"Stop nagging me"

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It occurs to me that ‘nagging’ is a term used primarily to describe three things: pains, doubts, and women. While it’s not an inherently gendered word, it’s relatively rare that you hear it used to describe men. My reading of what’s behind the word is this: it implies a type of pestering that’s incessant, unpleasant and probably petty or unnecessary; that the problem with a situation isn’t that a task isn’t being carried out, but that the nagger* won’t shut up about it; that the task is basically eventually carried out as a personal favour to the nagger or for a quiet life rather than for the naggee’s benefit or any other benefit inherent in the task.

Now, there certainly are naggers. Not denying that at all. But I’ve frequently seen the word deployed to sneakily undermine reasonable requests, to shift responsibility from oneself for not bothering to carry out tasks one shouldn’t have to be asked to do even the once: “She’s always nagging me about doing the laundry wrong” and suddenly the problem isn’t that you won’t bother looking at labels and instructions and engaging a standard adult level of common sense about basic tasks, the problem is that herself is a nag. “She’s been nagging me about fixing that door for weeks” and suddenly the problem isn’t that you said you’d carry out a thirty minute task thirty days ago and haven’t done it, it’s that she’s a nag.

So, have you ever been accused of being a nag? Was it justified? Do you know any nags? Was it an aspect of your parents’ relationship?

*I proofread this more carefully than most posts :pac:

RedJoker

There's an interesting section in "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation" by Deborah Tannen on the topic of nagging:

Yet another woman said she finally understood why her fiance, who very much believes in equality, once whispered to her that she should keep her voice down. "My friends are downstairs," he said. I don't want them to get the impression that you order me around." That women have been labeled "nags" may result from the interplay of men's and women's styles, whereby many women are inclined to do what is asked of them and many men are inclined to resist even the slightest hint that anyone, especially a woman, is telling them what to do. A woman will be inclined to repeat a request that doesn't get a response because she is convinced that her husband would do what she asks, if he only understood that she really wants him to do it. But a man who wants to avoid feeling that he is following orders may instinctively wait before doing what she asked, in order to imagine that he is doing it of his own free will. Nagging is the result, because each time she repeats the request, he again puts off fulfilling it.

Lux23

I would often say to my boyfriend that he's a nag, but yea it is a characteristic and word I would normally associate with women.

Roselm

RedJoker wrote: »

There's an interesting section in "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation" by Deborah Tannen on the topic of nagging:

I don't know...
The thing is if , say, the woman never asked the first time, I don't think it's a case that the guy would do [the things he would otherwise be being nagged about] of his own free will. I think there's a strong element of priorities. Women seem to have certain things they see as essential/priority "to dos", and the guy doesn't even see the "problem" in the first place.
So I think this is the cause for nagging, because the woman thinks "why is this guy so lazy/so thoughtless" and asks the guy to do X. The guy, even though he's been asked, still doesn't get why it's a priority so still doesn't do X.
I'm aware that might be very sexist

Roselm

Moist Panties wrote: »

If something is important to one person but not their partner then I think it's selfish to nag about it In many cases.

Myself and my b/friend had this discussion. He saw it as you have put it, saying he was a "live and let live" kind of person so hence he wasn't about to nag me and I shouldn't nag him.
From my point of view though, and I said this to him, him not doing XYZ isn't letting me live because it's driving me nuts!

A woman makes a reasonable request, the other party agrees to carry out the action, but doesn't. Woman repeats request, rinse and repeat until promised compliance = woman is a nag.

Man makes reasonable request, is ignored, repeats request until promised compliance = man won't be fobbed off, sticks by his guns, won't take crap, holds people to their word.

Often, (though not always) in my observation, the difference between a male and female nag is simply perception.

