Sometimes I think that being completely clueless is a requirement for a job as a newspaper advice columnist. In the latest fiasco that I found, the columnist missed three obvious clues to the real problem.

The lady that wrote in described her problem like this: She got married 3 years ago, and then discovered he had a drug addiction. He won’t get a job, so she works a long night shift, counseling hasn’t worked, and no matter how she screams, pleads and cusses him, he won’t change. She also let drop the fact that they lived together 3 years before they were married. The advice columnist’s only suggestion is that he may be depressed and he should get a referral from his doctor for treatment for that.

Can you see the three clues she missed? Clue 1 – the woman lived with him 3 years before marriage and somehow didn’t notice he was doing drugs and didn’t have a job! Clue 2 – she married him anyway! Clue 3 – she’s been screaming, pleading, begging and cussing him, and it hasn’t worked! Yeah, like that approach ever has worked.

But our intrepid columnist doesn’t mention any of that. She also doesn’t seem to be aware of what I call my 1st universal law of relationships – if the other person has to change significantly for you to be happy, the relationship problems are yours.

In fact, if you find yourself in a relationship like that, it’s a sign of an old pattern in your life, usually from childhood, that you’re trying to resolve. This woman went out of her way to marry an addict who doesn’t respect her, support her or care for her. She even gave him a 3 year trial before she married him to make sure. Once having done that, she then tries to change him so he will support and care for her. What are the odds of that working?

What the columnist should have said was this: “You didn’t marry him in spite of his problems, you married him because of his problems. If you leave him, you’ll find another one just like him, unless YOU get into counseling and deal with these subconscious issues from your childhood. There’s a reason why you picked an unsupportive addict and you better find out what it is.”

But she didn’t. So the poor lady that wrote in is still in denial about whose problem it is, and will continue to suffer. The columnist’s response just confirmed to her that the problem was his. How sad.

{ 0 comments }