The only part that struck a nerve with me is when he refused to plug the TV back in.
He had already made his point that they don't use the TV very often, but the fact that she wanted to use it at that moment definitely weakened his argument. Refusing to plug the TV back in at that point just resulted in pissing his wife off and probably hurt his chances of getting rid of the TV.
She is free to plug it in herself; his refusal to do so is purely symbolic. At least, I had not considered any other possibility and am confident that most American readers would read it the same way. Perhaps I'm the one making a bad assumption, though. MarkPilgrim, do you wish to clarify?
Look at it this way: the author asks his wife if they can get rid of the TV. She says no. He then unplugs it and refuses to plug it back in for her when she wants to use it. The author elaborates on how difficult it is to plug/unplug the TV because it's behind a dresser drawer. Symbolism or not, he's being a bit of a jerk here. He made his point, but now his wife wants to use the TV and he refuses to help, despite the fact that he's the reason why she can't use the TV in the first place.
I'd agree if she needed help for the task, but "difficult" doesn't mean impossible. Her response ("I hate you") is because he's made his point effectively: when forced to compare the value of watching TV against the effort of spending ten minutes moving the dresser, she was forced to admit how little benefit they get from the TV.
Also, I know humor shouldn't be analyzed, but I thought part of the humor in their dialog was that he took a principled stand about a pretty trivial act.
What you allude to in your first statement is incorrect for most cases, IMO. Staying together doesn't necessarily mean letting it decrease your happiness. It might just mean you have to get your happiness from a different place.
Often in life you're not presented with win-lose situations. Instead, you're presented with lose-lose situations, and it's your job to choose the least worst solution for everyone involved.
I used to feel this way, but as I've gotten older, I've come to realize that there are a large number of things in life that are completely outside of my control. Accepting that doesn't mean "settling", it means that I've realized that I can't control those situations, but I can control my reaction and how it affects me. Marriage may or may not fall into that category for some people, but generally the behavior of others, health issues, macroeconomic events, etc. are things we can't control and must learn to live with.
Also, the idea that we have to be happy all the time is a particularly American conceit. It can be very rewarding to a point, but there's a thin line between that and narcissism that can make it impossible to form deep relationships. In an ideal marriage, for instance, each supports the others' ambitions, but there obviously has to be some give and take.
I completely agree, but getting divorced is something in your control. The weather is something you can control. Your health is something you can control, to an extent.
I don't know why this was downvoted. I don't agree with the post completely but I don't find it snarky or anything.
To the post itself: It's a bit more complex than that. If the kids mean a lot to you then splitting up means seeing them less, making the "trade" times stressful for everyone, etc. It's a trade off like many things in life.
But I do agree that there are times that staying can be more damaging than leaving.