OneOfThem

Why wouldn't the person in the OP fix the door themselves? It is clearly of a lot more importance to them than the other person. I can't for the life of me contemplate trying to cajole and hassle someone into doing something they clearly aren't that pushed about just because I am. Is that not the definition of 'nagging'? Trying to make someone so uncomfortable that they just go along with your will even though it is not theirs? It sounds like an unpleasant thing to do to someone.

testaccount123

Agreed. If something is that important to you, do it yourself. It's the age of equality, women can do anything men can do.

If someone has agreed to carry out a task and then doesn't, then the issue is them not doing what they said. It's not with the person who made the request.

OneOfThem

Candie wrote: »

If someone has agreed to carry out a task and then doesn't, then the issue is them not doing what they said. It's not with the person who made the request.

Why would someone agree to carry out a task they didn't want to carry out, or to do so in a time frame they didn't want to agree to, unless there was a precedent set whereby they knew nagging was imminent. I dunno, I'd loathe myself if I thought I was putting my partner in that position. If I really really want the grass to be cut, and they aren't that put out about the grass being cut, then the grass not being cut is my issue, not thiers, so I'd cut the grass.

If, for example, one person works many more hours and asks for help, I don't see how that's putting anyone in a terrible position. Not everyone has equal leisure time, and not everyone is considerate enough to pull their weight without being asked. If a couple takes turns with chores like laundry, but one party doesn't bother, it's not the asker being selfish.

Some people just don't do things because they're lazy, and they know if they sit tight and do nothing that it'll get done out of frustration. Or at least they'll be able to counterpoint their laziness or inconsiderateness with the accusation - Nag!

OneOfThem

It's situationally dependent all right. Both nags, and people that mislabel people as nags, are guilty of viewing the situation through their own prism, to suit themselves, I'd imagine.

testaccount123

OneOfThem wrote: »

Why would someone agree to carry out a task they didn't want to carry out, or to do so in a time frame they didn't want to agree to, unless there was a precedent set whereby they knew nagging was imminent. I dunno, I'd loathe myself if I thought I was putting my partner in that position. If I really really want the grass to be cut, and they aren't that put out about the grass being cut, then the grass not being cut is my issue, not thiers, so I'd cut the grass.

Its called bullying in other circumstances.

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its called bullying in other circumstances.

Or, alternatively, asking someone to pull their weight.

It's all about the context.

OneOfThem

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its called bullying in other circumstances.

I'd say that's exactly what it is in some cases. Probably a bit harsh in most though. It's certainly coercion. Is no one an anarchist anymore? Just myself left waving the banner like some perpetual lunatic? I think maybe I learned to wipe my own bum too young, so the idea of expecting someone else to do the things I want done for me, rather than doing them myself, is a little alien to me. Trying to coerce them into doing so? Just not my style.

'Clean Bums and Anarchy'. That'll be the title of my next album, I reckon.

zeffabelli

I dunno. I nag my child constantly. It wearse out. I hate nagging and sll you do is teach the person how to ignore you. The only reason I don't go the the things myself here is because he has to learn.

If I had to nag an adult I'd be demented. I just won't do it, prefer to do the task myself.

Don't nag the men, it just reminds them of their mothers nagging them to pick up their socks and put them in the machine.

baby and crumble

I think there's a difference between expecting people to do things for you and then "nagging" when they're not done and requesting an equal share of tasks completed between you.

I'm not a dogsbody, and while I'm happy to use my days off (I work part time, not really by choice) to get a lot of housework done, for example, I'm
Buggered if I'm going to do every single thing in the house when we're both off.

And there are some times whereby I genuinely am not good at doing a task- I don't have the skills. My partner can do the same task in 5 minutes well that would take me an hour. Why is it unreasonable to ask them to do that? And why is it unreasonable to expect it to be done, the way I'm expected to have dinner ready even on the days I'm working too?

