I just talked with my sister E for the first time in a couple of months last night, and it seems like her marriage is in a certain amount of trouble, too. She and her husband L are currently living in different states; E was offered a dream job in Utah, but L didn't want to move from Texas, so they agreed that she'd go and try out the job to see whether it really was all that and a bag of chips and then they'd see (also the job held out the possibility that after six months or so they'd consider letting her spend half or more of her time telecommuting). This much I knew; what's new is that after about four months of E really really enjoying her job, L still refuses to even visit her in Utah. They talk regularly on the phone, and they get together in places like Vegas and have a really great and romantic time (according to E), but whenever she suggests that L come see where she's living he says he's not going to live in Utah and there's no point, so when is she coming back to Texas? Well, E, asks, what about someplace like Vegas or Flagstaff (where L's sister lives)--close enough to her job in Utah that she could swing it since she doesn't have to be there every day. Nope, nope. If L were to leave Texas, says L, he might consider moving to the ocean, but that's it. Nevada or Arizona are inconceivable. Now, granted that L's job isn't tremendously portable (there's a substantial amount of seniority and dues-paying that you generally have to build up in order to make a half-way decent living at it, there are pretty steep market-entry barriers in the form of examinations and licenses to practice in a new state, and it requires a fairly sizable city to practice in), neither is E's dream job; the place in Utah is essentially the only place in the country that does exactly what it does, and her conditions of employment are pretty sweet. It is, however, out in the ass end of nowhere, so I can understand L's reluctance to move there.
What I can't understand, or maybe I do understand but can't condone, is L's refusal to even consider compromise. As far as I can see it's either straight up sexism (L has a career, whereas E just has a job), which I'm sure L would deny--being the good left-wing Democrat that he is--or it's pure selfishness. That is, L thinks E should give in just because L is more stubborn. A problem with that line of thought is that E is extremely stubborn herself, and hates the thought of feeling "like a sucker" as she put it, if she goes back to some horrible punch-a-timecard sort of job just because L won't budge. This is the same thing that bugs me about K in the J and K contretemps. It seems to me that at some point, respect for the other party requires that you consider compromise even if you yourself are entirely unmoved by the reasons for the other position; to do otherwise seems tantamount to saying "I don't even respect your feelings as feelings: get over them or get gone." If L would be miserable anywhere other than Texas (or the beach) and E would be miserable in a different job, that's a real problem but so far E is the one who's tried holding down the crappy jobs and L doesn't seem to have seriously considered moving anywhere else.
Fortunately, I guess, the problem isn't urgent; they don't have kids, and don't intend to, and they both seem to be moderately happy with things as they are this very moment and as Herbert Stein once said "Anything that can't go on forever, will stop." IOW, while they both seem a bit worried about what will happen in the future, neither is sufficiently dissatisfied to actually do anything about it, and if and when that eventually happens then they can do something. This doesn't seem like the kind of situtation where prudence or foresight will help; what's needed is change or clarification in their feelings and priorities, not any concrete action.