"Stop nagging me"

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.

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.