial aspect of your situation. - The logistical / financial aspects can be managed, with appropriate professional advice, a solid plan, and discipline (and this applies generally - not just to dysfunctional marriages but in the financial aspects of anyone's life) It is sober boring arithmetic at its' core, not wizardry. - The REALLY tough bit is managing the emotional costs. - Sometimes in here (and in the old EP group) a member writes a story along the lines "my spouse is a dud, we've been married for 3 years, no kids, minimal joint assets" and the membership oftentimes launches in to "just run" suggestions, based on how simple the logistical / financial aspect appears from the outside. Yet the member can NOT do so. And it is NOT because of the logistics / finances. Rather, it is the emotional costs that are the big hurdle. And in that context, those difficulties are just as real and just as imposing as they are to the member with "intermingled children, complicated financial situation etc". Yup, my AP had no kids, was financially self sufficient, and little property to fight over. And she wouldn't and I suspect never will leave. I really don't know what makes the emotional cost of leaving so high for her. I'm sure there is a lot she never told me. Lots of folks here could pull it off financially but are mired in codependency, fear, self loathing, inertia, or just plain feel defeated. These are generally bigger obstacles than "I'll lose half of my 401k." |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jun 19, 2016 8:22:55 GMT -5
You've got a great beginning here! I would like to add a part 1a and a part 2 a to this.
Part 1 a) in my circles of people there is a lot of private businesses expensive real estate, investments. People get greedy and stubborn. One tries to go for it all, revenge through money and the whole process can leave them far worse off . Secret accounts, money transferred oversees huge unforeseen debt etc....ending up in years of court battles, attorney fees .
Part 2a) having children,( lots of them in my case) really affects your mind. You may be okay with separating from your spouse with very little emotion. After all this time there is little emotion left. But there is a wealth of emotion between you and the children. The emotion of the guilt of turning their world upside down is far more than what is involved with just a spouse . It's like divorcing multiple spouses all at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyartgal on Jun 19, 2016 9:38:01 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed in life---including IASM----is that people have incredibly varied pain tolerances. Or what I actually think of as "unhappiness tolerance."
That means that a lot of people, maybe even most people, will put up with what would be to me an untenable amount of unhappiness in any situation (romantic, work, friendship, health, etc) because they have a higher priority need that IS being satisfied: comfort, familiarity, routine, security (that's a huge one), consistency, denial, whatever. A lot of people think that what they want in life is more than anything to be happy, but it's not actually, because if happiness were their first priority the other things would be less important in their decisions. In the end, we find the time and energy to do what we want, and if we don't do it, it's usually because we didn't really want it that much---assuming it was something doable in the first place.
I don't think there's anything wrong with not putting happiness first as long as you're honest with yourself about it. The problem is people who complain about their marriage or job or whatever but never are willing to risk their other, maybe higher priorities to be happier. Personally, I think this is to some degree a cultural thing for Americans. We are obsessed with individual happiness in a way that Europeans and Asians generally aren't.
Personally I have a a VERY low unhappiness tolerance, which means that I am not terribly risk averse about making huge changes to be happier. My problem iwas being in denial about how much control I had over the collective happiness of my marriage. I thought I could singlehandedly diagnose, work on and fix it. Which is really stupid! But I preferred to put all the responsibility on myself because it gave me a false sense of control over a situation that I had zero actual control of. Or very little anyway. I could control ending it, and eventually I did.
Maybe people here should sit down and make a list of their top 5 priorities in life and be extremely, brutally honest about what they really want. Then if you find that happiness is not on the list or is really far down, you can either shift the order or work on better coping skills.
Just to be clear: I think a lot of people not only don't want to be happy, they are much more comfortable being unhappy because at least it's familiar and it doesn't require a lot of work or risk taking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 9:56:23 GMT -5
For a very long time, I told myself that I was staying because of the financial/having kids issues. And to be fair, I do have anxiety issues around money in particular that I've carried around most of my life. But eventually, with the help of some very pointed and thought provoking questions from people on EP and from my therapist, I did the necessary research and discovered that the finance/logistics issues could be worked out. For me, that was the window of opportunity I needed and I quickly made and executed my exit plan (four months in my case).
