Well-off boyfriend rages about the home­less pop­u­la­tion

The Idaho Statesman (Sunday) - - TELEVISION/EXPLORE - BY CAROLYN HAX Wash­ing­ton Post

DEAR CAROLYN: I’ve been dat­ing this guy for about five months.

I live in the city, he lives in the sub­urbs.

Since I live where there’s more to do, and don’t own a car, he usu­ally drives into the city to see me.

Since we’ve be­come more com­fort­able with each other, he now ar­rives at my apart­ment and ex­presses a great deal of an­noy­ance at the home­less peo­ple he passed on his drive, of­ten for ask­ing for money in an ag­gres­sive way or wan­der­ing about the road un­safely.

His an­noy­ance verges on anger and re­ally both­ers me.

I un­der­stand that ha­rass­ment or un­safe driv­ing sit­u­a­tions can be very dis­tress­ing and frus­trat­ing, but his anger seems to zero in on the home­less pop­u­la­tion, and I wouldn’t de­vote time and en­ergy to be­ing an­gry at a group of peo­ple so ob­vi­ously less for­tu­nate than me.

My boyfriend is very well off and had a com­fort­able mid­dle-class up­bring­ing.

I see it as a re­flec­tion of his val­ues that he can’t seem to have any em­pa­thy to­ward this group just be­cause they are caus­ing mild an­noy­ance.

Lately I’ve just been let­ting him vent, be­cause we all need that some­times and also be­cause it has caused in­tense ar­gu­ments when I’ve protested.

But I can’t shake the dis­com­fort I feel when he com­plains about this group.

How can I ap­proach this with­out seem­ing like I am dis­miss­ing his feel­ings of be­ing ha­rassed or un­safe?

DEAR COM­FORT­ABLE: If he is ir­ri­tated by pan- han­dlers but not equally so by some Bim­mer rid­ing his tail for be­ing in the pass­ing lane for a nanosec­ond too long, then you might well have a clas­sist jerk for a boyfriend.

But that’s nei­ther here nor there.

Here’s what is im­por­tant:

You ques­tion his char­ac­ter.

But have learned not to do so out loud.

Be­cause his an­noy­ance “verges on anger.”

And he fights off your ques­tion­ing with “in­tense ar­gu­ments.”

Do you see it?

The spe­cific is­sue could be any­thing. Let’s say, for ar­gu­ment’s sake, he rages equally at 7-Se­ries driv­ers, so it’s not about em­pa­thy for the down­trod­den. You still have a dy­namic where you have le­git­i­mate con­cerns – his en­ti­tle­ment and his reg­u­lar, car­ry­over anger – that you choose not to talk about be­cause he makes you pay too dearly for speak­ing up.

That is at best a recipe for mis­ery, and at worst dan­ger­ous.

He has be­come com­fort­able enough around you to start show­ing his true self, but you have ac­tu­ally be­come less so, by your own ac­count of how you’ve learned to hold back, de­lib­er­ately sup­press­ing your dis­com­fort.

You can­not say, “When you vent about pan­han­dlers, I hear a lack of em­pa­thy, and that both­ers me.”

You do not feel safe speak­ing your mind to this man.

Game over. He’s not the guy.

Even if your hunch about his eco­nomic em­pa­thy deficit is wrong. Which I sus­pect it isn’t, but that’s nei­ther here nor there.

Un­less you can speak freely, and un­less you like what you hear in re­turn, he is not the guy.

Email Carolyn at tellme@wash­post.com or chat with her on­line at noon ET each Fri­day at www.wash­ing­ton­post.com.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.