Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomdata | Hacker News Reader

I have to say, I didn't really come away with the "demanding jerk" impression at all.

She wanted him to stay for the kids and continue to provide for the family. In return, he wanted some help around the house and to ensure emotional disconnect from the relationship that was already dead by this point. I expect couples today would form similar arrangements in the same situation.

View on HN

So he was doing her a favour? Isn't he a father as well who should think for the best of his children too? So in other case he would just leave her with the children? Demanding 3 meals every day served or else is kind of disrespectful to someone you used to love.

3 meals a day might benefit the children, too. Not fighting in front of them is probably also a good idea. What does he propose that is bad for children?

Well, poster above me was implying that his demands were reasonable, as he is staying with her and children. If she wouldn't agree to him, he would leave and left her with children, that is not exactly unconditional love for his children and also sexist/macho.

It's not a given that staying together is best for the children. If there is constant fighting, separation might be better for all of them.

You are right from today's perspective. But you have to keep in mind that was early 19th century, maybe seperation than was harder for wife and children. EDIT: I meant early 20th centory...

That is how it reads. I certainly wasn't there to know what really went on, though I think we can assume these are the issues that caused the relationship breakdown in the first place. It wouldn't be very fair for her to live in the lap of luxury while he solely provides for the home and does all the housework on top, even if they had a prior love for each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com