It's about an equal partnership. And frankly some people ar lazy.

meeeeh

OneOfThem wrote: »

Why would someone agree to carry out a task they didn't want to carry out, or to do so in a time frame they didn't want to agree to, unless there was a precedent set whereby they knew nagging was imminent. I dunno, I'd loathe myself if I thought I was putting my partner in that position. If I really really want the grass to be cut, and they aren't that put out about the grass being cut, then the grass not being cut is my issue, not thiers, so I'd cut the grass.

Because sometimes we do things for people because we want, because it would make them happy, because it would make their life easier... You know the general social skills that normal person has. And the the other person would do something for us when we need it. It is part of normal human interaction.

Anyway I don't overly nag but I do blow up when something annoys me long enough. I can't remember ever being called the nag or called anybody a nag at least in my adult life.

kylith

OneOfThem wrote: »

Why would someone agree to carry out a task they didn't want to carry out, or to do so in a time frame they didn't want to agree to, unless there was a precedent set whereby they knew nagging was imminent. I dunno, I'd loathe myself if I thought I was putting my partner in that position. If I really really want the grass to be cut, and they aren't that put out about the grass being cut, then the grass not being cut is my issue, not thiers, so I'd cut the grass.

Because one person can't do everything in a relationship. One person can't do the laundry, the cleaning, put out the bins, wash the floors, cut the grass etc, etc just because the other isn't that put out about those things not being done.

Reminds me of a bloke I rented a room to once who refused to do any cleaning because the mank didn't bother him, so it all fell to me if I didn't want to live in a leprous pit. Sample quote "You clean the shower if you want it clean. I don't wear my glasses in the shower so I can't see it and it doesn't bother me". Was I not right to nag in that situation?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Reminds me of a bloke I rented a room to once who refused to do any cleaning because the mank didn't bother him, so it all fell to me if I didn't want to live in a leprous pit. Sample quote "You clean the shower if you want it clean. I don't wear my glasses in the shower so I can't see it and it doesn't bother me". Was I not right to nag in that situation?

It's not nagging in that situation. It's a reasonable request to expect someone to pull their weight to maintain a standard that both parties are happy with. There are people out there who will happy live in squalor, it's not unreasonable to expect them to consider the other people in the house who aren't happy to do so, and to make an effort like aware, considerate and co-operative adults.

All of this is doing what the word nag was invented to do; making it all the askers problem, and making the 'nag' seem like the unreasonable one.

Potatoeman

baby and crumble wrote: »

I'm not a dogsbody, and while I'm happy to use my days off (I work part time, not really by choice) to get a lot of housework done, for example, I'm
Buggered if I'm going to do every single thing in the house when we're both off.

That seems like a pretty bad deal for him, unless you do the same amount of housework as extra hours he works.

meeeeh

Potatoeman wrote: »

That seems like a pretty bad deal for him, unless you do the same amount of housework as extra hours he works.

And it seems quite alright deal to me. But what it seems to you or to me really doesn't matter because we don't know the situation. I guess you got just enough material for a cheap shot.

Anyway it seems to me that "nagging" is usually used for complaints from a person with less power.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

OneOfThem wrote: »

Why wouldn't the person in the OP fix the door themselves? It is clearly of a lot more importance to them than the other person. I can't for the life of me contemplate trying to cajole and hassle someone into doing something they clearly aren't that pushed about just because I am. Is that not the definition of 'nagging'? Trying to make someone so uncomfortable that they just go along with your will even though it is not theirs? It sounds like an unpleasant thing to do to someone.

Personally I hate being put in the position of a nag, it makes me feel like someone's mother. In a previous relationship I just wouldn't bother, and ended up doing the lion's share of housework, sorting things like bills/landlord stuff, cooking, shopping (I'd have to 'nag' him to help me pack bags at the tills and not wander off) and so on, because I hated the feeling of nagging and I hated how he reacted.

Say you and your partner share a car. Say you're working early in the morning and she goes out in the car and returns at 11 with the petrol nearly gone. It's not really important to her that there's petrol in the car in the morning because she personally won't be using it, and going to a petrol station would have been an inconvenience. So by your logic that's fine, because she's not pushed and it's important to you, so you should go and get the petrol, right? It's not inconsiderate, it'd be unreasonable and even bullying and abusive for you to give her shít about it if it became a habit?

