Question Post
B and I just had another argument which I hoped would address a major issue in our communication, but it didn't end the way the previous one about housework did, so I'm unsure.
Anyway, B and I, like everyone else on the planet, have grocery preferences. In his case, it's diet Coke. In mine, I like Simply juice products. Regular Coke is too sweet for him, and I feel the same way about nearly every other juice product on the market.
Tonight, at dinner, B mentioned that he wanted to run to the convenience store at the end of our cross street to pick up some diet Coke after the kids were put to bed. I'd been bugging him since this early afternoon to go to the store, but that never happened (thanks, in no small part, to my brother-in-law R, who has spent five of the last seven days at our house in some form or another) so I felt like this was the perfect opportunity to get a few additional items, like my juice.
Initially, B said he'd pick up juice at the convenience store, so I asked if it carried the Simply products (for the record, this convenience store is an odd fusion of trendy and thrifty; as in, they carry Clover products, a local, organic dairy line). B said they didn't, but that they would have other juice. I reminded him that I really don't like other juices, and although I wouldn't say he argued with me, exactly, he definitely tried to talk me out of asking him to go to Target, a five-minute drive from the house.
I told him there were also some other items we needed, and made him a list of seven things in addition to his diet Coke. Simply Apple, Simply Orange, milk, ice cream, bananas, mouthwash, and children's Advil. I made sure to write him a list, and tape the three manufacturer's coupons to the back (labeled, with arrows).
But, while we were cleaning up dinner and putting the kids down, he was clearly annoyed, which I could tell because of how curtly he spoke to me and the way he was completing certain tasks, like changing the liner in the diaper pail. I offered to go instead, but he declined. After the kids were asleep but before he left, I told him I didn't appreciate his attitude.
He said that he feels like he has the right to be irritated, because:
-A "five-minute trip" for one item has been turned into a "half-hour nightmare";
-None of these items are must-haves for the rest of the night and could easily wait until tomorrow;
-Even if he's being unreasonable, it isn't fair to expect him to censor his emotions.
First of all, I don't think he is justified in his feelings. Here's why:
-Whether he's going to the convenience store or Target, he's still going out. The way our local Target is laid out, all of my items are within 20 feet of each other, and only a few aisles away from the diet Coke. In any case, there's no reason it should turn into half an hour, and at 8:15, it's unlikely to be packed with shoppers, making check-out a breeze;
-They ARE actually items we need for tonight, and tomorrow. The kids need milk and juice for nutrition and Sephie needs Advil for her teething. I need the mouthwash to help disinfect my mouth, and bananas and ice cream because (aside from oatmeal) those are the only things I can eat. Interestingly, the only thing on that list that we don't actually NEED (because we still have half a pack) is the damn diet Coke!
-Even if all these things are irrelevant, if the person who has so put upon you has offered a counter-solution (in this case, going to the store instead of you) and you refuse, continuing to display your irritation is strictly manipulative.
I think what really irritates me about this is that I don't question the things that B says he needs or wants when it comes to grocery shopping. To be fair, there aren't many things he's very particular about, but diet Coke happens to be one of them. Still, I would never tell him, "B, just drink this regular soda--it tastes the same." Because obviously, it doesn't taste the same to him, or he wouldn't be so insistent about having diet Coke in the first place. I don't believe I should have to make a case to persuade him to buy a juice that he knows is the only kind I drink, especially when it costs about the same as other juice.
But I'm also annoyed that while understanding his need for this particular item, he was insisting I compromise on crap-tasting juice because he had better things to do with his time than address my respective food needs and those of the kids. I said it upset me that he was willing to be inconvenienced provided it was only for a few minutes at the place he wanted to go where he could get the item he wanted even if it meant not getting the items everyone else needed, but going a little further out where all the items could be picked up was just too much of a hassle.
That's when he outlined his stance above, and shrugged it off by saying that since he had already agreed to do it, he didn't see why he didn't have the right to be irritated at the inconvenience. That's when I told him that, in a world where I had already offered to go instead of him and he declined, then I didn't see what purpose being irritated served beyond intentionally trying to make me feel bad by having the audacity to ask for my health and nutritional needs to be met, or pressure me to withdraw my request for them to be met in the first place.
He disagreed, obviously.
So I guess I'm curious: was I being unreasonable in asking him to fetch the other items, especially since they were all needed items? Whether or not I was being unreasonable, is it acceptable to display irritation in this situation?
