Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#91

Post by Confusion »

jdietrich wrote: post #46

I'd like to make a thoughtful comment, but I'm struggling to get past the phrase 'age-appropriate'. As someone who has never been 'appropriate' to their chronological age in any respect, it always comes across as reductive, patronising and ultimately dehumanising. It seems to me to be the product of a worldview which sees children not as distinctive individuals with unique preferences and aptitudes, but as mere larva…

You're not being grossly unfair: you're just being completely wrong. Your conclusion is that she is a pathological narcissist, but it is you that makes the story completely about her. On the other hand, she clearly recognized that this man's life wasn't solely about her and she correctly concluded that any problems probably weren't solely about her either.

She lets the guy get a broader perspective, by reducing her own importance in his life, by letting him discover a taste of a life without her, and yet you, and others, manage to interpret that as a sign of narcissism. I don't understand that one bit. It could as well have played out in a completely different way, where the guy liked his newfound freedom enough to go through with the separation. The fact that he stayed is a pretty strong signal that she was right and that it wasn't about her, as she guessed. A narcissist couldn't possibly guess that something wasn't about her.

Your story boils down to 'guy finally has the guts to tell her how it stands, because he is sick of her emotional blackmail, but he's actually a pussy, because a new bit of emotional manipulation is enough to make him reconsider'. That really doesn't sound very convincing.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#92

Post by gjm11 »

arethuza wrote: post #85
jdietrich wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At two I was a committed vegetarian, at four a committed socialist, at six a committed atheist. I could calculate the kinetic energy of a bicycle in motion before I could ride one. At four years old, I most certainly did feel de-humanised when refused a vegetarian meal or spitefully tricked into eating meat. I'm obviously a distant outlier, but the standard deviation is much greater than most people imagine. At the o…

I must admit that, like sdh, I am very curious as to whether you have your own kids.

I am not jdietrich, but I have a 3-going-on-4-year-old child, and she is certainly a "distinctive individual with unique preferences and aptitudes".

On the other hand, she is certainly different from (say) what she's likely to be in 15 years' time, in ways that are clearly related to her age. There are things I wouldn't say or do with her because they aren't "age-appropriate", though I wouldn't use that particular term. If someone who didn't know my daughter tried to tell me that I couldn't do this, that, or the other because it wasn't "age-appropriate" then I might react in roughly the way jdietrich did; but if my wife did, then I hope I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant "appropriate for who and what she currently is". (Though I might have trouble giving her the benefit of the doubt in a situation like the one in the original article...)

As for the original situation, I don't think there's any point trying to pass judgement on what they said to each other in those first few minutes. No one is at their best in that kind of situation. On the face of it, at least, what they ended up doing seems to have worked out well enough for them, but of course it's quite possible that we're hearing a distorted version of the story.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#93

Post by gjm11 »

msg wrote: post #66
alanh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Maslow’s.) Yes, very true, and perhaps a great illustration of how we humans haven’t yet evolved quite enough to deal with the very different challenges the affluent nations deal with so soon after we as a species were struggling for survival.

You can't evolve out of the meaning of life.

Care to make your point a bit more explicit?

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#94

Post by rmundo »

Would that we all had someone in our lives who knows and loves us so well.

It's not always easy to pinpoint what exactly is it that makes us unhappy. And according to Daniel Gilbert (seriously, check out his book and TED talks), we sort of suck at predicting what does make us happy.

And usually, we know what's better for ourselves than anyone else. That's because we have more information about ourselves than anyone else, of course. But it's easy to get lost in the echo chamber of our minds, and that's when a second opinion becomes priceless.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#95

Post by theorique »

jdietrich wrote: post #46

I'd like to make a thoughtful comment, but I'm struggling to get past the phrase 'age-appropriate'. As someone who has never been 'appropriate' to their chronological age in any respect, it always comes across as reductive, patronising and ultimately dehumanising. It seems to me to be the product of a worldview which sees children not as distinctive individuals with unique preferences and aptitudes, but as mere larva…

It seems to me to be the product of a worldview which sees children not as distinctive individuals with unique preferences and aptitudes, but as mere larvae passing through 'developmental stages'. I consider it an affront to the dignity of all children and my teeth are set on edge every time I hear it.

