The Con Job and Moral Support | theremustbeawayout's Blog

H comes home with tales from work.  You know, what went well, what drama occurred, what drives him nuts.  I've always responded with support for his viewpoint.  It never crossed my mind to do otherwise; that's what it means to face life together. 

But in supporting his view of his work interactions, am I actually being complicit in condoning how he acts towards me?

If he deals with conflict with supervisory women at work by withdrawing and passively-agressively digging in his heels over something, and I respond with, "Well, what else does she expect?"  I have then just told him he can do the same thing to me.

H often complains that his boss tells him to to do something other than his own priority of the moment.  His general response is essentially, "I'll do it when I'm good and ready.  It's a priority for you, but not a priority for me. It can wait."  If I respond to H's retelling of this event by agreeing that it's not reasonable for his boss to require his assistance at the time he requires it, then I have just told H that it's alright for him to act the same way towards me at home.  And if I can feel the begrudging attitude pouring off of him when he does something I ask, then I can only assume that his boss experiences him in the same way.

Some might think that I am projecting; that the situations at work and the situations at home are different.  I subscribe to the idea of extended systems, however.  This theory would generalize behavior from one system of involvement to another system of involvement.  Or is this how Gestalt theory works?  At any rate, I do believe that people behave consistently. 

At any rate, I need to think more objectively about how I respond to tales from work.  I do not want to offer unwitting approval for the poor treatment I receive from him.