Supporting one's spouse does not mean acquiescing to every opportunity afforded the other. Things are a little different when we're talking about matters of shelter/food/health, but in this situation we're talking about an international relocation of an already successful businessman. He was pursuing personal career and experience outcomes, he wasn't trying to drag his family above the poverty line.

And besides, it's pretty clear HE regrets the decision. Maybe learn something from the person who lived the experience.

> Everything changes all the time without exception. Getting used to change serves everyone.

This statement is meaningless. Change in life is constant, but everything doesn't change all the time. You weaponize this statement as if to say we - or at least one spouse - should abdicate their agency in their own or their shared life.

FWIW, it sounds like she DID move with him and support him (through a non-"reasonable" request of moving to the other side of the world.)

The marriage still fell apart.

The thing is, he was likely already providing incredibly well for the household and didn't need to move the whole family to Asia. If I pulled some crazy shit like that, I'd hope my wife reminds me who I'm working for and why.

She's providing for the household by taking care of everything in their lives outside of his specific business functions.

He should be making every reasonable effort to support her.

Why do you assume the wife isn't working as well?

Haha the parent post literally said that it was ironic that a woman would marry an ambitious man and then complain about said ambition. The ambition, implicitly, being wanting to move to Asia for a job. It seems to me if a woman isn't allowed to complain about moving continents for a job, she's not allowed to complain about anything, and this is, therefore, not a strawman.