I agree that everyone should focus on their needs first, it is necessary before one can address another’s needs. I can understand the situation of LD women who are trying address their marriage problems, but I cannot understand those who do not, like OG_Lou’s W. I think Schlessinger has a very good point that applies to women as well as men - self centeredness will destroy a marriage. But I think counselors tend to focus on raising the verbal communication level of men more than working on women understanding the “action based” communication of men.
And I think it is socially induced. Fathers are as guilty of this as mothers. Little girls have more a propensity to express themselves than boys, and parents encourage this. Efforts are made to address the hurts that girls feel. When this gets out of hand, you have the “princess” syndrome where girls feel they are entitled have their hurts soothed. As adults, if the man does not do so, the woman starts her manipulative games. Chome’s wife is doing this very thing – withdrawing, shutting down, making HIM feel guilty. My wife does the same thing too, as has every girl that I ever dated. My middle daughter does this a lot too. This does not mean many of their feelings are invalid, but many of them ARE self centered.
And I wonder why this is? I think there is a natural tendency in people to be “lazy,” or at least take the easier way out. It is our morals and values, desires to have a certain lifestyle, our desire for better things for our kids that make us adopt our own self discipline to overcome this natural tendency, as well as struggle to become selfless. (I can’t help but have a certain envy for those who can throw everything away and go live a survival existence in some tropical paradise. In then end, could they be happier than I?)
So I believe many dysfunctional people in relationships will not change until they have to. And this is the caveat to Schlessinger’s book. While people should do the right thing, what will make them do so if they don’t have the self discipline to do so themselves? You cannot force someone to do something, but you don’t have to tolerate their inaction either.
This is the clear message I got from NOPkins – push things off center to destabilize the current situation that is comfortable to the dysfunctional spouse. The risk is that they may not like it and will leave. The flip-side of that risk is by not doing anything, you will become resentful and eventually leave. In either case, the marriage is doomed.
But once you can accept this truth and prepare for the worst (detaching), fear of this outcome then shifts to the spouse and they must do something to find a new state of equilibrium. Boundaries are meant to prevent the move back to the previous dysfunctional equilibrium. I do not think that just doing everything right is enough to push a dysfunctional equilibrium off balance. Sometimes I think drastic measures are needed to make this push. That usually comes in the form of the “bomb” or serving of divorce papers. GEL dropped her form of the bomb the other day. I ended up doing so too.
And while one spouse wants to change this equilibrium, the other does not want to because the current state works in his/her favor. They enjoy the balance of power and want to keep it. I think men generally are reluctant to change because they may have things the way they want (let the wife worry about the kids, take care of the shopping, house cleaning, etc.), except for enough sex. But for those husbands who have taken on their share of these duties, have their wives reciprocated? How many wives do the yard work, car maintenance, home repairs, etc?
So why shouldn’t men stand up for equal treatment? Corri, yes, men would love to be treated the way Schlessinger proposes, but so do women, and I actually believe more women are treated this way than men. Lou, I personally think you really see your situation as a glass half empty, while trying to justify to yourself that you see it half full.
Very insightful post Cobra. The equilibrium of the R/M NEEDS to be disrupted in order to see REAL change. In my case, separation. It doesn't mean things are magically fixed now that we are back together, but the status quo is no longer acceptable. We see the M thru new eyes. We have weathered a terrible storm and can now see some light. It's not where I'd like it to be but I wouldn't take any of it back if I could. I no longer live in FEAR of the M not working out. I think many people do that very easily. They say they are not happy and yet fear prevents them from REALLY doing anything about it other than talking smack and letting the resentment build. It's sad. It's also not effective. I'm glad you are making some progress in your M Cobra. Good to hear.
Quote: Corri, yes, men would love to be treated the way Schlessinger proposes, but so do women, and I actually believe more women are treated this way than men.
I never said that men should not stand up for equal treatment in a relationship. My point was EVERYONE, men and women, would like to be treated the way Schlessinger proposes... "give me what I want and of COURSE I'll be happy."
She makes some good points, and I won't take that from her. But, like Chrome, I see the book as a way oversimplification in order to hit the widest possible audience... which in the end makes it pretty useless.
Quote: "give me what I want and of COURSE I'll be happy."
Corri, I think that's an unfair characterization of her premise. I think it's more "Women, if you will make an honest effort to try to meet your husband's (very simple) male needs, I think you will be amazed at how suddenly (and ethusiastically) you won't have to nag him to start meeting more of yours."
Sorry, I completely disagree with you on this. To me the book is a breath of fresh air, in complete opposition to everything else I have read so far. So many of the self help books are written to change the man to become more expressive emotionally, to recognize the woman’s need for emotional connection, to realize that the man really wants this connection too, that sex is secondary (or maybe even in third or fourth place) and that women’s value system is the ideal.
Let me make a more extreme example. I would like my wife to have breast implants. It is something I, as a male, would like. The very fact that I would mention something like this is likely to trigger all kinds of attacks from women that I am objectifying my wife, I do not care for her a person, that I only want her for sex, blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is that I would like her to have bigger, firmer boobs rather than smaller sagging boobs. And I can want this in her and still care about her as a person, even if I want to objectify her boobs.
But this is heresy in the feminist circle. Men are made to feel guilty about thinking such thoughts. I see not reason why we shouldn’t. If I am willing to accept my wife as she is, and do not think less of her if she doesn’t get a boob job, then I should have no hesitancy in stating what I like. But I can’t. Just like I can’t tell her she looks fat on that pair of pants (no I don’t stuff a Twix bar in my face).
This book is important for me because it made me realize that I have nothing to apologize for as far as being a man and that women have been very successful in training us men to watch our words out of concern for their feelings. If women truly want to understand what men want and how to do their share in a relationship, they would be well served to follow the advice Schlessinger is giving. By the way, the ebook that Blackfoot mentioned some time ago, “The Women Men adore, And Never Want to Leave” says the same basic stuff.
This place is like a soap opera, go away for awhile and you can catch right up in no time! Have the kids aged rapidly? HP, how old are your children now...18?
My take on this kind of book "Men simple. Women meet needs and have no problems" is that it doesn't really make me very interested in men. I get bored. I think well what is the point? Why would I WANT to have such a person in my life? Fortunately, I'm lucky. I married a man who wants so much more and that keeps me interested in him AND in wanting him sexually.
So Cobra, (and probably Cemar too) if you ARE as Dr. Laura describes then I wouldn't be that interested in having you in my life and I wouldn't be that sexually attracted to you. Quite a Catch-22 for you.
Cobra, I actually have no problem with what you've been writing today. I see a lot of truth in it.
I do agree that the trend has been to try to bring men over to the feminine side of things, without the equality of encouraging the women to see the man's angle and respect his unique outlook on the world.
So you've got men who help out around the house, are sensitive and good listeners, nurture their children, but where are the women who still want to cook and clean and praise and..gasp...f*ck?
Turn your argument around on yourself and ask why a man would want to be with a woman who always needs to have her wants put first. Your position is just what I am talking about – the woman comes first, the man second. In your case it sounds like the man has an obligation to keep you entertained or you walk. Now what kind of relationship is that for a man? Sounds like a Catch 22 for you too.