For outliers, statistics doesn't work that well (and feels reductive of their uniqueness.... because it is!). And of course this is true of everyone - we're all unique and special and statistics doesn't get to the heart of our own personal story.

But this isn't the point of such things - terms such as age-appropriate are really aimed only at most children, most of the time. Anyone who's enough of an outlier to be offended and upset by the notion - and able to come up with a cogent argument against it - is probably not included within that set of most children.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#96

Post by theorique »

resdirector wrote: post #58
jdietrich wrote: post #46

I'd like to make a thoughtful comment, but I'm struggling to get past the phrase 'age-appropriate'. As someone who has never been 'appropriate' to their chronological age in any respect, it always comes across as reductive, patronising and ultimately dehumanising. It seems to me to be the product of a worldview which sees children not as distinctive individuals with unique preferences and aptitudes, but as mere larva…

I think in this context "I don't buy it" is closer to "I think you are misinterpreting your feelings" rather than invalidation. With respect to her emotional distance, John Gray's book: "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" has some good insight re Men's need for space and distance when things go bad. I think her actions were very sensible for a long term relationship.

I think in this context "I don't buy it" is closer to "I think you are misinterpreting your feelings" rather than invalidation.

I agree - it's more about her saying something like:

"I'm not going to take your apparent desire for a divorce as 100%, literally true (yet) because I know you've got a lot of emotional 'stuff' going on right now. Go and do your thing, take some space to work things out, and if you do work it out, come back and let's talk again. If you're serious, we'll figure that out at the appropriate time."

which is a very mature reaction, in a way that invalidation wouldn't be.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#97

Post by forkandwait »

I thought that story was awesome, though I completely respect those who hated it. Here is whyb (somewhat stream of conciousness... sorry...):

Long term relationships take work and commitment, including possibly long stretches of unhappiness. This article celebrates working toward something besides "fun".

A rewarding life is NOT the same as being happy all the time. If you ask me, focusing on happiness above all else is tantamount to addiction, and really bad. ("Self overcoming" is what makes a rewarding life, and self overcoming almost requires suffering; I study math -- suffering is fun once you get the taste...)

She wouldn't take the blame for his crappiness, and decided to be OK with herself; she practiced this OK-ness even when it didn't come naturally.

I hate to be all curmudgeonly, but between the 1960s and Freud we have adopted a VERY self indulgent ideology which makes me want to puke. (And which has probably fueled a big part of the conservative movement, unfortunately...)

I may have other less easily expressed reactions that are coloring my overall gestalt, but I think those sum it up.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#98

Post by adriana »

nir wrote: post #33

Sometimes it seems the quality of HN is deteriorating, and then a submission like this, which you'd think one has to be at least 35 to even understand, gets 149 points. Pretty amazing.

This is because relationships are paramount to programming languages, start-ups, gadgets, etc.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#99

Post by abstractbill »

robryan wrote: post #77
zeynel1 wrote: post #14

“Go trekking in Nepal. Build a yurt in the back meadow. Turn the garage studio into a man-cave. Get that drum set you’ve always wanted. ..." Is there anyone else who finds this a very condescending and nasty thing to say? This ought to sound to her husband like fighting words.

Seems she was only willing to let him do these things once she thought she may lose him. Why couldn't he do these things at any time if that's what he really wanted.

I have the bad habit of throwing myself completely into my work, and not doing any of the other things that I know would make me happy. When I inevitably get close to burning out, my wife has to remind me (often quite forcibly) that I should spend some time doing those things.

The wife in this story may have been in a similar position - completely willing to let him do those things, but having to remind him that he's been meaning to do them for a long time.

Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

#100

Post by 0ffworlder »

Heh, that article is crazy. Have fun with your 20 acre plot 3 kids and pony... Who wants to get married in today's society? Your kids will just send you to an "adult home" anyway. I'd rather be driving a high end bimmer/mercades and be dating a woman 20 years younger than me when those years come around. The "American dream" is a fabrication, have fun with your 20+ years of kids leaching off you, 9-5 job, and all. How about legalizing prostitution, drugs, getting rid of speed limits, compulsory education (12 years of brainwashing) -- then there might be some fun.
Post reply on HN