AIBU to leave DP because he's not very bright

[williaminajetfighter]

It's brutal I know but I just don't think I can stay with DP any longer because I find him quite ignorant and not very bright, and it is causing huge problems in our relationship and communication.

I know DP had a pretty poor education, left school at 15 and so is lacking in traditional educational knowledge. Grammar, spelling are very poor as is his general knowledge of maths, literature etc. His parents did nothing to foster a love of learning.

But then there is 'learned knowledge' since then and he isn't intellectually curious, hasn't really picked up a book since school, barely reads a paper (except the Metro) and thus has a fairly limited worldview. He actually shows disdain for knowledge, IYSWIM.

Finally I just don't think he's very sharp so he doesn't pick things up quickly.

It sounds incredibly mean when I write it all down but it causes huge problems on an everyday basis. For instance things I've faced this weekend in our conversations:

(a) I tried to talk to him about politics but the conversation blew up because he's so uninformed and got angry when I used the word 'libertarian' (really);
(b) I tried to have a conversation with him about household finances (which I lead) but he hates numbers and got cross;

(c) I tried to have a conversation with him about some elements of childcare such as more natural ways of dealing with baby eczema or limiting paracetemol but he thinks whatever I read is nonsense because all parenting should be 'assumed' and
(d) I tried to talk to him about about being a vegetarian and having veggie-only nights for the children but he scoffs at me because he's read nothing about the merits of vegetarianism.

These are just a few things I dealt with over the weekend and a reflection of my day to day. The other day I made a reference to Pip from Great Expectations - a pretty well known tome - and he just looked at me blankly. It sounds trite but it's pretty wearing.

When we got together I found him 'light and fun' and the years after were heavily 'operational' focusing on getting a house and having young children. Now that time has passed and we have more time for each other I am finding that we are just not a meeting of the minds and his ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity is really offputting. I would like to grow older with someone who I can have engaging conversations with and although he is a fine father and a supportive partner who has never cheated and is really loyal, I just don't think I can be with him.

It sounds so harsh but AIBU? Has anyone else experienced this? From his POV I suppose it's not really fair to stay with him if I think he's not bright!

That's more the barristers. We solicitors are generally quite sensibly attired!

DH never passed any modern history exams as he sticks to the Russian version.

Unfortunately, the exams expect the answers to be the UK/Western version.

Which exams are these hereandthere? Do tell us, I'm sure your extensive googling better qualifies you to pass higher level history exams than those of us who've actually done it. Which you clearly haven't.

hereandtherex
DH never passed any modern history exams as he sticks to the Russian version

Well of course your DH also has the skill of knowing things before they even happen (!) so I'm surprised he has any interest in history at all - Russian, Japenese or Western.

LadyCatherine Yes and unfortunately I'm far too sensible sane for the bar! The only bar I want to be called to is a free one at a party!

Just standing up for Hereandtherex's DH a little here - he does have a point, being part Russian, because certain Russian leaders were notorious for re-writing history to their own advantage, notably Stalin.

So I can completely see why he thinks that's what happens in general - his mistake is less believing that it happens, and more believing that every historian does it.

Antibiotics for colds: often placebo effect, sometimes because of concomitant chest infection.
NHS homeopathic hospitals: because the Royal family believe in homeopathy, and when the NHS was set up, they insisted that it should be included in the treatments available.

The Russian Version - sounds like a cold war thriller.

I wonder which Russian version he prefers...

A propos of nothing, I'm not convinced Chandler is a lawyer. I've never met a lawyer who didn't know the difference between fact, opinion and interpretation; nor who had such a slack grasp of logic; nor who argued so poorly.

Nor indeed one who had not mastered correct punctuation and spelling.

I suppose he could be a dodgy provincial lawyer, but I suspect he's just a piss-artist.

No, it was not a matter of Russian leaders re-writing history. Russian historians/culture have a very different view of WWI + WWII.

He knew what answers he as expected to give for his GCSE in History. He provided his families version of the answers as a 'Fuck you' to the examiner. Russians are prickly like that.

1+1 = 2 in Russia and the UK.

'WWII = a very for the Allies' is not really the Russian view.

Ignorance is one thing. I would never despise anyone for being ignorant of something for whatever reason - we are all ignorant of so many things.

But despising knowledge and being proud of being ignorant? That's unbearable, in my view. I don't think you can have a relationship with this man. (I don't think you have actually had one, to be honest).

AFAIK TheChandlers a women.

I may be wrong, which is more than a History grad will admit too...

That should have read 'WWIII = a victory for the Allies ...'

Hereandtherex - yes, Stalin did rewrite history. But I shan't interfere nor bother to stand up for you or your DH again since it's clear that only your opinion matters.

Thumb and if we do, we're history graduates.

