Cobra I think you should re-read Dedia without your " Protestant work ethic mind " the four points that you take away from Deida are not what I took away in the least.
1. The man’s primary purpose is pursuit of his main objective, be that career, a hobby, the arts, whatever.
I don't recall a mans main objective mentioned just that he must be aligned with his purpose and the purpose is beyond the relationship.
2. The woman is the inspiration for the man’s primary purpose.
If a man purpose was truly to come first why would he need this inspiration from the female.
3. The man’s responsibility is to share gifts with his woman that he achieves through pursuit of his primary purpose.
His responsibility is to gift her not with presents but with presence.
4. The woman’s primary purpose is the relationship.
I can see how your POV would lead you to see this, I think it would be more along the lines of surrendering into the fullness of love.
I really think that you have your own glasses on when you read Deida. Take a look at some of the videos that are online of him speaking see if you can catch the kind of tone he speaks with and what he is concerned with.
You can amend your post to correct typos, or to add additional comments. ETA - Edited to Add
As for Dieda, that list is for men ONLY. On page 27 he says "Admit to yourself that if you had to chose one or the other, the perfect intimate relationship or achieving your highest purpose in life, you would chose to succeed at your purpose." Now he also says that for some men their primary purpose is their W or family. But whatever the purpose is, that is the man's main objective.
Obviously that is not your objective, is it? So those 4 points have nothing to do with you. You main objective is your relationship and family. Your career or his career is secondary. So you will not have the same priorities because you are not trying to accomplish the same thing.
Embedded in my 4 summary points is the heart of all this, the reason for a man's primary purpose, which is to share his fullest gifts with his woman. He cannot do that if he is not content with his job, if he is directionless in life, if he does not know what he wants. Any man in this situation will end up depressed, no matter how loving or devoted a W he has. Only when he is fulfilling his purpose can he feel like a full, complete and empowered man and share his gifts with his woman.
So in this way the woman IS the reason for everything. She is the inspiration. But he can only do for her by not being distracted from providing for her. Does that make sense and does it make you fell better?
(Cobra) 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.
Not "The man and his objectives come first. Then woman comes second...". Deida says a man's purpose always comes first. He doesn't say the man's wants and desires come next and then his woman, which that part of your statement implies. Deida also says you don't leave your woman to deal with her emotional issues alone. He says if you do that, what does she need you for?
Deida has no problem with a man's attending to a woman's wants or needs *UNLESS* that interferes with his purpose. If listening to your wife talk for more than half an hour is interfering with your purpose, then Deida would agree that you oughtn't do that. If it's just interfering with something else you'd rather be doing, though, Deida isn't offering you any support.
(Kett) Cobra, seriously .... how can you propose the model that a man's primary purpose should be making his mark on the world by whatever means suit him best while a woman's primary purpose should be supporting and encouraging him in that endeavor with focus on their relationship...
Deida doesn't propose what a man's primary purpose *should* be or what a woman's primary purpose *should* be. Deida describes what he sees. He speaks in terms of masculine polarity, feminine polarityand netrual polarity. To make his writing easier to read he generally refers to a person with "masculine polarity" as a man and a person with "feminine polarity" as a woman though he caveats that up front by saying that a man can have feminine polarity, a woman can have masculine polarity, and either can have neutral polarity.
He doesn't necessarily say that a woman's primary purpose should be her relationship. He says that within the relationship, the woman (or the one with feminine polarity) needs to be the primary caretaker of the relationship. Otherwise the polarity shifts to being more neutral and the sexual tension diminishes.
I've yet to come across a woman who really took umbrage with Deida's views (as espoused in The Way of the Superior Man). If you're interested, you'd be best served by reading or skimming it yourself. If you take your understanding of Deida via Cobra's interpretation, you deserve what you get.
(Cobra) I'm also beginning to develop suspicions why your H left you.
I'm beginning to develop suspicions why your wife has been reluctant to have sex with you.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
I don't disagree with what you're saying because Dieda goes into a lot of why the man should share his strength, his understanding, calmness, etc. He also talks about a man's fullest gift as the man giving himself fully in making love to his woman. So "gift" seems to be a broad term that he uses.
