Punctuality Disagreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

Was there any way for Spouse A to be on time without "making Spouse B feel awful?" Because it doesn't feel very good to wait outside a restaurant and lose your reservation waiting for late people either. Spouse A cannot win here, are they doomed to perpetually cater to Spouse B's desire for mutual lateness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:threatens, frustration, dithering, furious, embarrass ... language is too strong.
Each spouse can come/go as they like. They should just do it, drama free

I have friends, a couple, who drive to the airport separately. One likes to cut-it-close re:arrival. One gets stressed. So they drive 2 cars. If the late one misses the flight, the other still gets to go. NO DRAMA

Surely you can see that won't work for dinner reservations?

I posted earlier that my husband is often late. He’s a surgeon and sometimes cases go late.
It’s fine for dinner reservations. I just order his food when everyone orders, and he shows up when he shows up.

Sigh. And surely you can see that it is different when someone is unavoidably detained by professional obligations, as opposed to Spouse B, who can't get off his or her butt to be on time, and just doesn't care?

Apparently, your husband is the brains in your relationship. I hope you're good looking, or independently wealthy.

Okay. I’m an idiot.
Why is it that it will work to be drama free if your spouse is at work, but you must threaten them at home and embarrass them in front of your dinner companions if your spouse is “on their butt?”

It seems to me that you could be all drama or no drama in either situation. You could choose see the situation as avoidable or unavoidable in any context. You could absolutely be pissed at your surgeon spouse for tacking on a case at the end of the day or scheduling a big case on a day that she knows you have dinner reservations with your work colleagues. She wouldn’t do that if your kid was the lead in a school play that night.
And you could absolutely see your spouse’s lateness as an unavoidable part of their personality given their cultural upbringing and the way they are other areas of their life.

The way I see it, whether you see your spouse’s behavior as “avoidable” or “unavoidable” is all in how you think about it. You can choose to have thoughts that make you angry and lead to threatening your spouse and ruining your evening. Or you can choose to have thoughts that make you more accepting of other people, happier, and more likely to have a pleasant evening and overall happy home.

It is totally possible to just go to dinner, meet your spouse there, and not threaten or embarrass them. The context does not matter.

DP. I can tell you’re in to dramatization because you keep doubling down, and you’re making up a narrative that wasn’t included in the OP. It didn’t say he embarrassed her. No behavior is “unavoidable.” We’re not Pavlovian dogs, that’s just excuse making. If someone told spouse b she’d get $1M if she showed up on time for a year, I guarantee she’d be on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

Or Spouse B could consider not being entitled and insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:threatens, frustration, dithering, furious, embarrass ... language is too strong.
Each spouse can come/go as they like. They should just do it, drama free

I have friends, a couple, who drive to the airport separately. One likes to cut-it-close re:arrival. One gets stressed. So they drive 2 cars. If the late one misses the flight, the other still gets to go. NO DRAMA

Surely you can see that won't work for dinner reservations?

I posted earlier that my husband is often late. He’s a surgeon and sometimes cases go late.
It’s fine for dinner reservations. I just order his food when everyone orders, and he shows up when he shows up.

Sigh. And surely you can see that it is different when someone is unavoidably detained by professional obligations, as opposed to Spouse B, who can't get off his or her butt to be on time, and just doesn't care?

Apparently, your husband is the brains in your relationship. I hope you're good looking, or independently wealthy.

Okay. I’m an idiot.
Why is it that it will work to be drama free if your spouse is at work, but you must threaten them at home and embarrass them in front of your dinner companions if your spouse is “on their butt?”

It seems to me that you could be all drama or no drama in either situation. You could choose see the situation as avoidable or unavoidable in any context. You could absolutely be pissed at your surgeon spouse for tacking on a case at the end of the day or scheduling a big case on a day that she knows you have dinner reservations with your work colleagues. She wouldn’t do that if your kid was the lead in a school play that night.
And you could absolutely see your spouse’s lateness as an unavoidable part of their personality given their cultural upbringing and the way they are other areas of their life.

The way I see it, whether you see your spouse’s behavior as “avoidable” or “unavoidable” is all in how you think about it. You can choose to have thoughts that make you angry and lead to threatening your spouse and ruining your evening. Or you can choose to have thoughts that make you more accepting of other people, happier, and more likely to have a pleasant evening and overall happy home.

It is totally possible to just go to dinner, meet your spouse there, and not threaten or embarrass them. The context does not matter.

DP. I can tell you’re in to dramatization because you keep doubling down, and you’re making up a narrative that wasn’t included in the OP. It didn’t say he embarrassed her. No behavior is “unavoidable.” We’re not Pavlovian dogs, that’s just excuse making. If someone told spouse b she’d get $1M if she showed up on time for a year, I guarantee she’d be on time.

