"Working" at a relationship - what does this mean?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

I often read about long term relationships being "hard work" or the necessity of working at a marriage. Excuse my total idiocy but what does this mean, exactly?

Oh dear. In my relationship, we have always 'gone to bed on an argument'. It is an ongoing thing. My P will not (he sees it as a sign of weakness on his part) back down, never says sorry and everything is always my fault, of course. What starts as me just wanting to talk to him about an issue, ends with me (although I can recognise this now and am better) getting frustrated and angry as he won't engage with me, I am 'nagging' him, being too aggressive (getting frustrated as I receive no acknowledgement) etc....

Apart from that - it's great.!!!!!!

The phrase 'working at' seems wrong because to me it should be 'investing in' a relationship.

It seems to me that partners in a relationship are like business partners building a busness together and investing in expectation of mutual benefits stemming from that investment. It is a more positive approach.

Dogfish - I meant the sort of things others are talking about, like listening to each other, giving each other the benefit of thedoubt, not assuming that your view is the only rihgt one, trying to understand where the other person is coming from, trying to resolve arguments so that both of you are happy and have a long term solution, rather than trying to "win" the individual arguments - and with regards to sexual pleasure, money, houswork and leisure time, ensuring that they are shared out fairly.

UD you're unwilling to say what you mean. I honestly don't know what you're talking about and I find it quite suspicious that you're unable to give concrete examples.

thesecondcoming re your books thing - I knew a couple who would read chapters of their book to each other nearly every evening when their TV broke. It started out because they got bored with the radio all the time but didn't have a tv, so started to actually read some of the books on their shelves to each other - the worthy ones which they kept putting off, so they got through several heavy biographies and political analyses which they would never had read otherwise. Then by the time they could afford a new TV they had got into the habit of reading to each other and discussing the books, so they just carried on. (With some light fiction thrown in with the heavy stuff )

TheSecondComing,

I'd second your post. Some people (not all by any means) who say they don't have to work at their relationships might not have had many problems (e.g. death of a close family member, disabled child, redundancies) and it's often these big tragedies that bring out a lot of problems, and where people need to "work".

To me it means actively working at our relationship and not just drifting along and happening to live in the same house and sleep in the same bed. Not taking each other for granted, essentially. :)

For example: making sure we have dinner together, kiss goodbye, take turns with all the housework, cuddling up and watching a film, going for a walk, etc.

We both have depression and anxiety so we both need regular looking after and we do have to care for each other. If both are feeling rubbish but one has the energy to leave the house, that person gets the milk, etc. (Contrary to other posters' opinions, this is not always or even mostly me!)

'Working' at the relationship means counting to three when he asks me to put the bins out and remember that he's got issues with lethargy, and it probably means the same for him when I mumble "Make me breakfast " from under the duvet at 9am.

I don't like that use of the word "suspicious". It implies I have some sort of agenda when I am merely trying to make sense of this like anyone else.

Wow - is this still going on?

Surely if both people are happy to work at keeping the relationship strong, then it's fine. If only one person is doing the work, then it's not fine.

It's not rocket science....or am I missing something??

Hmmm. Not sure what to do about that UD.

OK I accept that you don't have an agenda and sorry if my use of the word suspicious implies you do. So why did you suggest that I "let someone else have a go" and ignore my questions about providing some concrete examples of what you're on about viz men coming in at the end to fix something broken vs. women doing maintenance?

I'm a bit perplexed that you don't seem to want to tease out the nuances of that. Because for me, it does seem as if you are unintentionally confirming my view that in the main, women are expected to do most of the "work" on relationships. I've tried to describe what I mean by that, but you haven't described what you mean by men doing the "fix". Because for me, that means men not doing the day to day work, but you've said you disagree that that's what it means but haven't explained what it actually does mean...

I just want you to explain what you mean. There might actually be a genuinely interesting angle in what you're saying, but at the moment I can't see it because you're declining to expand. Which of course, you have every right to do, but it's a shame if there's something there worth expanding.

This seems to be moving way off topic here. Surely the key is whether an individual relationship works for both parties? If one chooses to fix, and the other to maintain, or if both are equally happy to work at/invest/call it what you will - then it works. What doesn't work is a one sided relationship, either percieved or real - which is news to no-one.

I know you maintain that women do most of the 'work' on relationships, but many of us on here have said that view doesn't resonate

Well it depends on what you mean by works, doesn't it?

Lots of relationships work in the sense that one or both partners are vaguely dissatistfied but not unhappy enoguh to split. On one level, that's a working relationship - not one I'd be too keen on, but hey, it works for some.

I just don't understand this concept of one person doing the maintenance and one person fixing. That just sounds to me, like the maintenance person is doing all the work and the fixer comes in and pulls his/ her finger out when the maintenance person has at last had enough. I don't really know how else to interpret that.

I suppose I can only use examples from my own life. When DW had problems at work which all stemmed from one unbearably manipulative colleague, causing DW to be stressed and depressed, my instincts were immediately protective and active - to want to "solve" this problem as quickly as possible by having this person confronted, reprimanded and, if necessary, dismissed. I couldn't bear the thought that this one evil bitch was making life hell for my wife at work. When it became clear that this wasn't going to possible, I worked with her on finding other "solutions", which turned out to be a combination of talking to a doctor and getting another job. Which worked.

On the other hand, when I had some depression problems myself, DW's approach was mainly to listen, not really to advise, and not even really to talk very much. She did this on a long-term basis. This was equally valid and also helped a lot.

Equal but different.

I think the 'working' that you describe is not what most people would call 'working' either! That sounds to me like the relationship is failing - although at that point it would be probable that the real 'work' - of the type that Helena and others have described - would start, if both parties felt it was working at.

You are never going to get a completely equal, consistent, 50/50 split in a relationship. Sometimes one person will require more input from the other, sometimes it will flow well, other times it can be a bit of a tedious slog - but ultimately a good relationship where both parties want it to continue is worth the effort.