Dispute About Where to Live

[Wave Rider]

This question is about my parents' marriage.  My parents had an ongoing dispute about where they should live while I was growing up.  My mom wanted to live in Colorado because she wanted to be close to her parents who lived in Colorado.  My dad hated the cold weather, and he wanted to live in a place with warmer weather and closer to where he grew up in Nor Cal.  So they had an ongoing dispute.  My mom wanted to live in Colorado to be close to her parents; my dad wanted to live in California because he hated the cold weather.

How should they have resolved this dispute?

Back in the good ol' days of patriarchy, my dad could have just asserted his authority as the man and said that we were going to live in California, end of story.  But now that we have egalitarian marriages, the dispute seems unresolvable, as there are no places in Colorado with a warm climate and my mom's parents were never going to move to California. This was an ongoing point of tension between my parents.  The way things played out was that we moved to California as my dad wanted, but my mom continued to assert that she was unhappy there and she said she wanted to move.  

What's the right way to resolve this dispute in an egalitarian marriage?   

[BaileyB]

This is a significant incompatibility. 
It requires one person to make a significant compromise, or the relationship is not sustainable. 
The problem becomes, when one is required to make a significant compromise, there is usually resentment. 
There is no real solution to this problem. They can continue as they have been or separate.

[BaileyB]

26 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

good ol' days of patriarchy

Good old’ days for who? 

[Wave Rider]

14 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

This is a significant incompatibility. 
It requires one person to make a significant compromise, or the relationship is not sustainable. 
The problem becomes, when one is required to make a significant compromise, there is usually resentment. 
There is no real solution to this problem. They can continue as they have been or separate.

So that's the divorce option.  My parents had three children during the time this was going on - me and my two siblings.  Should they break up the family over this?  If that had happened, my mom probably would have gotten custody of us and taken us to Colorado, and may dad would have stayed in California.  Visitation by my dad would be difficult with such distance.  Me and my siblings would have been financially worse off living with a single mother.  Is that really the best way?

[Ruby Slippers]

The couple needs to consider all the pros and cons of each location for the family as a unit, not for themselves individually. 

Factors to consider are income(s), cost of living, long-term financial planning, quality of life, time and money freedom to travel to extended family, and so on.

In marriage, vows are made to honor the marriage for better or worse, and that means finding optimal solutions for any scenario, preferably ones that allow the couple and family to thrive.

 

[Wave Rider]

23 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

Good old’ days for who? 

I say this mostly in jest, but I think there's an important point here.  In every other system of society there is always one person who has the final say in the event of an unresolvable dispute.  A nation has a president, a company has a CEO,  and a ship has a captain.  In each of these institutions, when there is a dispute, there is one person who has the final say and is able to bring a resolution to the dispute.  This system isn't always fair, but at least it provides a reliable way to resolve disputes so that the organization can continue functioning.  

In the patriarchy system, the man is the CEO of the family (so to speak) and if disputes arise within the family, then the CEO (man) makes the decision and that's the end of it.  This isn't always fair, but at least it provides a way to resolve disputes so that the family can continue functioning.  

Egalitarian marriage has no such tool for resolving disputes.  If a dispute arises in an egalitarian marriage and all efforts to come to an agreement fail, then the couple has no choice but to either accept a win-lose solution, or to break up.  I'm not convinced that this system produces overall better outcomes for relationships than the patriarchy system.  If you think it does, make your case for why you think that, in the case of an unresolvable dispute, it's better to break up the family than than to have one person have the final say (the man in patriarchy).   

 

[littleblackheart]

1 hour ago, Wave Rider said:

What's the right way to resolve this dispute in an egalitarian marriage?   

A good co-parenting relationship in the event of a separation.

Ideally, this situation would have been discussed pre-marriage, though sometimes life happens and you can't plan everything.

An egalitarian partnership continues on even when the couple separates, imo. Both parents are financially able to look after the kids, no maintenance or alimony needed with a fair and just splitting of parental responsibilities to be discussed and agreed upon by the couple. 

It depends on kids' age, flexibility of the parents, schooling arrangements, etc.

 

[Wave Rider]

17 minutes ago, Ruby Slippers said:

The couple needs to consider all the pros and cons of each location for the family as a unit, not for themselves individually. 

Factors to consider are income(s), cost of living, long-term financial planning, quality of life, time and money freedom to travel to extended family, and so on.

In marriage, vows are made to honor the marriage for better or worse, and that means finding optimal solutions for any scenario, preferably ones that allow the couple and family to thrive.

