• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

*Update*Husband resents ride time? Post 126

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    My ex husband would snarl, "Oh, go to the damned barn, but you can't take the car, I might want to go somewhere. And you can't leave our daughter, I won't babysit for you to ride." My ex MIL frequently told me that it was WRONG for me to want to do anything that did not revolve around my husband, children and home. She really felt that it would not be enough for me to give up doing something I loved, but that I also should give up wanting to do it.

    There are people who really do think and feel this way, and always will. They were open about their 'men are entitled' beliefs. You may be married to one of these people, and he may not actually really grasp just how unfair he is being. I hope this is not the way your husband feels, but I suspect that it is. He may not realise he feels this way, which will make it more difficult to resolve this issue. He will just resent you for your interests, no matter what they are. I really hope you can work things out. There is something very soul-destroying about being told you should not want to do something you love.

    Comment


    • #82
      This came across my FB feed:

      Mate Doesn't Have Your Back? That Boosts Depression Risk

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Gloria View Post
        Anne, I believe Guilherme is not disagreeing with that a woman needs to have her own hobby or her own time or pursue her own passion. What he is disagreeing is the "way" to say it.
        I get that, but it is getting back again to the idea that women can't be forthright, can't be strong, can't be human but have to pussyfoot around and watch what they say and how they say it. I do understand your point and Guilherme's too, really, and agree; however, in the specific context under discussion the negative reaction was to the suggestion by a poster saying that riding was her stress reliever and she needed it. When men & women take that simply truthful statement as confrontational, hostile, striking a blow, issuing ultimatums, I'm going to disagree. Which I did.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Anne FS View Post
          the idea that women can't be forthright, can't be strong, can't be human but have to pussyfoot around and watch what they say and how they say it.
          The tip toe around the male ego? The poor fragile male ego.... that some women bolster to be taken care of.
          Don't let anyone tell you that your ideas or dreams are foolish. There is a millionaire walking around who invented the pool noodle.

          Comment


          • #85
            And some people say feminism is irrelevant in 2013. Sigh.

            Comment


            • #86
              are there really people who do nothing except work and then go home and be with their spouse every single night of the week? because even non-horse people don't do that. They go to the gym, they go to yoga classes, they go running; they join clubs and attend meetings; they go out with friends after work; they do volunteer work; they go shopping. Something.
              It seems really unreasonable to me that any person would get upset about their spouse doing something only two nights a week.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by pony grandma View Post
                The tip toe around the male ego? The poor fragile male ego.... that some women bolster to be taken care of.
                Phew! How sweet. Fragile egos? Who can't tolerate being told what they don't wish to hear? Not getting their ways? For SO's to demand anything of them? For not fulfilling their entitlement hissies? Hint...it's not just guys.
                "Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by wendy View Post
                  are there really people who do nothing except work and then go home and be with their spouse every single night of the week? because even non-horse people don't do that. They go to the gym, they go to yoga classes, they go running; they join clubs and attend meetings; they go out with friends after work; they do volunteer work; they go shopping. Something.
                  It seems really unreasonable to me that any person would get upset about their spouse doing something only two nights a week.
                  Sadly, my husband is one of these people. He works 14-16 hours/day 7 days a week. He used to do 7 weeks of rec league basketball, but missed it this year. I had him signed up to do flag football this spring, but we have had snow every freaking Monday.

                  He really is fine just coming home. He is also fine with me getting a sitter or dropping our children off at the dairy if I need to go somewhere. He doesn't expect me to be home with him, he just would rather be home than out doing something else, unless it is a cow sale or something. He is taking a half day to take the kids to the zoo, so he isn't a complete hermit!!

                  I have a friend who wouldn't do anything on the weekends because her husband traveled 4 days a week for work and she wanted to spend Sat -Mon with him. I would probably shoot myself if DH and I had 3 days non stop of each other
                  Originally posted by The Saddle
                  Perhaps I need my flocking adjusted.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by wendy View Post
                    are there really people who do nothing except work and then go home and be with their spouse every single night of the week? because even non-horse people don't do that. They go to the gym, they go to yoga classes, they go running; they join clubs and attend meetings; they go out with friends after work; they do volunteer work; they go shopping. Something.
                    It seems really unreasonable to me that any person would get upset about their spouse doing something only two nights a week.
                    Most non-horse people I know do just that. Work then home. The occasional outing, usually for errands but most plopped in front of the TV or computer at home. I do t talk a out my activities with them because it seems to make them feel bad. My husband and I are pretty active, usually together. I found a way to incorporate him into my riding time (he trail runs on the trails with me or rides his bike, he exercises or plays on his phone if I do arena work).

