A woman once visited a counselor to ask a question about her marriage. I have a funny feeling that you might not be especially impressed with
answer she was given.All same, I'll take my chances. I think my shoulders are broad enough.
I stand by counselor's response 100%.
The questioner (let's call her Jane) was married to a divorcee. Her husband (John) had to pay a certain sum of money every month to his previous wife as alimony, or whatever. He had just started a new business and was passing through a financial sticky patch. The obligation to his ex-wife, on top of everything else, was putting John under a lot of pressure.
Jane was a working person and gladly helped to pay family debts. She never thought twice about it. But could she be expected to contribute in this case?
Surely, reasoned Jane, her husband's financial commitment to somebody to whom he had been married previously had nothing to do with her? Yes, she and John were life partners and she was happy to share all his burdens. But even for what happened in a previous life, so to speak? Wasn't that going too far?
"I must confess I don't really understand your question," counselor gently told Jane after listening intently to her dilemma.
"You and John are husband and wife. John has a debt. He's struggling to pay it. What difference does it make what debt is for? It's a debt, period!"
The counselor smiled warmly at Jane before she continued. "His problems are your problems. You're in this together. Why on earth shouldn't you help pay debt? If, after all, it's difficult for you to accept this, it must be that there's some deeper problem in your marriage..."
And that's it.
Now, it's important not to misunderstand counselor, or me. I don't want your blood pressure to hit roof! We have to keep cool heads and put everything in proper perspective.
First of all, she wasn't implying, of course, that John now had a licence to sit back, put his legs up, and meditate blissfully about higher meaning of life, while his dear and ever obliging spouse worked like a donkey to pay price of his past.
Not at all. I should think that's pretty obvious, but I have to stress it just in case.
Secondly, when we talk about husband and wife being full partners in business of living, about sharing each other's burdens - financial or otherwise - no less than each other's joys, we are not saying for one moment that either party must contribute more than is reasonable.
In case of our story, Jane was a high-earning professional. In other instances, a wife may bring in little or no income, for any of a number of reasons. It may not be desirable that she be working at all.
But that's hardly point. We're talking of quality, rather than quantity. One can only do what one can, but it's real desire to help that counts. And contributing doesn't only mean money.