 

So what if everything else is a wash - cost of living in both locations is the same, job opportunities in both locations are the same, recreational opportunities are the same, etc. and it really does come down to cold weather vs. living close to parents.  What should they do? 

[Pumpernickel]

If one of the kids or all kids are already in school, and the school system / school district is good, and they’re doing well academically, that’s a huge factor IMO. Don’t know how old the three of you were, but uprooting a school child “just because” is never a good idea. 

[Ruby Slippers]

1 minute ago, Wave Rider said:

So what if everything else is a wash - cost of living in both locations is the same, job opportunities in both locations are the same, recreational opportunities are the same, etc. and it really does come down to cold weather vs. living close to parents.  What should they do? 

They'd still have to discuss how important those different benefits are to them. For people who don't have a close blond with their parents and don't feel the need to be close, a nicer climate might win. For more family-oriented people who prize having the parents/grandparents close, that would win. 

Clearly a true resolution was not reached, since your mother continued to express her dissatisfaction with the situation.

[Wave Rider]

33 minutes ago, Pumpernickel said:

If one of the kids or all kids are already in school, and the school system / school district is good, and they’re doing well academically, that’s a huge factor IMO. Don’t know how old the three of you were, but uprooting a school child “just because” is never a good idea. 

I was a teenager during that time, and I had two younger siblings.  I was the "Identified Patient" in my family, the one who was blamed for causing dysfunction, but really I was probably just expressing the dysfunction that already existed in the family, and I served as the scapegoat to draw attention away from the fact that my parents were obviously unhappy in their marriage and wanted to divorce.  They stayed together even though they were obviously unhappy.  

Edited February 22, 2021 by Wave Rider

[d0nnivain]

To me the correct way to resolve that dispute is let economics win out:  where are the good jobs?  What's going to pay the bills?  

I want to move but DH's job is here & unless his company (the federal government) moves him, he won't have the same sweet set up elsewhere.  In deference to my desire to move, whenever opportunities have arisen in other warmer locations, he has applied to them but so far other candidates have always been the ones selected.  So for now we stay. 

[BaileyB]

1 hour ago, Wave Rider said:

Is that really the best way?

I did not say it was the best way. I said it’s an option, if your father was not willing to compromise and your mother grew tired of bending to his will. 

[Wave Rider]

2 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

I did not say it was the best way. I said it’s an option, if your father was not willing to compromise and your mother grew tired of bending to his will. 

That's one perspective.  Another perspective is to say "If my mother was not willing to compromise and my father was tired of her bringing it up."  That's what I'm saying - in an egalitarian marriage both perspectives weigh equally and there's no built-in way to resolve the dispute.  

[Wave Rider]

10 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

To me the correct way to resolve that dispute is let economics win out:  where are the good jobs?  What's going to pay the bills?  

I want to move but DH's job is here & unless his company (the federal government) moves him, he won't have the same sweet set up elsewhere.  In deference to my desire to move, whenever opportunities have arisen in other warmer locations, he has applied to them but so far other candidates have always been the ones selected.  So for now we stay. 

My dad is an accountant and could have found a job in just about any city. 

[littleblackheart]

8 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

I was a teenager during that time, and I had two younger siblings.  I was the "Identified Patient" in my family, the one who was blamed for causing dysfunction, but really I was probably just expressing the dysfunction that already existed in the family, and I served as the scapegoat to draw attention away from the fact that my parents were obviously unhappy in their marriage and wanted to divorce.  They stayed together even though they were obviously unhappy.  

Staying in an unhealthy family environment can be hugely detrimental to the children's mental stability (personal experience). Sorry you had to go through this. 

There is no built-in system in any scenario; it's about the couple's conflict resolution skills. 

Ultimately, whether the marriage is egalitarian or traditional, the fact your parents couldn't find a way to compromise on this one thing speaks to a build up of deep seated incompatibilities.

 

[d0nnivain]

9 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

My dad is an accountant and could have found a job in just about any city. 

Maybe but could he have found the same kind of clients in Colorado v No Calif? 

[BaileyB]

13 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

Another perspective is to say "If my mother was not willing to compromise and my father was tired of her bringing it up."  

Your mother did compromise. She made a HUGE sacrifice. 
Sincere question, how has has your father compromised and how has he supported her in this decision? 

[Wave Rider]

19 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

Your mother did compromise. She made a HUGE sacrifice. 
Sincere question, how has has your father compromised and how has he supported her in this decision? 