OneOfThem

kylith wrote: »

Because one person can't do everything in a relationship. One person can't do the laundry, the cleaning, put out the bins, wash the floors, cut the grass etc, etc just because the other isn't that put out about those things not being done.

Reminds me of a bloke I rented a room to once who refused to do any cleaning because the mank didn't bother him, so it all fell to me if I didn't want to live in a leprous pit. Sample quote "You clean the shower if you want it clean. I don't wear my glasses in the shower so I can't see it and it doesn't bother me". Was I not right to nag in that situation?

A tenant and a partner aren't really comparable. But let's say that was your partner. A relationship is basically a free association. Ideally both parties have entered into the association un-coerced. In the situation above I think I would advise that the two of you sit down, reasonably outline your respective positions and then attempt to form a covenant, entered into freely and enthusiastically by both parties, which you will both pledge to honour. Should either of you deliberately then break it, then one of you were being deceitful when you pledged to honour it. And deciet is a form of coercion. As one of you are acting coercively in the relationship, it is in fact not truly a free association, it's only the veneer of one. And therefore I believe it would be best to dissolve that association. But that'd be your call of course.

Edit : same response to EB of course.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

A relationship is a free association within which you have certain responsibilities towards each other that you don't have outside of that. If you share a home and finances you each have a duty of care within that context and it shouldn't be one partner's responsibility to be constantly keeping the other up to code.

I feel like you might be getting at some of the reason why *some* men have to be kept after to do basic things, there's this need to maintain a strong sense of being a free agent who determines their own action, and a resistance to the idea of now functioning as part of a larger unit (i.e. a committed couple).

baby and crumble

Potatoeman wrote: »

That seems like a pretty bad deal for him, unless you do the same amount of housework as extra hours he works.

do you know, i was halfway through a reply detailing it all, and I realised that I don't have to justify myself to a randomer on the Internet.

And anyway, my partner is female, not that it really matters.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Canswa wrote: »

Don't be with someone who is so inconsiderate that they won't do their fair share of housework.

That is so insightful. FYI I'm not with someone like that anymore, and I haven't been accused of nagging since. Which pretty much illustrates what I'm getting at with the thread

Potatoeman

baby and crumble wrote: »

do you know, i was halfway through a reply detailing it all, and I realised that I don't have to justify myself to a randomer on the Internet.

And anyway, my partner is female, not that it really matters.

You said you were not going to be treated as a dogs body but that you worked part time. The gender is not important at all. My brother in law lost his job and does most of the housework as he has 40 hours more free time than my sister at the moment. Now if you are not sharing bills and income that's another matter.

kylith

OneOfThem wrote: »

A tenant and a partner aren't really comparable.

No, a tenant is not a partner, but I was sure as hell accused of being a nag because I had to repeatedly ask him to pull his weight around the house.

Canswa wrote: »

If one person doesn't care whether the grass is cut and the other does then it is up to the person who cares about it to cut it.

And if the person who wants the grass cut is also the person who is taking the kids to swimming, doing the majority of the housework, and so on; they should do everything to keep the house and family in order because it's not important to the other person and it's just tough luck on them?

If a person feels that their partner is repeatedly nagging them then perhaps they should have a serious think about whether the nagging is unjustified, or whether they are actually not pulling their weight in the relationship. There's a difference between, say, being nagged to put the bin out 10 times in half an hour because their partner is too impatient to wait for them to finish what they're doing and being 'nagged' to change a plug in which the fuse blew 2 weeks ago, or to pick up a hoover once in a while.

meeeeh

I don't know maybe I am the only idiot who thinks it's good to do something for your partner (or a friend, a parent, child) because it would make them happy, make their life easier or help them in some other way. I definitely don't like the tirade of complaints and all this kind of situations relative. But to live with someone who does only what they please would be a nightmare. I believe that the best relationships are partnerships and that sometimes means doing things you don't particularly like because you like And respect the person you are doing them for.

baby and crumble

Potatoeman wrote: »

You said you were not going to be treated as a dogs body but that you worked part time. The gender is not important at all. My brother in law lost his job and does most of the housework as he has 40 hours more free time than my sister at the moment. Now if you are not sharing bills and income that's another matter.

