Why? Look, I can see why you like that book. It states everything you believe to be true. However, my H would probably be disgusted and annoyed to see that book in our house or that I was following her hypocritical advice. And no, I'm not going to get into a debate about Dr. Laura. I'm just not a fan.
Fair enough, and I didn't expect you to be a fan of hers. If you think her advice is hypocritical (though I don't know how you would know this if you haven't read her book) then there's not much left to talk about or try to explain.
Why would I read the book of a person that I don't respect? My hypocritical comment was from her radio talk show that I have listened to in the past. I have not read her books and no longer listen to the talk show.
And I agree, no need to explain anymore. We just see things differently.
I will admit some of this stuff gets slippery, and I see a different picture of Fearless the more she reveals of herself.
In my first paragraph, what I was trying to say is that her advice sounded like I should do more to listen to my W and therefore meet her needs. At the same time, remember that I had said before that my W would listen to me talk about some business matter for a few minutes, then say, “That’s enough, that’s too boring, I can’t handle any more.” The message I heard from Fearless was the feminist message, which is that the woman’s emotions are tantamount and if the man wants sex and intimacy, he better focus on her emotional state since she is the gatekeeper. Both Dieda and Schlessinger talk about the problems this mentality creates.
My second paragraph wasn’t meant to tie into the first because I am talking about Fearless’ xH. I had in mind that Fearless’ higher level of differentiation must have left her xH feeling needy or wanting something, which is part of why I suspect he left. I don’t see how that necessarily conflicts with her putting forth a feminist position (if that is what she was doing). I’m not sure why you would want to extract comments regarding her H from comments about my sitch. Maybe I don’t get your point.
Why would I read the book of a person that I don't respect?
I don't know about her talk show, as I've never heard it, but her book is not meant to see things from a woman's POV, but to explain the mans' POV. I can understand if you don't want to acknowledge the man's POV, and therefore cannot respect Dr. Laura, but I don't understand how that makes her hypocritical.
Ok Cobra, I'll bite. Although I'm too lazy to write this all out myself so I typed in Dr. Laura and Hypocrite into google and of course found plenty.
This sums it up nicely though:
Dr. Laura as Hypocrite Dr. Laura's pious brand of morality allows for no weaknesses, no dissension, and no slack. But does she measure up? Not according to her detractors. One of the criticisms most leveled against her is hypocrisy, and with good reason. Under the heading "Doctor, Heal Thyself: Hypocrisy in Lauraland," the Newsguy Web site lists the following tidbits:
Laura and the Sanctity of Marriage: Laura started dating her current husband, Lew Bishop, while he was still married to someone else and lived with him for nine years before they got married.10 Laura and Family Values: she has not spoken to her mother in 15 years and is estranged from her sister.11 She claims that women with young children should stay home rather than have a career, but she is on the radio five days week and recently began a television show, in spite of the fact that she has a teenage son at home. She will not discuss her past on her show, claiming that it is irrelevant now, but, as several critics have pointed out, she refuses to take responsibility for her "wild" past and angrily dismisses charges of hypocrisy. Schlessinger's brand of moralism apparently includes stretching the truth. In her book The Ten Commandments (ironically enough), she calls herself a "licensed psychotherapist."12 Her Ph.D., however is in physiology, not psychology. Though she does have an MFCC (a certificate in marriage, family, and child counseling), the State of California, where she resides, does not consider her a psychotherapist. In fact, it is illegal in California to call oneself a psychotherapist without a state license, which she does not have.13 No one could receive an MFCC without knowing about this requirement; it is common knowledge in the psychological community. Whatever one may think of the requirement for state licenses, her claim that she is a "licensed psychotherapist" is on shaky ethical ground.
Dr. Laura has avoided this criticism in recent times by steering away from calling what she does psychological advice. According to her Web site FAQ, her purpose is "to dispense morals, values, principles, and ethics," which is safer and much more subjective.
Both Dieda and Schlessinger talk about the problems this mentality creates.
Cobra,
Do you really see Deida and Schlessinger in agreement? I've only skimmed her book and listened to her rarely but I don't see her as having much in common with Deida.
I am thinking specifically of Deida's chapter 15 on a man coming home after making a MILLION dollars and having his wife's only comment being "That's nice. Did you pick up the milk like I asked?" Deida says that you should EXPECT AND WELCOME that attitude from your wife.
QUOTE - "Why is she being this way? Because she simply wants to deflate your success? NO. 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." and "It's a tall order to be this free, and in your more mediocre moments you will wish your woman would settle for less. But if you are a man living to his fullest, willing to play his edge and grow through difficulties, then you will want her to test you. You may not like it. But you don't want her to settle for some bozo who depends on his woman's response to be happy." (I added the bold.)
This just does NOT seem like it has anything to do with Dr. Laura??
Also you wrote to Burgbud: At the same time, remember that I had said before that my W would listen to me talk about some business matter for a few minutes, then say, "That's enough, that's too boring, I can't handle any more."
So she's a great Deida woman! She's challenging you, right? Why not accept the challenge?
Again the advice I have been and am giving about listening to your wife is DIRECTLY from Deida since he is talking to YOU (a man on his way to becoming a Superior man). I am not and have not asked you to listen to her as if you were her girlfriend. I ask you to listen to her as if you are her ROCK.
Last edited by fearless; 09/13/0703:10 PM.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Wow allot of traffic while I slept I have a couple of quick questions while I try to digest some of this.
Fearless given that Schnarch seems to think that fusion and enmeshment problems are a natural part of marriage do you think it's possible that you may be ignoring some of the ways that it could have manifested in your relationship?
Lust for life - You said "However, my H would probably be disgusted and annoyed to see that book in our house or that I was following her hypocritical advice." Would your husband really try to control what books you read? If this is a serious reason not to bring home a book I would be questioning how free and equal you actually are.
Cobra- I get confused with where you coming from sometimes and I think it revolves around your professed lack of love for your wife. I'll just paraphrase Deida where he says that the Feminine gets pissed when one does not feel loved, I just wonder how you would fit that into your thinking?
Fearless given that Schnarch seems to think that fusion and enmeshment problems are a natural part of marriage do you think it's possible that you may be ignoring some of the ways that it could have manifested in your relationship?
?? Fusion was definitely there because my XH was not differentiated. What is strange is that it was not apparent to either of us AND that he projected his fusion onto me. i.e. While in reality he looked to me to lead, he also hated himself for wanting me to lead and would then accuse me of expecting him to make all the decisions. Confusing? Imagine LIVING it. Lust for life - You said "However, my H would probably be disgusted and annoyed to see that book in our house or that I was following her hypocritical advice." Would your husband really try to control what books you read? If this is a serious reason not to bring home a book I would be questioning how free and equal you actually are.
I'm sure LFL will have her own take but I don't see her saying that her H control anything or would not allow the book in the house. She said he would express his feelings of disgust. What's wrong with that?
Oh and great question for Cobra:))
By the way, and I know y'all will be disappointed, I need to head for Ohio and will probably not post until tomorrow. I know. Just think of all the work you can get done if you don't have to waste time reading my posts and trying to understand every nuance of me. You are doing that, right?? I'm talking to you CAC4 (I so wish sarcasm translated to the written word better.)
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
(I so wish sarcasm translated to the written word better.)