We all post about our personal lives to some extent, hell we ask questions and usually get pretty good answers.
Dopers are a fair minded crowd, they say what they feel: sometimes it upsets a poster but you learn to bend with it, let it slide and move on to the next issue.
I doubt very much whether any nastiness is ever intended (apart from the odd dipstick) dopers just give it as it is.
FWIW and no snarkiness intended, I’d have told your husband to fill his own fucking humidifier and find his own work out stuff…Oh yeah, and pick up his socks
Rilch has been here a looooong time, and I know she has written in a very upbeat way about her husband before now, and assumed this one was a temporary misery moment like most relationships.
So all I want to know is, what the hell does “redd up” mean? I thought it was a typo.
Tidy up; straighten up. I’m not sure, but I assume it derives from “ready up,” which is in itself a colloquialism of “get ready.” You redd up the living room for company, and by extension, tidying any room or area is redding it up.
Actually, in the OP, he was “demanding” – “demanding perfection.” The only thing he was “asking” was why the OP’s housekeeping, with the dusting not done and the filling of the humidifier left so late, was so inadequate. In the OP’s second post, he wasn’t “asking” or “telling” either – he was “picking on” and “accusing.” That’s also when the OP announced she was going to work for her husband’s business.
As the thread continued, the OP received pretty much nothing but support and advice for her, and (actually, pretty mild) censure for her husband. Then came post #20, the long, weird one, with its “defense” of the OP’s husband that, in a reversal of Marc Antony, managed to bury its subject while claiming to praise it. This was the post that led some to suspect an abusive relationship (on account of the propensity of abused women to condemn, then defend, their abusers), and some to think of other explanations – because, at this point, an explanation was sorely needed.
In post #35, the OP rebuked any posters who questioned her husband or their marriage. At this point, her husband is a great guy, always thoughtful and considerate, and the purpose of the whole thread, for those of us too dense to understand, was limited to how to resolve that single night’s argument (after the Mister had gotten his night’s rest, gotten up, and finished his workout the next morning, provided she’d finished looking though the boxes in the crawl space for his ab-roller), not to comment on anything else she may have said about the relationship. Besides (and here begins a theme that continues through the thread up to date), this was an isolated, one-time occurence. Which was quite a jar but a refreshing change after her initial posts, when she was worried that he was “turning into one of those husbands” and that he was starting to do “what her mom used to do,” which was (apparently) anything but a one-time thing.
Then in posts 44-45, she again elaborates on what a wonderful husband she has, berates those who have in good faith offered advice, and finally enlightens us on the sort of response she deems appropriate: “cautious reassurance,” defined basically as asking for all the disclaimers she started supplying after her first few posts.
At this point, the OP is attacking the SDMB for supporting her OP the wrong way, by failing to take into account the things she hadn’t said contradicting the things she had said, or, alternatively, for noticing the contradictions at all. Then there was another round of posts, this time including a little bit of the requested enabling. And here we are.
So, what kind of response would have satisfied the OP? I’m guessing it would have looked like this:
What excuse do I have for positing such an insensitive response and suggesting the OP would approve? Only that she wrote it herself.
Look, Rilchiam. I’ve said a couple of times, everybody in this thread is all for you, including me, and if you’re still not happy, that’s a different problem than the one you say you’re trying to solve. It’s not so much our “thinking what we like”, it’s trying to keep up with what you’re saying. Posting about your personal life is always a chancy business, but it’s especially so when the narrative is neither consistent nor coherent. Hell, at this point, not only might I buy your husband a beer, but I’m developing a sneaking sympathy for your Mom, too. And if the lesson you take away from this is to never post about your personal life, well, I’d say that’s a little extreme: maybe starting a thread complaining about your husband when he can’t defend himself, and then turning on your supporters because they don’t defend him either, is the only thing you really need to quit. However, your plan is preferable to this mess, just as your eventual solution will (I hope) be better for you than “I’ll do whatever you want.”
King, let’s get down to brass tacks. You are the only person in this thread who has taken a rude tone with me. You were the only one I “berated,”* as opposed to merely responding to, not because of the points you made, but because you made them in the context of scornful accusations of lying and/or denial. You don’t seem half as concerned about my marriage as you seem to be about winning a game of online arm-wrestling, which you yourself declared.
But so what. It makes no difference what you think of me or my husband or my marriage. I’m going to forget I ever saw your posts in this thread, including the bit where you said you had sympathy for my mom; you had to have meant that as an insult. Your sympathy for me may be sincere, but it’s couched in such condescension that I can’t accept it.
And for the record, I’m not viewing this thread in a vacuum. I don’t think people are picking on me alone; I think there have been an unhealthy number of pileons lately, of many different posters. If I leave, it won’t be because I think I, personally and solely, have been mistreated. It will be because I’ve gotten tired of seeing so many threads derailed by what seems to be almost a compulsive nastiness.
*I was not berating msmith; just referring him to post 35 to point out why the “walked into the iron” projection was way off base.