You may be speaking toward a higher level of relationship than what I am focusing on. My points are what I see as the very basic fundamental rules men need to understand to lay a strong foundation on which to build and sustain an emotional relationship. I agree the spiritual aspects are a part of Dieda's philosophy.
Goodness I hate to do this to y'all but again this is another long post!! I have some quotes directly from Deida in the middle if you want to skip down! I couldn't find any quotes that said a woman's purpose is the relationship but I didn't reread the whole book either.
Fearless - 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.
Cobra - Do you really? Tell why you think this is?
I think people are scared of the work it will require. They are afraid they will not be able to do it and then they will feel even worse about themselves. Usually the bad habit is a coping mechanism for other issues in their lives so they would have to face their issues without their coping mechanism. It is very difficult to give up a coping mechanism. I have great empathy for people that are stuck in that situation.
First you said yesterday: 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.
Just turn up the heat enough and you can get almost anyone to fuse.
Then you retracted this morning and said this:
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.
So which is it? Are you now agreeing with me that it is possible to NOT fuse in intimate relationships?
Are you saying that maybe I am differentiated because I had a good support system? Then I will agree. I have wondered if my differentiation comes more from having parents and family that I have always felt are there for me. Of course they have not always agreed with me or validated me but they do always love me. And of that fact I acknowledge I am supremely fortunate.
Again I did NOT receive constant VALIDATION from my family. I received constant ACCEPTANCE. A significant difference, I think.
Also I believe that my differentiation is why I chose a man as a partner, who although he had/has his own issues, was not an uncaring selfish b@stard. If he had been a prick to me, then we would have broken up and certainly never married.
But what if it wasn't?
It was. So what is the real question? If you are asking if it is incredibly difficult for someone who has not received acceptance in life to learn to accept themselves for whom they are, I will ABSOLUTELY agree with you that it must be difficult. Again though, being difficult is not the same as being impossible. What does it take to make Fearless angry, to become resentful?
I work very hard at not being resentful. Being resentful occurs when I am not true to myself. I do not like the feeling of resentment so I prevent it by acting authentically. An example of when I notice I feel resentful? Usually when I have done something inauthentic and when I get the feeling of resentment it is usually clear to see where I made a mistake. 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?
No I have not HAD to deal with sh!t alone (although I have chosen to do so occasionally). Again I am very grateful for this fact. Now I did handle my first separation COMPLETELY on my own but that was my choice. If I had needed, my family and friends would have been there for me of that I am certain.
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?
?? I do not look for others to validate me. I am actually very open to having disagreements. Rather I would state it as I put so much effort into validating myself so that I do not require others to validate me. Do you go to lengths to preempt any possible future invalidation by relentlessly trying to smooth things over and keep the peace?
Nope.
Fearless -]Quite frankly I see enmeshment all the time in all sorts of low stress situations...
Cobra - Yes, what you describe in your everyday conversations is reality, that is real life. Wasn’t that part of my point?[/b]
I am not sure what you mean. MY POINT was that even in every day conversation and in minor relationships so many people give way too much control of their feelings to others. If they do this in every day life, I can imagine what they do when high stress situations arise and especially when they arise in an intimate relationship. While I understand that an intimate relationship ups the intensity of the feeling of fusion, I still see fusion happening at lower levels with those same type of people.
It might seem insignificant but there is huge POWER in stating "I feel upset when people cut in front of me" versus "people make me so upset by cutting in from of me." The first statement is me owning my feelings and the second is me being a victim to others actions. To really understand what I am trying to say you need to read Dieda (have you done that?)
I have read Deida and I like his message to men. His message is for men to take care of themselves and not to look for their women to build them up. I fail to see how anything I have said is at odds with Deida's message. I have his book right in front of me.
Some of my favorite quotes:
Page 1) "He (the superior man) simply lives from his deepest core, fearlessly giving his gifts, feeling through the fleeting moment into the openness of existence, totally committed to magnifying love."
Page 51) "The most erotic moment for a woman is feeling you (the superior man) are Shiva, the divine masculine: unperturbable, totally loving, fully present and all-pervading. She cannot move you because you already are what you are, with or without you." Page 52) "She is challenging you because your success doesn't mean sh!t to her, unless you are free and loving. And if you are free and loving, nothing she can do can collapse you. She wants to feel you are uncollapsable, so she pokes you in your weak spot."