So do you think that someone working 1 less day per week but cooking every meal, doing all the laundry, doing all the cleaning Is taking the piss?

Seriously?

OneOfThem

Whitney Rapid Oxen wrote: »

A relationship is a free association within which you have certain responsibilities towards each other that you don't have outside of that. If you share a home and finances you each have a duty of care within that context and it shouldn't be one partner's responsibility to be constantly keeping the other up to code.

I feel like you might be getting at some of the reason why *some* men have to be kept after to do basic things, there's this need to maintain a strong sense of being a free agent who determines their own action, and a resistance to the idea of now functioning as part of a larger unit (i.e. a committed couple).

It only works well if both parties are free and enthusiastic adherents to that covenant.

Whitney Rapid Oxen wrote: »

I'm not with someone like that anymore, and I haven't been accused of nagging since. Which pretty much illustrates what I'm getting at with the thread

As you've seen.

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know maybe I am the only idiot who thinks it's good to do something for your partner (or a friend, a parent, child) because it would make them happy, make their life easier or help them in some other way. I definitely don't like the tirade of complaints and all this kind of situations relative. But to live with someone who does only what they please would be a nightmare. I believe that the best relationships are partnerships and that sometimes means doing things you don't particularly like because you like And respect the person you are doing them for.

Meeeeh get's it (kinda). Plenty of people think it's a good thing to do something for their partner. They make a free and enthusiastic choice to do things for them. Without being coerced into doing so. And so the association flourishes. Free from coercion, and with all parties acting autonomously and free from duress. And all parties are at peace. A free association of individuals, freely doing what they choose to do, for the betterment of all involved. The Black Army marches ever onwards, and domestic tranquility is achieved through the propaganda of deed. Attica, Attica, Attica!!!

Ah don't mind me really, I'm in a funny humour recently. Or ye know, like, whatever. Edit: I've had one of my trademark whiplash changes of heart. Do mind me. It is the very use of coercion, positive or negative, that breaks or deadens the spirit, which is the source of motivation, as I believe Kim Kardashian once wrote. Everyone loses.

Earthhorse

So, are people who object to the term saying they've never been nagged by anyone in their whole lives? By a partner, a parent or co-worker? Ever, ever, ever? You think the term is entirely manipulative and never an accurate description of behavior?

Potatoeman

baby and crumble wrote: »

So do you think that someone working 1 less day per week but cooking every meal, doing all the laundry, doing all the cleaning Is taking the piss?

Seriously?

That depends on the hours they work. Part time jobs are usually under 24 hours a week where full time are usually 40 hours or more. If you are sharing income and one person is working 16 hours a week more than the other person they should do more chores.

baby and crumble

Potatoeman wrote: »

That depends on the hours they work. Part time jobs are usually under 24 hours a week where full time are usually 40 hours or more. If you are sharing income and one person is working 16 hours a week more than the other person they should do more chores.

That's fair enough but I really don't think it's unreasonable for some tasks to be shared and frankly expected that way.

B0jangles

I think it should be pointed out that even if someone is working a full-time 39/40 hour week, they are most likely not actually working flat out for every one of those hours. I've worked in plenty of office/tech environments and yeah, no, we did not work every single second of the day bar lunchtime.

e.g. Software engineers have free time when their work is compiling, testers have free time when they are waiting for a build of their project to be downloaded/burned to disc. Pop off to the canteen to make a quick cup of tea and have an aul chat for 5-10 minutes - that's not exactly work is it?