Exactly. I bet you she shows up to work on time despite her cultural differences because she knows there will be consequences if she doesn't. This is no different.

[Anonymous]

Team Spouse A!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

Was there any way for Spouse A to be on time without "making Spouse B feel awful?" Because it doesn't feel very good to wait outside a restaurant and lose your reservation waiting for late people either. Spouse A cannot win here, are they doomed to perpetually cater to Spouse B's desire for mutual lateness?

No. Spouse A can go ahead and go to the restaurant. He can even frame it nicely.

You can also make a peanut butter sandwich for your child when they don’t like their dinner without making them feel awful about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

I posted earlier that my husband is a surgeon and often late. I don’t find it rude and annoying, although I could choose to look at it that way.
Spouse A doesn’t have to find this rude and annoying either. That’s a choice.

I didn’t see anywhere that Spouse B had a bunch of drama about being abandoned. Only that they were upset that Spouse A got angry and tried to embarrass them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

Was there any way for Spouse A to be on time without "making Spouse B feel awful?" Because it doesn't feel very good to wait outside a restaurant and lose your reservation waiting for late people either. Spouse A cannot win here, are they doomed to perpetually cater to Spouse B's desire for mutual lateness?

No. Spouse A can go ahead and go to the restaurant. He can even frame it nicely.

You can also make a peanut butter sandwich for your child when they don’t like their dinner without making them feel awful about it.

Oh I see now. You're a child. Grow up and don't make people wait for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

I posted earlier that my husband is a surgeon and often late. I don’t find it rude and annoying, although I could choose to look at it that way.
Spouse A doesn’t have to find this rude and annoying either. That’s a choice.

I didn’t see anywhere that Spouse B had a bunch of drama about being abandoned. Only that they were upset that Spouse A got angry and tried to embarrass them.

HE didn't try to embarrass her. Learn to read. She felt embarrassed. I'm guessing because she knows she is wrong and felt called out. Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

Was there any way for Spouse A to be on time without "making Spouse B feel awful?" Because it doesn't feel very good to wait outside a restaurant and lose your reservation waiting for late people either. Spouse A cannot win here, are they doomed to perpetually cater to Spouse B's desire for mutual lateness?

No. Spouse A can go ahead and go to the restaurant. He can even frame it nicely.

You can also make a peanut butter sandwich for your child when they don’t like their dinner without making them feel awful about it.

So is there any way Spouse A can express that they find this rude and annoying? Or are they forbidden from that and must keep it a secret to spare Spouse B's delicate ego?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

I posted earlier that my husband is a surgeon and often late. I don’t find it rude and annoying, although I could choose to look at it that way.
Spouse A doesn’t have to find this rude and annoying either. That’s a choice.

I didn’t see anywhere that Spouse B had a bunch of drama about being abandoned. Only that they were upset that Spouse A got angry and tried to embarrass them.

There’s quite a big difference in your spouse being late because a surgery went long and Spouse B who couldn’t get it together to leave on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

I posted earlier that my husband is a surgeon and often late. I don’t find it rude and annoying, although I could choose to look at it that way.
Spouse A doesn’t have to find this rude and annoying either. That’s a choice.

I didn’t see anywhere that Spouse B had a bunch of drama about being abandoned. Only that they were upset that Spouse A got angry and tried to embarrass them.

You are very annoying. The fury is the drama, the embarrassment is manufactured. Your situations are not alike, which like 5 posters told you. The OP states, verbatim:

“Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

Was there any way for Spouse A to be on time without "making Spouse B feel awful?" Because it doesn't feel very good to wait outside a restaurant and lose your reservation waiting for late people either. Spouse A cannot win here, are they doomed to perpetually cater to Spouse B's desire for mutual lateness?

No. Spouse A can go ahead and go to the restaurant. He can even frame it nicely.

You can also make a peanut butter sandwich for your child when they don’t like their dinner without making them feel awful about it.

So is there any way Spouse A can express that they find this rude and annoying? Or are they forbidden from that and must keep it a secret to spare Spouse B's delicate ego?

Sure. I don’t think anyone needs much help with that.

You are able to express to your children that they prefer that they eat the same meal you do without threatening them and telling them they are rude and annoying, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose Spouse A is big on punctuality because they come from a military background and also feel that being on time means respecting other people's time. Spouse A also thinks that punctuality is a good habit to pass on to children. Spouse B is less punctual and feels that being 15-30 minutes late is not that big of a deal. Part of this is attributable to cultural/family background and part of it is a tendency to get distracted.