However, in looking back and exploring what was holding me in my marriage, it was far more complicated than money and custody issues. There were all sorts of emotional issues to be worked out. I think that the reason I was able to move so quickly once I saw a path out was that I had been pondering and working on those issues for years. If it had really been just logistics, I would have left eight or nine years ago when my ex was making a ridiculous amount of money and our kids were young enough that I would have gotten a large amount of support. My dad even offered to pay for me to see a lawyer and explore my options way back then and I chose not to accept his help. I'm still exploring why I stayed so long and I have a few answers, but there is certainly more to be learned there.
In my case, it was definitely the emotional cost that kept me immobilized for years. Also in my case, the logistics of divorce have turned out to be far more complicated than anticipated, but the only change I would make if I had it to do again would be to listen to the very competent lawyer that I hired about five months sooner than I did. And the mistakes I have made have all been because of emotional reasons! Until recently, I will still trying to protect my ex's feelings and oddly enough, still trying to be a "good wife". Those emotional habits and bonds are very hard to break even when you've made the decision to move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 10:07:51 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed in life---including IASM----is that people have incredibly varied pain tolerances. Or what I actually think of as "unhappiness tolerance." That means that a lot of people, maybe even most people, will put up with what would be to me an untenable amount of unhappiness in any situation (romantic, work, friendship, health, etc) because they have a higher priority need that IS being satisfied: comfort, familiarity, routine, security (that's a huge one), consistency, denial, whatever. A lot of people think that what they want in life is more than anything to be happy, but it's not actually, because if happiness were their first priority the other things would be less important in their decisions. In the end, we find the time and energy to do what we want, and if we don't do it, it's usually because we didn't really want it that much---assuming it was something doable in the first place. I don't think there's anything wrong with not putting happiness first as long as you're honest with yourself about it. The problem is people who complain about their marriage or job or whatever but never are willing to risk their other, maybe higher priorities to be happier. Personally, I think this is to some degree a cultural thing for Americans. We are obsessed with individual happiness in a way that Europeans and Asians generally aren't. Personally I have a a VERY low unhappiness tolerance, which means that I am not terribly risk averse about making huge changes to be happier. My problem iwas being in denial about how much control I had over the collective happiness of my marriage. I thought I could singlehandedly diagnose, work on and fix it. Which is really stupid! But I preferred to put all the responsibility on myself because it gave me a false sense of control over a situation that I had zero actual control of. Or very little anyway. I could control ending it, and eventually I did. Maybe people here should sit down and make a list of their top 5 priorities in life and be extremely, brutally honest about what they really want. Then if you find that happiness is not on the list or is really far down, you can either shift the order or work on better coping skills. Just to be clear: I think a lot of people not only don't want to be happy, they are much more comfortable being unhappy because at least it's familiar and it doesn't require a lot of work or risk taking. I think there's like real knock on wood science to support that last paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by nyartgal on Jun 19, 2016 10:14:12 GMT -5
I forgot to add that a lot of it has to do with expectations. A lot of people don't expect to be that happy so it's not remarkable when they aren't. There have also been studies about how people have "set points" of relative happiness, just like we do with weight. Some people have a naturally happier resting state than others. This could cut either way---you could be happier despite a shitty situation or you could work to maintain that happiness level by avoiding or fixing shitty situations. It's obvious anyway that some people are more resilient than others, some people cry all day because they broke a fingernail and others go through chemotherapy without ever completely falling apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jun 19, 2016 14:06:40 GMT -5
nyartgal - I think it has everything to do with expectations. The same can be said for contentment with living conditions, socioeconomic status, quality of work, etc. Happiness is a product of how things are compared to how well you think they should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 15:18:18 GMT -5