Page 61) "The masculine grows by challenge, but the feminine grows by praise."
Page 62 )"It is a difficult practice for most men to learn, but you must learn to praise the very qualities you feel are not yet praiseworthy in order for them (women) to become so... Praise works. Information doesn't. Praise motivates. Challenge doesn't. Try it. Praise specific things you love about your woman 5 to 10 times today. Find out what happens."
Page 63) "A man gets resentful and frustrated with his woman when he is too afraid, weak or unskilled to penetrate her moods and tests into love. He wishes she was easier to deal with. But it is not entirely her fault that she is b!tchy and complaining. It is also a reflection of her lack of being penetrated by love."
Page 64 "One of the largest gifts you can give your woman is your capacity to open her heart when it is closed."
Page 67 "The amazing thing is this: 90% of a woman's emotional problems stem from feeling unloved." "More often your analysis and attempts to fix her will just piss her off more... It's so easy to give her love; it's what both of you want anyway. But as a man you are more likely to try to fix her. That's not what she wants, and exactly what will make the situation worse, most of the time." 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.
I am not so sure that I do not understand it. I have never said it is up to a man to make his wife happy any more than I think it is up to a woman to make her husband happy. I was just challenging you to look at your wife from another angle. It seems clear that YOU do not like challenge. I really did not mean to insult you. 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.
Wow, then I am being completely UNCLEAR. Peace and harmony are NOT my overriding objectives. They were my XH’s but not mine. Because a family member, spouse, close friend, work colleague, etc. does not agree with me DOES NOT mean that they do not value me. I do make it a point to surround myself with people that value me but by the same token I want people around me that will help me grow and improve and that means I need people that will call me on my sh!t. Is this really serving the ideal of differentiation or indirectly avoiding potential confrontation and disagreement (which is what you seem to want to avoid)?
Okay I had to laugh!! If I wanted to avoid confrontation and disagreement, then why in the WORLD would I be "talking" to you??!! 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.
Yes a man's purpose should stay number one. How does listening to your wife's problems put your purpose second and how does listening to her problems compromise you? Seriously again. The way I understood it is that listening to your wife annoyed and frustrated you. You did not say that listening to her distracted from your life's purpose.
I absolutely agree with the idea of staying true to your purpose. There is nothing sexier than knowing that your man is already fulfilled as a man and his interest in you is not to build up his masculinity because he already has it on his own.
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.
Not sure where you get this. I have not stated that at all.
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.
Here's what my XH wrote to me last week on what would have been our 11th anniversary. Does it confirm why you suspect he left me? So you know. Yes, I really did love you. I feel we had a good marriage until I screwed everything up. We had some amazing times and our every day life was pretty darn good. I was lucky to have you. But, I lost track of that because of all of my unresolved issues.
It was a good day today 11 years ago!
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Clearly, I need to read this book myself. Because you're 100% right, whoever gets overly irritated by isolated quotes taken out of context deserves what she gets.
I assume that it's ok for my superior husband to ditch an important business meeting if I get run over by a car ....
(that's just me being difficult; I'm sure Deida isn't implying otherwise.....)
Interesting point on his use of "men" and "women" to represent "masculine" and "feminine" polarities ....
I do agree with this: there is nothing more sexy than a man who knows what he is and what he wants and doesn't have to be constantly hand-held and propped up.
Of course, I would say the same of women ....
FWIW, Cobra, I am totally so not a proponent of the "entitled princess/men are pigs/validate me, validate me" school of femininity. Guess I just don't know too many (although I'll admit to knowing some) women who fit into that box.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
I assume that it's ok for my superior husband to ditch an important business meeting if I get run over by a car ....
Ah... I see where you may have got put off...
The Superior Man is a reference to internal quality... swap out the word 'superior' for 'good' or 'so-so'... see what I mean?
In nothing I've read of his does he ever imply that men are superior to women. I really liked the book, for what it's worth. I don't agree with Cobra's distilled version of Deida's main points... but then again, I don't think he was attempting to re-write the book... so yeah, lots of meaning gets lost.