In fact I have worked with a couple of people who were working shorter weeks - 2 1/2 - 3 day weeks because of family commitments and they actually tended to be particularly productive given their limited time because they didn't want to be a burden on the colleagues they had to hand their projects over to for half the week. So they were working a full half week in an office, then the rest of the week minding the kids.

I think a major problem in this discussion is that the person in paid employment can point to their specific time-delineated and financially rewarding role, whereas the person at home has neither an official schedule or a tangible financial reward for their work, so thier contribution is a lot easier to devalue.

Carlos Orange

Whitney Rapid Oxen wrote: »

A relationship is a free association within which you have certain responsibilities towards each other that you don't have outside of that. If you share a home and finances you each have a duty of care within that context and it shouldn't be one partner's responsibility to be constantly keeping the other up to code.

Except there isn't such a thing as (a building) code when it comes to how houses work. Should I be taking the rubbish downstairs to my apartment blocks trash area every Saturday or when it is full? There are a lot of things mashed up here but one of them is that in a relationship one person doesn't set the rules , just like one person shouldn't be doing all the work.

And some people just aren't compatible when it comes to living together. I went through enough phases of washing dishes before and after I used them to know that sharing with people (non romantically) can be a risky proposition.

Potatoeman

There is a huge difference between between going to work five full days a week and working part time. If you are working part time and sharing income with a partner working full time it seems only fair that you do extra chores. It doesn't mean scrubbing floors for eight hours a day but saying they don't do their share seems a bit rich.

meeeeh

Potatoeman wrote: »

There is a huge difference between between going to work five full days a week and working part time. If you are working part time and sharing income with a partner working full time it seems only fair that you do extra chores. It doesn't mean scrubbing floors for eight hours a day but saying they don't do their share seems a bit rich.

And who said that?

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, are people who object to the term saying they've never been nagged by anyone in their whole lives? By a partner, a parent or co-worker? Ever, ever, ever? You think the term is entirely manipulative and never an accurate description of behavior?

Everyone has been nagged but I think the word is more often used to hush someone rather than as an accurate description. I remember calling my mother a nag as a teenager, because she'd asked me a hundred times to do a chore, and I just didn't do it and had no excuse. She wasn't a nag, she was just holding me to my word, and I was a lazy teenager looking for a way out.

Naggers certainly exist, but the word is thrown around where it's not applicable more often that otherwise, in my observation. It's an easy way to discredit someone when you haven't done your share and want to deflect blame.

Earthhorse

Yeah, I can well believe it's often used in that manipulative way alright. I just think there are genuine incidents of nagging too. I'll be honest and say it's a not a term I've heard much in real life. It seems almost old fashioned to me. But I do think it's applied almost exclusively to women.

Worst nag I ever had was my supervisor at a student job. He never gave me a chance to finish one task before he'd be over demanding I do another right away, then complaining on and on and on that I hadn't finished the other. It never let up, he couldn't be pleased but he set up the situations where no one could win. I think it was a power thing, he just liked being able to berate people.

baby and crumble

Potatoeman wrote: »

There is a huge difference between between going to work five full days a week and working part time. If you are working part time and sharing income with a partner working full time it seems only fair that you do extra chores. It doesn't mean scrubbing floors for eight hours a day but saying they don't do their share seems a bit rich.

so does it come down to money? I earn about the same part-time as my partner earns full-time, and we put in the exact same into our household budget each month. What then?

Potatoeman

baby and crumble wrote: »

so does it come down to money? I earn about the same part-time as my partner earns full-time, and we put in the exact same into our household budget each month. What then?

I suppose a large part of it is money. In that case you're working smart rather than hard but contributing the same financially. If the extra free time is leisure time then maybe doing a bit more of the chores is fair but if you're writing a book or doing something productive then less so.

K4t

Candie wrote: »

Naggers certainly exist

Careful now