Dieda says the man's purpose is to gain success in order to share those gifts with his woman, who in turn inspires him to succeed and provide more. It has everythingto do with Dieda.
Can you find anywhere where he says this and show me? I don't believe I've heard him say this anywhere, although I haven't read or heard everything he has said by a long shot.
I don't know how to judge whether someone is differentiated or not.
Then how could you say in your previous post that you have never seen someone who is differentiated??
My "judgment" about differentiation is based on Lil's therapist's list of descriptions.
I also strongly suspect that some can be very differentiated in one situation and not in another. Also, this idea of differentiation does not apply very well to friendships. When I speak of differentiated people, I am speaking STRICTLY about LTR relationships, husbands and wives.
Actually the process of being a differentiated person should be seen in all relationships - work, friends, family and spouses. The people that I think are differentiated are that way in general and not according to specific situations. The people that I see that are enmeshed/fused types are that way in most of their relationships.
My personal belief about differentiation is that it is about the person and not the relationship. If you are differentiated, then a relationship cannot "make" you fused.
When it comes to my friends, I could say that I am perfectly differentiated too.
That is interesting and I would be curious to hear more about how your characterize your friendships and why it seems so much easier for you to be differentiated in friendships and why you see it as healthy for your friendships but not for your marriage.
What I mean is that for ME to give freely, I need to have some element of altruism, at least on a conscious level. Subconsciously I think we ALL expect something back in return, whether that is see the happiness in the other person, feeling appreciated by the other, or simply expecting something in return. If the latter, then I agree with you that the giving was not purely altruistic.
I still don't completely understand what you are saying and what you believe. Do you mean that it is impossible to give to another person without any expectation FROM ANOTHER PERSON? When I choose to give I give from my heart and release others from expectations. It is extremely freeing and satisfying to do.
Sure you might give in the short run without expecting return, but I’m willing to bet that even you will grow tired at some point of giving and giving and never getting anything in return. If what you say is true, why did you ever D?
We've been through this. I am divorced because my XH left me.
I gave and gave in the marriage and am totally at peace with my giving. Given the knowledge that I now have about his issues, I could have done more and behaved differently but that is hindsight and neither I nor my XH had that knowledge at the time. He doesn't blame me and I don't blame me either.
I think you take this a little to the extreme. She has lately been trying to talk to me more about her work, as her way of opening more communication. I listen to her and discuss things with her. But at some point I have enough.
I'm just trying to point out an opportunity for you. She obviously, to me, has a need to talk with you and yet that need is something you judge as problematic - too annoying, too gossipy, not useful, etc. MAYBE you both have some work you can do to continue this line of communication in a way that is satisfying and useful to both of you. It just strikes me that you talk so negatively about her issues and it seems like it is something that is important to her. Her decision to continue to talk to you even when you are obviously put off by her shows how much she values talking to you.
Dieda says the man's purpose is to gain success in order to share those gifts with his woman, who in turn inspires him to succeed and provide more. It has everything to do with Dieda.
I'm still not quite so sure about this definition and I'm not sure how wanting your wife to need you and providing for that need is "a la Dieda." But I admit I am still trying to figure Deida out.
Cobra - It comforts me to know that she has a need for me and that I can provide for that need (a la Dieda).
Fearless - There is some disconnect between your earlier comments about disliking your wife's need to complain AND your statement that you are comforted by being needed. I am just curious whether you see it as a disconnect.
Cobra - No. These are my needs. Where is the disconnect in that?
The disconnect for me is that you say you want your wife to need you and that you want to provide for that need YET when she vocalizes a need (such as talking about work albeit in a way you don't like) you choose to not provide for that need. So it appears to me that you have a need to be needed in a way that you choose?? Needless to say she has just a little bit of trauma in her background.
Yes and I would say way more than a little. That's good that you can look back and understand that your mom did the best she could given her circumstances.
And I think you are doing the best you can too. Just trying to encourage you to look at things from some different angles if possible.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Cobra thanks I'm quite interested because I have a feeling that I'm probably paraphrasing him in my mind and hearing what I want. It will be illuminating to see what you come up with.
Then how could you say in your previous post that you have never seen someone who is differentiated??
I’ve never met anyone who could truly stay unmeshed with an intimate partner. In everyday life this might be possible. But that isn’t usually when differentiation is needed. During high stress everyone reacts.
Actually the process of being a differentiated person should be seen in all relationships - work, friends, family and spouses. The people that I think are differentiated are that way in general and not according to specific situations. The people that I see that are enmeshed/fused types are that way in most of their relationships.