Hmm, food for thought baza. I definitely agree with the happiness set point theory and have read about that. I do think happiness is a state we naturally seek, whatever that looks like for each of us (some people just will never be very happy). But I would also reiterate that "the pain of staying the same must outweigh the pain of change" before any of us will leave. And then there's the old proverb about an entire population throwing their problems up a mountain and each person scrambling up the steep mountain to grab their own. I truly believe that the vast majority of us will take the familiar over the unknown any day. I'm also not sure whether happiness is really the best goal in life, regardless of the fact that we all seem to seek it naturally. As I get older, I see the value in seeking peace with what IS over outright happiness. I don't always (often?!) achieve it, but I see the value... And, though it might be due to my own circumstances, I still think that a woman with no financial means of her own who has given up everything to stay home for years at a time has much more to lose than a man. There is research showing that time and again, women end up in a lower socioeconomic bracket after divorce, no matter what. Like it or not, money is a very real tether to a SM. I'll have to mull this one over some more. Great comments from everyone says far. Sorry for my random thoughts! I'll be back... |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jun 19, 2016 19:05:15 GMT -5
@elle, so how do you balance seeking peace with what is, versus knowing when it is right to seek change?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 21:44:17 GMT -5
@elle, so how do you balance seeking peace with what is, versus knowing when it is right to seek change? I don't know! This is the million dollar question, right? Perhaps it comes back to "the pain of staying the same" bit... And only we, as individuals in our own marriages, can answer that one. I'm still wrestling with this myself, knowing when/if the marriage is too bad to stay. Right now, I'm straddling the middle ground - working my way out while working on getting along with H and simultaneously putting myself and my own personal happiness first. Putting ME first lessens the codependent tendency and helps empower me. Who knows, maybe it'll work. But if it doesn't, that's ok too b/c there's always my exit plan. The spiritual maxims I keep circling back to these days are mostly Buddhist: life is suffering / pain is optional. Basically the idea that suffering is in our mind and we can choose to view things differently, lower expectations, look at the positive, etc. I'm not prescribing this to anyone else. There are people here who need to get out (as in yesterday), but in my case, it seems worth a shot. Plus, what the heck, it's a beautiful spiritual challenge for me. I'm also working with "do unto others" and "be the change you want to see in the world" except I insert "in my marriage." The response has been good, but I'm still not holding my breath. No matter. This girl's got an airtight plan B. Que sera, sera! |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jun 20, 2016 1:48:37 GMT -5
Quoting you here elle - " a woman with no financial means of her own who has given up everything to stay home for years at a time has much more to lose than a man " -
This is quite true.
"No Fault" jurisdictions recognize this fact, and whereas the baseline split in a No Fault jurisdiction is 50/50, thereafter formula's apply to recognise the cost of maintaining the children, and the SAH persons limited capabilities to re-join the workforce whilst shouldering the childrens primary care duties.
What that might mean in a case like yours would be a really good thing to run past a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 11:04:40 GMT -5
Quoting you here elle - " a woman with no financial means of her own who has given up everything to stay home for years at a time has much more to lose than a man " - This is quite true. "No Fault" jurisdictions recognize this fact, and whereas the baseline split in a No Fault jurisdiction is 50/50, thereafter formula's apply to recognise the cost of maintaining the children, and the SAH persons limited capabilities to re-join the workforce whilst shouldering the childrens primary care duties. What that might mean in a case like yours would be a really good thing to run past a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Point taken. I do need to see another lawyer. I've seen one already, hence the exit plan in place. I still, after all the bull$hit I have put up with over the years, refuse to be left poor - either now or in retirement. Staying a few more years will help me out there as well. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jun 20, 2016 19:03:13 GMT -5
This raises a crucial question elle.
Are you (that's *YOU*) financially solid now ? - in other words, has your staying with him over the years resulted in *YOU* improving *YOUR* financial position ?
-
If the answer to that is "yes", then staying to further improve your financial situation makes good financial sense.
-
But if the answer is "no", (that staying with him all these years has NOT improved *your* financial situation), then it doesn't make financial sense at all.
In this scenario, the sooner you get your right whack of the divisible assets, and are then paddling your own canoe, the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by cagedtiger on Jun 21, 2016 10:43:33 GMT -5
A lot of my "one year plan" actually revolves around our financials. We'll have several things paid off over then next year, the remodels to her house (she bought it before we met and I have no interest in keeping it) will be finished, and a few other things would be easier to cleanly walk away from.
Another part of my hesitation for leaving sooner is because I worry about her being on her own; she only really has one or two friends, as others have drifted away, either physically, emotionally, or both. I worry about her being alone, especially as her dog, who's been her constant companion for a long time, is increasingly showing signs that she won't be around forever. I know when the dog dies she'll be absolutely devastated, and I worry about what happens then. Especially if I'm not around.
|
|