They have discussed the issue repeatedly and Spouse A frequently threatens to just leave Spouse B and go to events, but has never followed through with it until this weekend. They were supposed to meet another couple for dinner and were already running late. The other couple consists of Spouse A's work colleague and their spouse. They are work friends, but not best friends, and the couples have hung out socially together a few times. Spouse A told Spouse B that if they were not ready in 5 minutes, they could take an Uber to the restaurant. Spouse A actually followed through and left to the restaurant in frustration while Spouse B was still dithering.

Spouse B is furious with Spouse A and feels they were trying to embarrass them. Was Spouse A a too drastic?

I would be LIVID if you were 30 minutes late to a dinner with me and my husband without a seriously good excuse. Spouse B is a jerk.

Really? I would be irritated if I was cooking and I prepared things to be ready at a specific time, but it sounds like they were all meeting up at a restaurant. I would just have a drink with my husband.

It would be so much weirder to be brought into the middle of someone’s marital drama.

Ok, you do you. I think it's incredibly rude to show up 30 minutes late to a dinner reservation.

I will! I like hanging out with people who married someone they like to be with, and who don’t need me around to be a buffer with their spouse.

I can see how if you feel that you can’t spend 15 minutes alone with your spouse, it probably doesn’t really phase you if the other couple is in a fight or not speaking to each other.

For me, the late thing wouldn’t bother me, but I would find a fight incredibly awkward.

But why do you assume a fight? It’s really fascinating to me - my husband and I once arrived to a New Year party separately, and there was quite a bit of back and forth between me and the hosts. Yes, he is coming later, no, we are OK, really. Something came up, he left work much later than he thought he would and I didn’t feel like sitting there twiddling my thumbs fully dressed while I could be partying.

The situation is completely neutral. I’m assuming that it’s a fight because of the language in the OP.
Spouse A threatened to leave early, then pulled the trigger and left early in frustration. Then tried to embarrass spouse B.

Making a PB&J is neutral, right? But If I told you I threatened to make my toddler a PB&J if he didn’t eat his dinner, then I finally pulled the trigger and made a PB&J in frustration and then tried to embarrass him, then I am giving a neutral action a specific meaning.

It never said that spouse A tried to embarrass spouse B. It says spouse B FEELS like she feels he was trying to embarrass her by leaving without her. Different things.

Well, as I said earlier, if I threatened my child repeatedly with a peanut butter sandwich, and then I finally pulled the trigger and made one in anger and made them eat it, and then they FELT embarrassed eating it, then that’s at least partly on me, right?

There is nothing inherently embarrassing about eating a peanut butter sandwich. But if you make fixing a peanut butter sandwich this huge thing that you only finally do in a moment of anger and frustration, then eating it is going to feel pretty awful.

This is why Spouse A was wrong. There was no need to make spouse B feel awful.

What is it going to take to get Spouse B show basic consideration to Spouse A? Is Spouse A a prisoner of Spouse B's need for mutual lateness and chaperoning?

No. Spouse A is free to go ahead and be on time. He can even frame it as a kind thing that he’s doing (take your time and take an Uber. I’ll meet you there!).
I’m sure that spouse B will be more likely to show consideration later if Spouse A is nice to her.

So pretend not to find it rude and annoying when really it is?

What about all the drama of "you abandoned me, you chose them over me"?

I posted earlier that my husband is a surgeon and often late. I don’t find it rude and annoying, although I could choose to look at it that way.
Spouse A doesn’t have to find this rude and annoying either. That’s a choice.

I didn’t see anywhere that Spouse B had a bunch of drama about being abandoned. Only that they were upset that Spouse A got angry and tried to embarrass them.

There’s quite a big difference in your spouse being late because a surgery went long and Spouse B who couldn’t get it together to leave on time.

I disagree. You could choose see the situation as avoidable or unavoidable in any context. You could absolutely be pissed at your surgeon spouse for tacking on a case at the end of the day or scheduling a big case on a day that she knows you have dinner reservations with your work colleagues. She wouldn’t do that if your kid was the lead in a school play that night.
And you could absolutely see your spouse’s lateness as an unavoidable part of their personality given their cultural upbringing and the way they are other areas of their life.

Whether you see your spouse’s or your children’s behavior as “avoidable” or “unavoidable” is all in how you think about it. You can choose to have thoughts that make you angry and lead to threatening your spouse and ruining your evening. Or you can choose to have thoughts that make you more accepting of other people, happier, and more likely to have a pleasant evening and overall happy home.

It is totally possible to just go to dinner, meet your spouse there, and not threaten or embarrass them. The context does not matter.