This sounds like the relationship scorecard: "I made XYZ sacrifice for you and now you owe me something."  She did compromise but wasn't happy about it and spent years not letting it go.  If the other way around had happened - if they had stayed in Colorado - my dad would have spent all my teenage years complaining about the cold and talking about how he wished he lived in a warm climate.  No resolution either way.  Either decision would have been a win-lose.    

[d0nnivain]

9 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

This sounds like the relationship scorecard: "I made XYZ sacrifice for you and now you owe me something."  

In a good relationship when you make a sacrifice for the person you love, you don't hold it over their head because you don't have to.  They make an effort to show you how much they appreciate the sacrifice.  

You don't mention it but how often did your family go back to Colorado to see your mom's parents?  That has a cost to it 

[basil67]

2 hours ago, Wave Rider said:

Back in the good ol' days of patriarchy, my dad could have just asserted his authority as the man and said that we were going to live in California, end of story. 

You're making the assumption that during the days of patriarchy, the woman would have happily accepted a living situation which wasn't her choice.   In reality, if he'd "pulled rank" and taken her somewhere which he knew wouldn't work for her, it would have further damaged their relationship and created ongoing bitterness from her to him.   It solves the problem of where to live, but creates a whole lot of new issues in itself.

Since we're comparing with the old days, I have a story which is exactly on topic:  My G Grandmother was a bitter woman.  Around the turn of last century, she'd left her home and family in the UK and relative luxury to move to the other side of the earth for the sake of her husband's health.  Not only did she have to leave her family and never see them again, my G Grandfather took to building little shacks about the place and would regularly move the family to each new dwelling he built.  Leaving her family back home combined having having to frequently uproot away from established ties to her neighbours in order to go to G Grandfathers next shack destroyed her.   I don't see this use of authority as a positive outcome.  

Lastly, your parents poor marriage would have been the cause of the disconnect on where to move.  I love my husband and respect him - so I'd follow him to the ends of the earth.  And he'd follow me.   But if I didn't love or respect him, I'd dig my heels in so that I could be close to people who I did love.  If, under a patriarchal society, I was forced to leave the people I did love, I'd probably try to figure out something with my parents so that he could go and I could stay.

Edited February 22, 2021 by basil67

[BaileyB]

7 minutes ago, Wave Rider said:

This sounds like the relationship scorecard: "I made XYZ sacrifice for you and now you owe me something."  She did compromise but wasn't happy about it and spent years not letting it go.  If the other way around had happened - if they had stayed in Colorado - my dad would have spent all my teenage years complaining about the cold and talking about how he wished he lived in a warm climate.  No resolution either way.  Either decision would have been a win-lose.    

It’s a fundamental incompatibility. Probably one of the contributing factors that has made their marriage unhappy for many years.

Where to live has been the topic of their discussion/argument. The underlying problem being that they have differing priorities, differing values, different ideas related to the role of extended family...

[BaileyB]

8 minutes ago, basil67 said:

You're making the assumption that during the days of patriarchy, the woman would have happily accepted a living situation which wasn't her choice.   In reality, if he'd "pulled rank" and taken her somewhere which he knew wouldn't work for her, it would have further damaged their relationship and created ongoing bitterness from her to him.   It solves the problem of where to live, but creates a whole lot of new issues in itself.

Is that not essentially what has happened here?

Lets not forget, there are cultures in this world where the women are the head of the household. Men move into their wife’s family home. Just because OP happened to be born into a society that has a history of being more “paternalistic” does not make it the natural or right way of being...

Edited February 22, 2021 by BaileyB

[BaileyB]

14 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

You don't mention it but how often did your family go back to Colorado to see your mom's parents?

That’s what I was wanting to know when I asked how his father had supported his mother with the decision to move out of state. Yes, in a healthy relationship when one makes the sacrifice to move away from family to be with their partner... the obvious way that partner could show that they understand and appreciate the sacrifice would be to support and enable visitation with family. I’m hoping that she had the opportunity to visit often. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by BaileyB

[lana-banana]

As others have pointed out, this dispute is just a symptom of a more fundamental incompatibility. Many marriages face issues where both partners have valid but opposing opinions, and they're usually settled by practical considerations (what makes the most financial sense, what works timing-wise, etc) even if one person is still unhappy about it. I don't think anybody would enjoy being in a marriage where someone could just unilaterally end discussions and make decisions regardless.