Sorry, I don’t buy this at all. I think you are referring more to everyday, low stress situation. During those times, almost everyone except the most extreme cases appears differentiated. The real test is during stress, which is the whole reason Schnarch came up with the idea of differentiation, for the stressful times when the most damage can be made to a marriage.
My personal belief about differentiation is that it is about the person and not the relationship. If you are differentiated, then a relationship cannot "make" you fused.
Just turn up the heat enough and you can get almost anyone to fuse.
That is interesting and I would be curious to hear more about how your characterize your friendships and why it seems so much easier for you to be differentiated in friendships and why you see it as healthy for your friendships but not for your marriage.
I have no idea why you find this strange. I am not intimately involved with my friends. I don’t have sex with them, I don’t devote myself to them or depend on them for my daily affairs or to plan my future. I really don’t know where you’re coming from.
Do you mean that it is impossible to give to another person without any expectation FROM ANOTHER PERSON?
For a certain period of time (that varies from person to person and situation to situation) I think it is easy to give without expecting something in return, especially when it concerns kids. But kids must be excluded from a discussion of intimate relationships. So in a marriage, if one person feels s/he is doing all the giving and getting nothing back in return. It is guaranteed that there will be a rise in resentment and anger. If you don’t believe this, then ask everyone of this board.
I'm just trying to point out an opportunity for you. She obviously, to me, has a need to talk with you and yet that need is something you judge as problematic - too annoying, too gossipy, not useful, etc.
I think she has a need to talk. She would like to talk with me some amount, which I do. So will also talk plenty to others, actually, anyone who will stand still long enough. I have no responsibility to fill this need for her. I talk with her enough to give her some satisfaction, and myself too, to coordinate our activities, stay in touch with events, etc. I do not have any obligation to help her need for her excess talk. She can go to her girl friends for that.
Her decision to continue to talk to you even when you are obviously put off by her shows how much she values talking to you.
It is I who has pressured her to increase our level of communication over the past year. When she gets mad, she goes into her shell. That means she prefers not to talk, which leads to estrangement, less connection, the whole nine yards. But that does not mean I want to go from no talking to constant talking. A nice, “normal” amount of communication will do fine.
The disconnect for me is that you say you want your wife to need you and that you want to provide for that need ….
No, that is not what I said. I do not want to provide for her need. I want to provide for HER. I want her to in turn appreciate my providing for HER. I want to be appreciated as the provider, the “knight in shining armor.” I want her appreciation of me to be as the princess. Her needs may be completely different.
YET when she vocalizes a need (such as talking about work albeit in a way you don't like) you choose to not provide for that need.
Quit putting words in my mouth. I do listen to her about her work. I prefer not to, but I do. I will talk with her for 15-30 minutes at times, but I have little interest when she starts going on and on about one subject after another with little purpose other than to talk. That activity is for her girlfriends who enjoy doing the same thing.
So it appears to me that you have a need to be needed in a way that you choose??
What’s wrong with that? It is my need, something I decide I want. Why would I want to be needed in a way I don’t choose?
(Warning - May be my longest post yet!! Consider yourselves warned )
Hey Cobra,
I'm not trying to "pick" on you. I just haven't quite figured out your POV and still don't know if our apparent difference of opinions is a true difference or is more of a semantics issue. Well I do know that our opinions differ I just wonder by how much.
What I find interesting is that I FEEL that the more direct questions I ask of you, the more confused I get about what you actually believe and more importantly WHY you believe it.
It seems to me that your disbelief in differentiation is a religious disbelief. It appears that you don't believe in differentiation because you haven't seen it, differentiation can't be sustained and everyone MUST become enmeshed when in stress. But if those are your reasons, those are not arguments but rather circular reasoning. TO BE CLEAR I understand that people may not want to be differentiated. Then again I understand that some people don't want to lose weight, don't want to exercise, don't want to eat healthy, don't want to stop watching TV, don't want to be happier, etc. However just because it's hard to do something and uncomfortable to change does not mean it's impossible to do it or impossible to change. I've never met anyone who could truly stay unmeshed with an intimate partner. In everyday life this might be possible. But that isn't usually when differentiation is needed. During high stress everyone reacts.
