Griping...

EhBeth said what I was trying to find the right words to say. Your wife is beautiful and young, and you, rich. Sort of. Which is not to say you didn't or don't love each other for other reasons.

Putting myself in your shoes, it would drive me nuts, but I'm not you, not even a guy, and I don't get to see Toucans....

I think I missed all these posts everyone is talking about as well, but I feel for ya Pitter.

Ossobuco you graciously left out "old" and "rich, sort of" applies only because the minimum salery here (earned by most people in my wife's milieu) is $144 a month. But yes that's the picture including loving each other for other reasons.

People there make $144 a month, and you want to charge this guy $100 for a bike?

That makes perfect sense in America, Pitter, but not there. If you want $100 for it, send it back to America.

(I think he was saying 144 dollars a month, vs 100 pesos for the bike, but not sure about that. If so, it would be about 8.63 dollars.)

Oh.

(I'm not sure though! And I think you make a good point, regardless.)

Well, if it's just eight bucks, it's really not worth arguing over. Just give him the bike.

Wow...a mountain bike for $8. My head is spinning, thinking of how different things must be there.

Fer sure.

It sounds like, a) Pitter knows the score -- he's the donor fella b) he's not totally happy about it, and so gripes now and then, but c) he's not UNhappy enough to do something about it. So just gripes now and then.

Doesn't seem like anything's going to change except tolerance levels.

It does seem that the bike is more of a symbol of what's going on - or maybe it's the infamous straw for the camel.





Eva - if the opportunity to see Maria, Full of Grace presents itself - do your best to do so. It really changed my perspective on Pitter's comments.

That's what I think (I think) too.

If bro in law reciprocated, not that he has to work for the Man, but that the element of trading came into it, it would make a psychological difference.

You have a point, osso. It might be better for the brother-in-law to feel like he had paid for it (even if it isn't much) rather than accepting charity. But then, there might be cultural differences I'm not aware of.

I will keep my eyes open for that film, ehBeth.

I'm guessing that paying for the bike would retain the bil's machismo and keep Pitter alienated from the kinship tie of gifting each other. You don't charge your relative!!! I'm thinking that Pitter should either accept that he won't be accepted if his behavior continues in its current pattern, or he should bend over backwards to be gracious and generous until he fulfills the unwritten kinship rules involved in play (assuming 3rd world country kinship rules are similar in those respects- most are although Palau rules are different from filipino rules sorta kinda...)

What's so great about that film? I haven't seen it either...

Quid Pro Quo
Mrs. Pitter has a loving and generous soul. She loves both her husband and her family. The Pitters are fortunate. They can afford to have things that are neither used or needed by them. Upon moving, Mrs. Pitter sees an opportunity to give a bike that neither of them use to a family member who needs it.

Mr. Pitter is not a generous soul. He demands quid pro quo in his business dealings and relationships. Mr. Pitter selfishly demands that he get something in return for all of his expenditures of time, money, effort, emotion, etc. He wants welding services; he wants love; he wants something. He isn't willing to make an investment in anything unless there's a return on his investment. Thus, he gripes over dollars and expenditures of all kinds.

"OMG! I had to pay a damn welder to do something my wife's nephew could have done for free---he promised to help me, but he didn't---and now my wife expects me to give her worthless nephew an $8.00 bike?" Gripe, gripe, gripe, begrudge, and gripe some more.

If the wife pouts, it's because she desires to see her husband give from his heart rather than demand quid pro quo in all of his dealings.

Can a selfish person and an unselfish person live together in harmony?

I doubt it. Mr. Pitter wants to gripe about every dollar (or emotion) he expends without obtaining sufficient value in return. There's not a charitable, altuistic bone in Mr. Scrooge's (Mr. Pitter's) body. There are strings attached to all of his gifts---meaning his gifts are not truly gifts at all. Therefore, I expect that he will have to endure much pouting from his heart-sick, disappointed wife.

Mr. Pitter does not have the personal capacity to engage in a pure act of kindness. Even if he gives his wife's nephew the bike to pacify his wife, he will feel bitter about it, and he will always feel that the nephew OWES him. A person with a quid pro quo personality usually alienates the people around him and deprives himself of the joy of unconditional love.

I think you misjudge Mr. Pitter. There is a backstory to all this.

Yes.

"Mr. Pitter does not have the personal capacity to engage in a pure act of kindness"? Utterly uncalled for.

I know first hand when you help family over and over they stared expecting it over and over. It gets tiring handing out money or items when you get no thanks in return.

I loaned a family member a large sum of money, she paid it back but then it became a frequent occurence and finally i said enough. She was upset with me but I have kids to support and don't have alot either.

I agree you should help when you can but when it because more expected then it needs to stop.

I read it


Yes. I went back and read some of Mr. Pitter's gripes about his wife. He is inconsiderate and self-centered. He concentrates on his own feelings (no matter how petty) and he doesn't consider her feelings.

Why should he consider her feelings when his ice cream cone is melting? So what if SHE needs a drink? Why should he be inconvenienced by a melting cone, standing in line, and struggling to pull a bill out of his wallet to get HER a drink when he would rather be licking his cone? She can get her own drink.

Why should he consider her feelings when his unsavory friend needs a place to stay? The unsavory friend can stay at HIS house. So what if SHE feels uncomfortable around this unsavory person? He has to put up with HER boring relatives when they visit---not to mention HER brother-in-law who was in prison.

Why should he consider her feelings when he's buying a house? So what if it's going to be their marital home? It's his money. Why shouldn't SHE sign a post-nuptial agreement and give up all rights to her own home and any future security in the event of a divorce?

There are two people in this marriage, but he always has an excuse for invalidating her feelings and making his feelings more important. She's his wife. He should validate her feelings. He should treat her with love, respect and consideration. But, he doesn't do that because he's too busy thinking about himself.

payback--what's in for me.


I call 'em like I see 'em. He has an established pattern. I doubt he does anything unless there's something in it for himself---a payback, so to speak. "What's in it for ME?" If that's the case, then he ought to listen to Bi-Polar Bear. (It's all about the booty! LOL)

Interesting perspective, debra.

Since I've noticed Pitter putting up with a great deal from his wife and her family, I'll beg to differ with your assessment.

I'm sure there are moments when the complaints and demands get to him where he, like many of us, wonders "what's in it for me", "why am I putting up with it?", "should I put up with this?". This is a good place to ask/vent for a decent person, which Pitter has shown himself to be.