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by Anne FS View Post
                      I get that, but it is getting back again to the idea that women can't be forthright, can't be strong, can't be human but have to pussyfoot around and watch what they say and how they say it. I do understand your point and Guilherme's too, really, and agree; however, in the specific context under discussion the negative reaction was to the suggestion by a poster saying that riding was her stress reliever and she needed it. When men & women take that simply truthful statement as confrontational, hostile, striking a blow, issuing ultimatums, I'm going to disagree. Which I did.
                      Anne, I'm confused why you think being kind and calm and diplomatic (yes, even around your husband) is being weak, not forthright, or even pussyfoot. They cannot be more different from each other. Pussy foot? Did you never meet anyone who can dominate a room without ever raising a voice? How Sad! No strong man will love a woman who are pussy foot around them. No strong man will love a woman who can't communicate without throwing a tantrum either!

                      It is good to tell husband that riding is stress reliever. This is part of marriage life: you talk with your spouse about your feelings about things: horses, neighbors, the society, whatnot. What is is NOT OK is to say, "I'm going to do it, regardless," even if it is a stress reliever. The former is a communication. The later is an ultimatum. The former opens a communication channel; the later shut it down. The result will be vast different.

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        Gloria, don't put words in my mouth. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Your first sentence is entirely not what I said, which if you read my post you know perfectly well, therefore it's not worth discussing with you. Twist and manipulate away, sweetie. You say you're confused. I can't help that you cannot understand.

                        I would repost what Trakehner wrote above but he already said it well. Your post reminds me of that type of person.

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          why is not ok? A woman can't make a decision for herself or her well being?

                          Who said anything about throwing a tantrum? or raising her voice? I think you are interpreting what was written as much different as it was presented.

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            Some things really are non-negotiable. Why pretend they are negotiable when they aren't? Be honest about the fact that it is a non-negotiable position for you.

                            Saying, "No, I will never do a threesome with you and the neighbor," is not an ultimatum. It is simply stating a non-negotiable condition.

                            Saying, "No, I never want children" is not an ultimatum. It is simply stating a non-negotiable condition. You can not compromise on whether or not there is a child in the home. There either is, or there is not.

                            For some people, riding is non-negotiable. "I will never give it up" is how it is.

                            If one party's non-negotiable condition is a non-negotiable problem for the other party, then decisions need to be made.

                            One of my brothers was in a relationship where he stated that NO KIDS was his position and it would not change. The woman wanted children and left him for that reason 48 hours later. When non-negotiable conditions clash, decisions need to be made. There is no point in pretending you may be convince-able if you really are not. The question then becomes can the other party accept it or not. They may agree with your position, they may not care either way and be fine with whatever is important to you, or decisions may need to be made.
                            The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
                            Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
                            Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
                            The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

                            Comment


                            • #94
                              Again, it is "how" it is said, not "what" is said.

                              If this is so difficult to understand, oh well...

                              Comment


                              • #95
                                But the point that Anne is making so eloquently is that she finds it unacceptable that women may not be direct in our communications style, that directness itself is deemed confrontational. When men are 'direct', they are praised for it. It's another kind of prison when women are held responsible for the happiness of everyone in the room, and are forbidden culturally from just flat out saying what we mean. If saying what we mean constitutes going to war, then, wow.

                                It is also very telling that when Anne says 'directness', y'all say: confrontation, ultimatum, demands, fighting, etc.
                                I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                                I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                                Comment


                                • #96
                                  Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                  But the point that Anne is making so eloquently is that she finds it unacceptable that women may not be direct in our communications style, that directness itself is deemed confrontational. When men are 'direct', they are praised for it. It's another kind of prison when women are held responsible for the happiness of everyone in the room, and are forbidden culturally from just flat out saying what we mean. If saying what we mean constitutes going to war, then, wow.

                                  It is also very telling that when Anne says 'directness', y'all say: confrontation, ultimatum, demands, fighting, etc.

                                  There's a difference between directness and ultimatums and I think they're beig confused here.

                                  When you say (using my own words) things like:
                                  -I'm not quitting so suck it up
                                  - if you don't like it leave
                                  - I'm not sitting riding so deal with it or else
                                  ..and and up threatening to end the relationship from the jump, yes that's an ultimatum. When you take directness and add the "or else" that turns it into something bigger.

                                  There's no reason why you can't be direct without hinting or threatening a divorce. You should never be telling your spouse things like suck it up or get out. If you're going to be threatening to end the relationship from the moment an issue comes up then there's bigger problems. If you want out, get out but don't use a disagreement as an excuse.

                                  I have zero problems being direct with my husband and "setting my foot down" so to speak. However I'm not going to go into the whole "I'm not your slave angle"'or the "how dare you" angle because those are confrontations. I try to keep to a "how can we work this out" approach.

                                  Comment


                                  • #97
                                    Eh, when someone is being ridiculous, I'm not super inclined to cater to them with "how can we work this out".

                                    On the other hand, I would never have any inclination to stay with someone that behaved the way OP's husband is behaving. Horses for courses, and all of that, I guess.