In college my mom was diagnosed with a Brain Tumor on a Wednesday in early January, admitted to the hospital that Friday evening and scheduled for brain surgery on Sunday morning. I was starting a quarter of intense engineering courses (27 course hours, I dropped one 3 hour class from the original 30 hour schedule I had! ) My XH and I were seriously dating and living in the same apartment complex (for all intents and purposes we were living together but I believe having a separate apartment for me to retreat to was good for me.) He was in Law School. We were at a different school than where we met so no long-term friends were there for me. I took a bus to the city where my mom was in the hospital every weekend other than the weekend before finals. Then I went home for spring break where I spent the days visiting my mom and watching her try to learn to speak and walk again and watching my dad change her and care for her. Then home in the evenings to clean the house because my grandparents and great Aunt laid that at my feet (you ought to get that house in order) I would call exhausted and crying to XH. My mom went through another surgery 5 months later and then another 3 months later. She was in intensive care for over 20 weeks (which is A LOT if you don't know) and in the hospital for almost 9 months total. I also took engineering courses through Winter, spring, summer and fall.
YES I most certainly had HIGH STRESS and I DID react. But my reaction was NOT to enmesh/fuse with my XH. But how can that be? You have just stated that this is not possible??? Well maybe I am just super human freak but I highly doubt it! I have my own issues just like everyone has and I will constantly have to work on them. What I did do was talk to my XH and stay connected with him. But the fact is he was in Law School and he needed to stay on track with his classes. I needed him to take care of himself MORE than I needed him to take care of me. Just being there to talk to WAS enough.
Sorry, I don't buy this at all. I think you are referring more to everyday, low stress situation. During those times, almost everyone except the most extreme cases appears differentiated.
I'm not selling it to you. I know you are resistant to the idea of differentiation but this is a thread that others are reading and I want to give encouragement that it is possible and worthwhile to pursue this as a goal.
Quite frankly I see enmeshment all the time in all sorts of low stress situations. People are always saying in every day conversations "he makes me feel", "she didn't MAKE me happy", "my kids makes me so frustrated", "they didn't respond to me the way I want them to", "my friend has a new friend so she must not like me as much", " the boss doesn't pay me enough" (have you asked for more money? "Of course not! But they KNOW they don't pay me enough"), "that person in the hallway didn't say hi so they must be mad at me", using "I have to" statements all the time as if they have no control over their lives, ETC. I see is so often in just simple every day life. People who cede control of their feelings to EVERYONE else around them. Am I the only one that notices how many people to this????
Fearless - Do you mean that it is impossible to give to another person without any expectation FROM ANOTHER PERSON?
Cobra - For a certain period of time (that varies from person to person and situation to situation) I think it is easy to give without expecting something in return, especially when it concerns kids.
So it IS possible?? At first you said it wasn't possible at all but now it is for at least a "certain" amount of time??? Seriously.
But kids must be excluded from a discussion of intimate relationships. So in a marriage, if one person feels s/he is doing all the giving and getting nothing back in return. It is guaranteed that there will be a rise in resentment and anger. If you don't believe this, then ask everyone of this board.
Yeah I know and that's what I am trying to help. To break that paradigm of giving in order to receive ESPECIALLY when it's a covert contract on top of all of it. Try to give because that's "WHO YOU ARE." Give authentically and then you won't be so tied to the outcome.
I do not have any obligation to help her need for her excess talk. She can go to her girl friends for that.
What would you think if she went to a male colleague for her need for extra talk? What if she has a need to have a male figure listen to her and respect her? Why SHOULDN'T you be that male figure??
On your first post on this thread yesterday morning you stated:
"It comforts me to know that she has a need for me and that I can provide for that need (a la Dieda)."
and now last night you post:
"No, that is not what I said. I do not want to provide for her need. I want to provide for HER. I want her to in turn appreciate my providing for HER. I want to be appreciated as the provider, the "knight in shining armor." I want her appreciation of me to be as the princess. Her needs may be completely different."
I just want you to be aware that you reversed your original statement which leaves me a bit confused. Which do you actually MEAN?? Do you want to provide for HER need or to you want her to appreciate whatever you decide to provide for her? I do listen to her about her work. I prefer not to, but I do.
My guess is that she is VERY aware that you prefer not to listen to her. The sentiment among men here is that they recognize if their wives are just "putting up" with sex and it is VERY disturbing to them. Why wouldn't your wife feel the same way about your lack of interest in what is important in your life? When you judge her interests and way of talking as harshly as you do, I imagine that she would feel that you see HER as annoying and unimportant and might not recognize that it's what she is talking about that annoys you.
Fearless - So it appears to me that you have a need to be needed in a way that you choose??
Cobra - What's wrong with that? It is my need, something I decide I want. Why would I want to be needed in a way I don't choose?