Dieda seems to be doing much more than simply stating what he sees. He is definitely laying a groundwork for how a man can be most successful in his R. Let me quote again from page 27: "Admit to yourself that if you had to chose one or the other, the perfect intimate relationship or achieving your highest purpose in life, you would chose to succeed at your purpose." As I interpret this, he recommends that the man focus on his objective and give that all his effort in order to then gift the woman and be able to fully devote himself to pleasing her.
For myself and most of the other men on this board working to repair our marriages, what I think is needed is a specific list of things to do. It doesn’t do much good to advise someone to go maximize his male polarity. How do you do that? I also don’t see the point in emphasizing that a man communicate with his woman since that is what we are trying to do in the first place.
Tell someone to GAL, go dark, secure the finances, contact a lawyer, find his purpose and devote himself to that area all concrete specific actions that a man can do.
Deida also says you don't leave your woman to deal with her emotional issues alone. He says if you do that, what does she need you for?
Agreed, but I wasn’t even going into that area. IMO, those are secondary issues. A woman will not respect you, your advice, or your efforts to deal with her emotional issues if she cannot trust you or feel that you are strong in your purpose.
If it's just interfering with something else you'd rather be doing, though, Deida isn't offering you any support.
Dieda also says not to indulge your woman because that will build resentment in you and she will feel it. If being true to myself means that I will listen some to my wife about her work issues (which I do) but do not want to talk about them for hours, then I need to be true to that.
He says that within the relationship, the woman (or the one with feminine polarity) needs to be the primary caretaker of the relationship. Otherwise the polarity shifts to being more neutral and the sexual tension diminishes.
He says this, but he says a lot more too. Concerning family and children, he says to focus on the purpose, that the children will gain more from a father who spends less time with the kids but is fully committed to the purpose that with a father who spends a lot of time with the kids but has no purpose. He talks about the respect the kids and the wife have for such a man. Polarity is his way of explaining why this seemingly avoidant action in the man is actually comforting and attractive to the woman.
If you take your understanding of Deida via Cobra's interpretation, you deserve what you get.
Funny. It seems to me you missed some of his core message.
I'm beginning to develop suspicions why your wife has been reluctant to have sex with you.
The message from your H is very much in line with what I was thinking. What I was going to guess is that he left you because you are much more highly differentiated than him.
So which is it? Are you now agreeing with me that it is possible to NOT fuse in intimate relationships?
Based on what you say of your support network, I stand by my thoughts. What I hear you saying is that you have not become fused because you surround yourself with healthy people who also provide good support for you. You’ve had this all your life, so I consider you very lucky. I can see how you may have had differentiation modeled for you and I can even see how fusion may have been a foreign concept to you at one time.
But I am still not convinced that if a person has such a support network, s/he is truly differentiated. I think such a person may be sheltered, though not necessarily. So if this is the case, then has such a person ever really confronted with the threat of fusion?
Again I did NOT receive constant VALIDATION from my family. I received constant ACCEPTANCE. A significant difference, I think.
I agree there’s a difference, but I don’t know how significant. For someone who gets neither, either one can be a Godsend.
It was. So what is the real question? If you are asking if it is incredibly difficult for someone who has not received acceptance in life to learn to accept themselves for whom they are, I will ABSOLUTELY agree with you that it must be difficult. Again though, being difficult is not the same as being impossible.
The italicized part sounds a lot like your statement about losing weight, exercising, etc.
I think people are scared of the work it will require. They are afraid they will not be able to do it and then they will feel even worse about themselves. Usually the bad habit is a coping mechanism for other issues in their lives so they would have to face their issues without their coping mechanism. It is very difficult to give up a coping mechanism.
There is something in this and the italics above that bothers me. This answer seems too contrite, too insensitive, too superficial. I can also see how you would see it that way front the vantage point of having a full support network behind you. But IMO, you are an exception. Most of the people on this board, and just about everyone I can think of who I know intimately enough, do not have such a network. Your statement does not pick up the hopelessness, the despair, the depression that accompanies these “coping mechanisms.” There is so much more involved in gaining excess weight, not being motivated to exercise, etc.
I work very hard at not being resentful. Being resentful occurs when I am not true to myself. I do not like the feeling of resentment so I prevent it by acting authentically.