Anyway, B and I, like everyone else on the planet, have grocery preferences. In his case, it's diet Coke. In mine, I like Simply juice products. Regular Coke is too sweet for him, and I feel the same way about nearly every other juice product on the market.
Tonight, at dinner, B mentioned that he wanted to run to the convenience store at the end of our cross street to pick up some diet Coke after the kids were put to bed. I'd been bugging him since this early afternoon to go to the store, but that never happened (thanks, in no small part, to my brother-in-law R, who has spent five of the last seven days at our house in some form or another) so I felt like this was the perfect opportunity to get a few additional items, like my juice.
Initially, B said he'd pick up juice at the convenience store, so I asked if it carried the Simply products (for the record, this convenience store is an odd fusion of trendy and thrifty; as in, they carry Clover products, a local, organic dairy line). B said they didn't, but that they would have other juice. I reminded him that I really don't like other juices, and although I wouldn't say he argued with me, exactly, he definitely tried to talk me out of asking him to go to Target, a five-minute drive from the house.
I told him there were also some other items we needed, and made him a list of seven things in addition to his diet Coke. Simply Apple, Simply Orange, milk, ice cream, bananas, mouthwash, and children's Advil. I made sure to write him a list, and tape the three manufacturer's coupons to the back (labeled, with arrows).
But, while we were cleaning up dinner and putting the kids down, he was clearly annoyed, which I could tell because of how curtly he spoke to me and the way he was completing certain tasks, like changing the liner in the diaper pail. I offered to go instead, but he declined. After the kids were asleep but before he left, I told him I didn't appreciate his attitude.
He said that he feels like he has the right to be irritated, because:
-A "five-minute trip" for one item has been turned into a "half-hour nightmare";
-None of these items are must-haves for the rest of the night and could easily wait until tomorrow;
-Even if he's being unreasonable, it isn't fair to expect him to censor his emotions.
First of all, I don't think he is justified in his feelings. Here's why:
-Whether he's going to the convenience store or Target, he's still going out. The way our local Target is laid out, all of my items are within 20 feet of each other, and only a few aisles away from the diet Coke. In any case, there's no reason it should turn into half an hour, and at 8:15, it's unlikely to be packed with shoppers, making check-out a breeze;
-They ARE actually items we need for tonight, and tomorrow. The kids need milk and juice for nutrition and Sephie needs Advil for her teething. I need the mouthwash to help disinfect my mouth, and bananas and ice cream because (aside from oatmeal) those are the only things I can eat. Interestingly, the only thing on that list that we don't actually NEED (because we still have half a pack) is the damn diet Coke!
-Even if all these things are irrelevant, if the person who has so put upon you has offered a counter-solution (in this case, going to the store instead of you) and you refuse, continuing to display your irritation is strictly manipulative.
I think what really irritates me about this is that I don't question the things that B says he needs or wants when it comes to grocery shopping. To be fair, there aren't many things he's very particular about, but diet Coke happens to be one of them. Still, I would never tell him, "B, just drink this regular soda--it tastes the same." Because obviously, it doesn't taste the same to him, or he wouldn't be so insistent about having diet Coke in the first place. I don't believe I should have to make a case to persuade him to buy a juice that he knows is the only kind I drink, especially when it costs about the same as other juice.
But I'm also annoyed that while understanding his need for this particular item, he was insisting I compromise on crap-tasting juice because he had better things to do with his time than address my respective food needs and those of the kids. I said it upset me that he was willing to be inconvenienced provided it was only for a few minutes at the place he wanted to go where he could get the item he wanted even if it meant not getting the items everyone else needed, but going a little further out where all the items could be picked up was just too much of a hassle.
That's when he outlined his stance above, and shrugged it off by saying that since he had already agreed to do it, he didn't see why he didn't have the right to be irritated at the inconvenience. That's when I told him that, in a world where I had already offered to go instead of him and he declined, then I didn't see what purpose being irritated served beyond intentionally trying to make me feel bad by having the audacity to ask for my health and nutritional needs to be met, or pressure me to withdraw my request for them to be met in the first place.
He disagreed, obviously.
So I guess I'm curious: was I being unreasonable in asking him to fetch the other items, especially since they were all needed items? Whether or not I was being unreasonable, is it acceptable to display irritation in this situation?