I am NOT saying there is anything "wrong" with that. I am just saying that recognizing that your wife may need you in ways that you find absurd, annoying, frustrating, pointless (she can go to her girlfriends for this), etc. could help you be the "knight in shining armor" to her. Is it more important for you to do whatever SHE NEEDS you to do to be a knight in shining armor to her or more important for you to do what YOU WANT to do for her??
For an analogy you seem like the prince who wants to slay the dragon to win the princess. So when you are asked to do something else for the princess, you argue and argue that you want to slay the dragon instead of doing what is required. Maybe there isn't even a dragon to slay... Yeah I know but that's the only thing you KNOW how to do. Those other tasks they are asking of you are beyond your area of expertise. It would be so much more convenient for them to ask of you what you know you can provide.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
It seems to me that your disbelief in differentiation is a religious disbelief. It appears that you don't believe in differentiation because you haven't seen it, differentiation can't be sustained and everyone MUST become enmeshed when in stress.
I guess you’re right. It’s the Order of the Human Emotion, which says that people are people and will react like people.
But if those are your reasons, those are not arguments but rather circular reasoning.
No, those are my experiences, based on my empirical evidence.
Then again I understand that some people don't want to lose weight, don't want to exercise, don't want to eat healthy, don't want to stop watching TV, don't want to be happier, etc.
Do you really? Tell why you think this is?
YES I most certainly had HIGH STRESS and I DID react. But my reaction was NOT to enmesh/fuse with my XH. But how can that be?
It might be because of two things…. One is that it was your mother who was dying, but it was your xH with whom you are talking about fusion. There was no need to react toward your xH because he was not dying and he was validating what you were feeling about your mom.
I suppose I should have preface my comments to say that fusion comes with high enough heat in the absence of validation. You had a support system that was working. So you got through it.
But what if during your mom’s problems, and your going to school, that you had a car accident like Corri, called you H in the middle of the night to tell him you were fine and he said OK, but then why are you waking me, I have an early appointment in the morning. On top of all this, say you have a history with your H where he does not validate you at all. Say everytime you called him about your mother, he would instead dump his problems on you? How would Fearless feel then?
My premise that it only takes sufficient heat to cause fusion to occur also requires that you keep the idea Harley’s love bank in mind. If the credit balance is high, it might take you a long time of enduring your xH’s self-entered ways (in my example above) before the love bank goes into negative territory and your resentment starts to rise. If the starting balance is already low, it may not take too long to reach the same point. So it differs from situation to situation.
What I did do was talk to my XH and stay connected with him. But the fact is he was in Law School and he needed to stay on track with his classes. I needed him to take care of himself MORE than I needed him to take care of me. Just being there to talk to WAS enough.
But what if it wasn’t? What does it take to make Fearless angry, to become resentful? Have you ever had to deal with this? Have you ever had deal with the sh*t hitting the fan without a support system behind you, or worse, a negative system that invalidates you? Or do you put in so much effort to be sure everyone around you understands you and is therefore at the ready to validate you when needed? Do you go to lengths to preempt any possible future invalidation by relentlessly trying to smooth things over and keep the peace? That might be a good strategy for you, since it seems to have worked in the past, but if I were your H, I think constantly having to validate you and make sure you are comfortable would take a lot out of me. I think you would start to come over as very needy.
I know you are resistant to the idea of differentiation but this is a thread that others are reading and I want to give encouragement that it is possible and worthwhile to pursue this as a goal.
I agree that differentiation is an excellent goal and it is possible to achieve this at times.
[/b]Quite frankly I see enmeshment all the time in all sorts of low stress situations….[/b]
Yes, what you describe in your everyday conversations is reality, that is real life. Wasn’t that part of my point?
What would you think if she went to a male colleague for her need for extra talk? What if she has a need to have a male figure listen to her and respect her? Why SHOULDN'T you be that male figure??
I would tell her to go find a female friend to talk to. She likes to talk. It doesn’t have to be a male.
"It comforts me to know that she has a need for me and that I can provide for that need (a la Dieda)."
OK, I see where I confused you and this comment is not clear. To really understand what I am trying to say you need to read Dieda (have you done that?) His premise, that I agree with, is that the man’s purpose is to pursue his main objective and then to share the gifts of his success with his woman. Sharing gives her comfort and security, but the act of giving and sharing with her becomes his inspiration, actually, she is the inspiration.
So what I mean is that I want to share with my W, which does met whatever needs she might have, but I do so for her, not for some specific need.