This statement reminds me a lot of the Japanese mindset and the overriding social values all of that society adheres to. I am not condemning it. I admire it greatly, but there are negatives, and the shame based control of that society is one of the negatives. But asked them why they act as they do and you get an answer similar to yours.
No I have not HAD to deal with sh!t alone (although I have chosen to do so occasionally). Again I am very grateful for this fact. Now I did handle my first separation COMPLETELY on my own but that was my choice. If I had needed, my family and friends would have been there for me of that I am certain.
Which is sort of my point. With such a network, there is no stress. You have family to fall back on. When I was younger and moving between jobs, I did not stress over it. I could move back in with my parents for a while until something turned up. My wife did not have such a luxury. By that age, she did not have either parent. Not working was a lot more serious issue for her, a cause for anxiety, even panic. Your example is not even in the ballpark.
I do not look for others to validate me. I am actually very open to having disagreements. Rather I would state it as I put so much effort into validating myself so that I do not require others to validate me.
Why would you need to worry about validation? You have a supporting and accepting network. When would your need for survival ever be called into question?
Do you go to lengths to preempt any possible future invalidation by relentlessly trying to smooth things over and keep the peace?
Nope.
I can see why you wouldn’t. Again, you’re lucky to not have to.
It might seem insignificant but there is huge POWER in stating "I feel upset when people cut in front of me" versus "people make me so upset by cutting in from of me." The first statement is me owning my feelings and the second is me being a victim to others actions.
You’re right. It seems insignificant, especially when compared to deciding which of the following should be used: “I am angry at that guy for firing me so I don’t have money to eat” versus “I feel angry that I did something wrong to get fired and now I don’t have enough money to eat.” At this point, who gives a flip which is more empowering.
Wow, then I am being completely UNCLEAR. Peace and harmony are NOT my overriding objectives. They were my XH’s but not mine. Because a family member, spouse, close friend, work colleague, etc. does not agree with me DOES NOT mean that they do not value me.
Yes… I understand now that you have this security, but did your H understand this too?
Okay I had to laugh!! If I wanted to avoid confrontation and disagreement, then why in the WORLD would I be "talking" to you??!!
Not considering you talking to me here, I have seen you do a lot of peace making or referee type posts between two dueling posters. This is where I get the idea that you want to avoid confrontation and disagreement, or maybe it is hard feelings.
Yes a man's purpose should stay number one. How does listening to your wife's problems put your purpose second and how does listening to her problems compromise you? Seriously again. The way I understood it is that listening to your wife annoyed and frustrated you. You did not say that listening to her distracted from your life's purpose.
It doesn’t distract from my purpose (unless I happen to be working on something). Go back to Dieda for a second… On page 93 he states “Because you expect your intimate relationship to serve so many purposes, it begins to veer toward the utilitarian. By constantly talking about finances, work, household, and children, you turn your woman into a neutral companion.”
Also, let me pull up Mojo’s post on the previous page of this thread: “Also, I find that I almost reflexively reject men whose primary purpose doesn't interest me. For instance, I can't date a man who is a hockey coach because I know the relationship wouldn't work because I would be like "How did the game go, honey? Did you team score any touchdowns? (yawn)"
Both these statements support the idea that a man should not bore his woman with mundane matters that bore her. I believe the reverse is true as well, yet here I have several women (even a guy) saying that this rule does not apply to men? Now ask yourself, what has Mojo’s comment not drawn any criticism?
I talk to my wife about her job related topics, about the kids, etc (like I haven’t said this for the 10th time!), but too much bores me. What’s wrong with that? Corri mentioned on mythread that my W and I should talk a walk, go to dinner and talk about us. Now that is a conversation that I could actually enjoy for a period of time. I would also like to talk about the financial markets, the economy, world events, philosophy. But I only want to hear so much about her work. Its just not my cup of tea. Can you get that?
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.
???????????????
The reason I said this was you insistence that I should cater to my wife’s needs, put first in my mind her emotional state, be sure I am the sensitive caring guy a woman should have by talking to her as much as she needs, etc. That is not me. I can do some of that, and I do. But I don’t focus myself on catering to or indulging my wife.