I didn't even take it for GCSE.
I was considered lacking (it was a top set all rounder subject at my school) and given Geography instead (which suited me far better in the end).

Ah, it was GCSE? Well that explains everything hereandthereex. Yes, for GCSE you do have to just rattle off a list of neatly prescribed factlets and add a few sentences about sources and bias. Or you did when I did them. They won't have been especially interested in hearing his family history or anything beyond the marking scheme. That's GCSE for you, very narrow. I was actually just about to post saying are you actually saying DH has failed a history exam for giving the 'Russian view' and if so, it must have been secondary school level. I'm surprised though, that someone as apparently intelligent as him, has presumed the same approach would be needed at doctoral level though.

You seem to be focusing on all his negative qualities, which as people have said, you knew about.

What does he have going for him? What are his positives, and do the negatives really outweigh them so much you will split your family up?

Are there interests you could develop together which would form the basis for the level of intellectual debate?

Between the shenanigans of the Russian Revolution, the dictatorships of Soviet leaders - which, obviously, involved not only the rewriting of the past - but the falsification of the present, the opening up of access to archives under glasnost and the closing of them (or at least the inhibiting of access) under Putin... there are different interpretations even within Russia...(+ Ukraine, Belarus etc). There's not one cohesive 'Russian view'.

It's not even known for sure how many Stalin killed for example. Could be 30 million, could be 50 million.

hereandtherex I assumed Chandler was female, but from this thread I think 'she's' may well be a bloke.

Those incorrigible history graduates, standing firm in the face of disagreement from a woman whose husband failed a GCSE. How very dare they! On a related subject, my husband got a U in one of his A-level chemistry papers because the fucking dipshit got the day wrong and didn't turn up. Does that mean I get a doctorate in science? Honestly, if being married to someone who failed a secondary level exam in a subject qualifies one as an expert, I should really have chosen my spouse more carefully. The lad next door to me got straight Fs for GCSE, I wish I'd asked him out there and then.

Happy to confirm that I'm female.

There are a few of the kind of intern I mentioned around I guess. Their input mainly consists of criticising others, often quite rudely, and pointing out how wonderful they are in comparison. If this intern was challenged, he would simply resort to more and more rude comments. If you responded by instructing him to redo the work to his supposedly higher standards, he would simply say something like it was so bad, it wasn't worth his time. Which considering he wasn't a fee earner, was putting too precious a point on it to say the least!

He really was the most awful junior level employee I've ever come across. It wouldn't have been quite so bad had he been exceptionally good himself, but he was average at best in a very junior way. And of course his lack of ability to get on with his colleagues made him unemployable.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm naturally suspicious of those people who nit pick and criticise others, but who themselves don't stand up to scrutiny.

TheChandler ours would critique the constructive criticism using pop management wisdom off free Internet sites, or their own rather simplistic views on pedagogy. It was really cringe worthy to behold. In their mind they were enlightening everyone. They were also vile to the kids, a real Dickensian bully of a teacher (Gradgrind if we're doing name drops) and would give high grades for crap, neat, repeat - teacher homework whilst slating anything untidy but showing signs of independence. They made colleagues cry, both with frustration and hurt feelings - and these are tough secondary school teachers in a thriving inner - city school.

Though this thread also reminds me of another board (a food board) a few years ago when someone insisted I was a man repeatedly. I'm not.
I didn't "write like a woman".

Mind you they also told me I couldn't be Anglo Indian because it was really rare and not a recognised mix of races nah mate, there are millions of us, on account of the whole Raj situation, like now that is a revision of history.

Squizita He was just incredible. I honestly couldn't believe what I was reading when two colleagues showed me emails he had sent them. It was also the way it was written - e.g. he would write "Do you have any idea of how to write properly at all? Did you even bother to read the brief and use the style I suggested? Your stuff is an joke". Then I started getting some myself...I would have told him to leave and not come back, if it were up to me. He must have had a contact that prevented this or something.

I did actually try to reason with him, by pointing out that a report he did on an area of law that had had legislative changes had very little legal content, and needed some case law and references to former legislation, preferably with specific sections. I got back "I guess your (sic) unfamiliar with legal literature and legal thought, and your examples are pathetic". Always no substantive content or proper critical analysis when he responded. As I say, he was incredible.

Can't say I'm very bothered whether someone on the internet thinks I'm male or female...has no effect on me whatsoever.

Sorry for thread hijacking OP - I hope I've made it clear I was in most instances speaking theoretically. But I think if your DH holds down a job, that means he has some intelligence surely?

Squizita - Anglo-Indian = not a "recognised" mix of races? WTAF? Whatever planet did he live on, cos it sure as hell wasn't THIS one!! Was he from the UK or somewhere really racist?