                                    I do find it odd that so many are of the opinion that you can't make a statement of fact because that's being confrontational. I'm also genuinely curious how a "non-confrontational" conversation would go in this case. Because it seems to me that those telling the OP to dance around the issue are actually suggesting that she attempt to appease her husband. If husband is being an asshat, why should I go out of my way to appease him? He's an adult. He should act like one.

                                    Second (or third) question - what if husband's response to said "non-confrontational" conversation is "You will quit riding twice a week". Is he now being the confrontational one? Or is that okay because he has the penis?
                                    "Are you yawning? You don't ride well enough to yawn. I can yawn, because I ride better than you. Meredith Michael Beerbaum can yawn. But you? Not so much..."
                                    -George Morris

                                    Comment


                                    • #98
                                      Originally posted by SaturdayNightLive View Post
                                      Eh, when someone is being ridiculous, I'm not super inclined to cater to them with "how can we work this out".

                                      On the other hand, I would never have any inclination to stay with someone that behaved the way OP's husband is behaving. Horses for courses, and all of that, I guess.

                                      I do find it odd that so many are of the opinion that you can't make a statement of fact because that's being confrontational. I'm also genuinely curious how a "non-confrontational" conversation would go in this case. Because it seems to me that those telling the OP to dance around the issue are actually suggesting that she attempt to appease her husband. If husband is being an asshat, why should I go out of my way to appease him? He's an adult. He should act like one.

                                      Second (or third) question - what if husband's response to said "non-confrontational" conversation is "You will quit riding twice a week". Is he now being the confrontational one? Or is that okay because he has the penis?
                                      Like so many of the "equine feminists" you have made the mistake of removing this issue from the Big Picture. It's not about the horses, it's about something else. And because NEITHER you nor I are there we don't KNOW what that "something else" is.

                                      You also don't understand the concept of "amity-enmity." This says that to your friends you are friendly and to your enemies you are hostile. Your approach puts the husband in the "enemy" camp. Maybe you're right, but the evidence for that classification is non-existent. Which means that, without any cause whatsoever, you precipitate a fight.

                                      I understand that many women have been burned by jerks. There are very few men that post here and that means that we don't get the other side of the story (from men who were burned by women behaving badly).

                                      Those of us who have had "real world" experience counseling people with problems know that "a soft answer turneth away wrath." It doesn't matter whether or not the person making the soft answer has a penis or not. Nor does it mean that the soft answer will ultimately lead to a positive outcome. The stark truth is that 50% of marriages end up in divorce. But to "come out swinging" because to do otherwise is a sign of weakness (by either the male or the female) is monumentally stupid if the goal is to fix the problem.

                                      Of course, if the goal is to set up an excuse for a beakup then that's another question.

                                      G.
                                      Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                                      Comment


                                      • #99
                                        OP- I think the dive class is a great idea. I'm not sure where you are but you might also look into a class or activity that your husband can do with your son; ideally one where there are other dads with their kids. If your son is excited about his night alone with daddy and they're doing something, like a munchkin gymnastics or swim class, where your husband feels he's helping your baby grow into a little man, he might start to enjoy time as "just the guys".

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                          But the point that Anne is making so eloquently is that she finds it unacceptable that women may not be direct in our communications style, that directness itself is deemed confrontational. When men are 'direct', they are praised for it. It's another kind of prison when women are held responsible for the happiness of everyone in the room, and are forbidden culturally from just flat out saying what we mean. If saying what we mean constitutes going to war, then, wow.

                                          It is also very telling that when Anne says 'directness', y'all say: confrontation, ultimatum, demands, fighting, etc.
                                          OK. Maybe we are all saying the same thing, just different mindset.... The thing is, no one has said direct communication is unacceptable, not even Guilherme, who as a guy uses an even more direct mode of writing style than most women are accustomed to. Part of communication is "direct communication"; also true is that good communication demands smart diplomacy.

                                          What got railed is when someone cautioned to be smart about how to go about dealing with this potential difficult situation, it is labeled as "pussyfoot" or "weak," which can't be farther from the truth.

                                          And I'm saying this because I know exactly where it is from. I used to (still am) to be confrontational. I grew up in a very controlling environment, where as the eldest daughter is expected to be subservient to everyone, including the male sibling (the heir to the family). I had to fight not to be treated like a servant, which earned me all sorts of names; that was what I thought lives were about: fight. It was not until I met my husband that I finally opened my eyes: he taught me how a calm approach and wise communication can get things done better. Honestly if not for his very wise approach dealing with all the differences between us, I would not still have this marriage. So far we have been married for twelve years, been together fifteen. He is my biggest fan and supporter of my horse obsession, - he hauls, loads, braids, fetches stuff for me, - we spend outrageous amount of money on horses, and he does not even ride!

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X