OnlineBookClub.org

I know poor communication is a verified relationship killer. All the same, I think Rachel's attitude played a big role in the final fall-out. I mean, I found her unsupportive (heck, she was opposed to man mission from day 1), selfish (wouldn't go to work), bitter and a loner (she didn't reach out to the "wives committee).

On the other hand, maybe its just that the main protagonist's character (whose name I don't remember seeing) was better fleshed out. We didn't get to hear her side of the story.

What do you opine?

I have to agree with you about Rachel; she didn't seem to take into account the main character's happiness. Being so vehemently opposed to something your partner loves is bound to create tension.

To be fair, I am married with young kids too, and I would never in a million years let my husband take annual trips to exotic places without me, especially if he came back injured from the first one! That said, there were definitely lots of issues with their marriage aside from that, which I'm sure they both contributed to. I wonder if our look at her is skewed because we are viewing her through the lens of her ex-husband though. It would be interesting to read her version of the story.

It's a good question. I agree that Rachel came across as unsympathetic, but she was clearly unhappy about something. I could really see both sides. The author was super-stressed out, clearly. He was burning the candle at both ends. At the same time, if he never enabled his wife to have time off, I can see how she'd begin to resent that. Stay-at-home moms work hard, too, just in a different way. It can be very exhausting constantly being the caretaker of the kids and never getting a break.

My ex used to take time off for long man-weekends. I didn't mind. I was supportive of that. But then when I needed a break from five kids, the last two barely 12 months apart, he refused to help make that happen. It's not why we got divorced, but his selfishness was.

Both sides were well-substantiated, and both of them had their reasons to be unhappy and make the choices they made. Maybe they and their lifestyle choices were just incompatible.

I think Racheal may come across as rather unrealistic and somewhat of an enemy to the protagonist's missions. However, her decisions do not seem as unrealistic on a closer look. Who would want their husband away all the time? Who would help her look after the kids?
I am team Racheal all the way. Calling her selfish is judging her too harshly. After all, the protagonist abandons her with little kids to go to various missions. That is more selfish to me than any of Racheal's actions or words which to be fair, I found rather nagging.

Rachel did come across as a nagging wife at times. However, the main protagonist was totally selfish in many ways. I like the concept of the Man Missions, I think that was an awesome way to spend time with friends. However, I think the women should have had the same opportunity to go away for an annual outlet and let the guys stay home with the kids!

Honestly, I feel for both of them. I think they both had flaws in their approaches to interpersonal relationships, to say nothing of their different priorities, and it really seems like they shouldn't have been together to begin with.

It is hard to understand Rachel's motives. Her actions seem so confusing at times. Definitely not a team Rachel

unamilagra wrote: ↑03 Jan 2020, 17:41 To be fair, I am married with young kids too, and I would never in a million years let my husband take annual trips to exotic places without me, especially if he came back injured from the first one! That said, there were definitely lots of issues with their marriage aside from that, which I'm sure they both contributed to. I wonder if our look at her is skewed because we are viewing her through the lens of her ex-husband though. It would be interesting to read her version of the story.

I completely agree. I would want to support my husband, but I would want to go with him! There were definitely issues in their marriage, and both had a part in it. I think that Rachel is painted in a negative light, but I can see both sides here.

Any failing relationship is lacking from both sides. The husband here, having so many years and unsureness of himself and his life and being afraid to seem childish never tried to communicate his feelings to her but also her selfishness was a killer. For the first time in my life I can totally understand why he cheated on her. From what we see in the book she was always angry and disapproving of everything he was doing and then often turned him done when he initiated intimacy... Like he mentions in the book, men have needs. And of course, when another woman shows affection to a man who hasn't received any from his wife in years, he would naturally go along with it even though he knows it's wrong.
I guess, she had it coming. So I'm siding with the main character, because it seems that he tried to keep their relationship afloat but she killed it..

I can see both sides; on the one hand, Rachel wasn't supportive of something the protagonist was clearly interested in, but on the other, she also needs time off to relax and may have been worried about her ex-husband's injury.

I also see both sides, it seems like Rachel was very under represented in the story overall.

Stephanie Elizabeth wrote: ↑03 Jan 2020, 13:37 I have to agree with you about Rachel; she didn't seem to take into account the main character's happiness. Being so vehemently opposed to something your partner loves is bound to create tension.

Agreed, such strong opposition is usually the catalyst that kicks off "the beginning of the end" of any union. Oh Rachel... perhaps she's destined for another.

ViziVoir wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 18:00 Honestly, I feel for both of them. I think they both had flaws in their approaches to interpersonal relationships, to say nothing of their different priorities, and it really seems like they shouldn't have been together to begin with.

I'm inclined to agree. There are 3 sides to every story: his, hers, and the truth (somewhere in the middle). Seems it was simply a case of incompatibility overall. They are likely both perfect in their own ways... for other people.