My guess is that she is VERY aware that you prefer not to listen to her. The sentiment among men here is that they recognize if their wives are just "putting up" with sex and it is VERY disturbing to them. Why wouldn't your wife feel the same way about your lack of interest in what is important in your life? When you judge her interests and way of talking as harshly as you do, I imagine that she would feel that you see HER as annoying and unimportant and might not recognize that it's what she is talking about that annoys you.
I know this is hard for you to understand, so maybe Dieda will explain it best. What I get from your overall tone is that you feel men should really pay full attention to their wives, to keep them happy and content in exchange for engaged sex and EC and to keep resentment down and the bonding levels high. The logic of that makes complete sense. The reality is that it just doesn’t quite work that way. Which is what I guess I am driving at in my overall tone.
Both Laura Schlessinger and Dieda say the same basic thing in this regard… the man needs to listen to and validate his woman, but only to a point. Give her enough to keep her happy (how happy is not defined) but not so much that the man becomes a servant to satisfying the woman (which won’t ever happen anyway) and then builds up his own resentment.
What I keep getting from you is that peace and harmony is the overriding objective (or maybe it’s part of the means to achieve full differentiation?) so each partner should focus on giving to keep this peace. But then, isn’t this really just another covert form of enmeshment, trying to keep everyone happy on a daily basis so that people can be differentiated when stress hits? Is this really serving the ideal of differentiation or indirectly avoiding potential confrontation and disagreement (which is what you seem to want to avoid)?
I am just saying that recognizing that your wife may need you in ways that you find absurd, annoying, frustrating, pointless (she can go to her girlfriends for this), etc. could help you be the "knight in shining armor" to her. Is it more important for you to do whatever SHE NEEDS you to do to be a knight in shining armor to her or more important for you to do what YOU WANT to do for her??
That is the dilemma right? Balancing what I want versus what she wants. There is no right answer. It depends on me and her. There is nothing wrong in me putting first what I want to do for her. Then I am being honest. She can propose what she wants me to do, so she will be honest. How we work out the compromise is the art of marriage, right?
So when you are asked to do something else for the princess, you argue and argue that you want to slay the dragon instead of doing what is required. Maybe there isn't even a dragon to slay... Yeah I know but that's the only thing you KNOW how to do. Those other tasks they are asking of you are beyond your area of expertise. It would be so much more convenient for them to ask of you what you know you can provide.
You are correct in this analogy…. but, if the woman does not want to take the gifts that I want to provide, she needs to find another provider and I need to find another woman.
Go read Dieda. The worst thing a man can do is to compromise himself, his purpose, his values, in order to please a woman. The man and his objectives come first. Then woman comes second, but in this way, the man can give the woman the maximum of what she really wants. Putting the woman first and the man’s objective second will actually diminish returns for the woman and make her unhappy.
IMO, you are still espousing a very feminist mantra, one in which you think men need to be in touch with a woman’s emotions, that the men should be focused on the woman’s feelings for in that way conflict can be minimized and both will feel validated, secure and able to stand in a differentiated mode. But you model is not the kind of man I want to be or the kind of man I think anyone should be. I feel that a part of your "message" has a subtle emasculation of men that sort of turns me off the more I think of it. Sorry, that’s just how I feel. I'm also beginning to develop suspicions why your H left you.
Can you find anywhere where he says this and show me? I don't believe I've heard him say this anywhere, although I haven't read or heard everything he has said by a long shot.
I haven't forgotten your question. I posted on this thread the following ideas from Dieda:
1. The man’s primary purpose is pursuit of his main objective, be that career, a hobby, the arts, whatever. 2. The woman is the inspiration for the man’s primary purpose. 3. The man’s responsibility is to share gifts with his woman that he achieves through pursuit of his primary purpose. 4. The woman’s primary purpose is the relationship.
These are my summaries from his book, though he goes over a lot more than this. He does not explicitly state these things. You have to pull the meaning out of his sometimes flowery writing.
I did look through the book last night, trying to find specific pages to support those items 1-4. For item 1) I found Chapter 7, p 27: "Your mission is your priority. Unless you know your mission and have aligned your life to it, your core will feel empty. Your presence in the world will be weakened, as will your presence with your intimate partner."
I will try to look some more to cite where I get items 2-4.
Do you mean that it is impossible to give to another person without any expectation FROM ANOTHER PERSON? When I choose to give I give from my heart and release others from expectations. It is extremely freeing and satisfying to do. 
)