"I too am in excellent physical condition. Who said I was bluffing?"
I am in sh!tty physical condition ... and I'm not bluffing. Too many nights with too little sleep ... i.e. I'm to tire to (a) go after that rebound (b) run that extra mile on the treadmill (c) do that last set of reps
"That is my take on it and I do not care to hear yours, or any else’s view on it."
Cobra, then why are you posting on a message board? And don't go translating into "I want you to stop posting" or anything silly like that.
"so I am not sure how much credit to give Michelle"
I'd say given the fact that no one has hauled Michelle into court in this overly litigious society on a copyright infringement says that her ideas have a fair amount of originality. And do you realize that you just insulted Michelle there, accusing her to some degree of plagiarism?
Just my two cents.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
On my view, the underlying problem is not feminism, but emotional enmeshment that one is unwilling to take responsibility for. Having a W that does not subordinate her wishes to yours is (1) no reason to meet all her wishes (2) no reason to disregard your own wishes or needs (3) no reason to sacrifice your own identity (4) no reasons to insist that she sacrifice her identity so you don't have to -- for, you can simply change yourself to quit participating in an unealthy co-dependent malignantly enmeshed R. Sadly, society encourages women to lose themselves in an R. Feminism may well encourage women to maintain their own identities. But, that in itself is not a problem in an R that is healthy, but rather only in one in which there is a problem with ego integrity on one or both sides.
I'm sure the owners of plantations had it much easier in terms of things going their way before slavery ended as well. That certain conditions make it easier for one's needs/wishes to be met is no justification for conditions that entail the oppression/subordination/lack of respect for others as persons of equal moral worth and dignity.
Cobra, then why are you posting on a message board? And don't go translating into "I want you to stop posting" or anything silly like that.
That remark was directed at my preceding statement in that I found value in Schlessinger’s works, regardless of her personal character. It was my opinion only and I didn’t want to get into a shouting match over it. If I think a monkey wrote a good book, then so be it (and that doesn’t mean I think Schlessinger is a monkey).
And do you realize that you just insulted Michelle there, accusing her to some degree of plagiarism?
You know this is not so. There was someone in the 80’s whom I can’t remember that started up the codependence idea. There have been tons of books written since. I don’t think any of those committed plagiarism and I don’t think Michelle did either.
On my view, the underlying problem is not feminism, but emotional enmeshment that one is unwilling to take responsibility for. Having a W that does not subordinate her wishes to yours is (1) no reason to meet all her wishes (2) no reason to disregard your own wishes or needs
I think that is an excellent synopsis of this thread. So succinct but to the point! Much of what I had in mind is encompassed in your points #1 & 2.
(3) no reason to sacrifice your own identity (4) no reasons to insist that she sacrifice her identity so you don't have to -- for, you can simply change yourself to quit participating in an unealthy co-dependent malignantly enmeshed R.
Bringing 3 & 4 completes the circle nicely.
Sadly, society encourages women to lose themselves in an R. Feminism may well encourage women to maintain their own identities. But, that in itself is not a problem in an R that is healthy, but rather only in one in which there is a problem with ego integrity on one or both sides.
The only missing item I see that is central to so many families is that of the children. Responsibility and protectiveness over your kids makes it so much harder to break out of the enmeshment with your spouse.
I'm sure the owners of plantations had it much easier in terms of things going their way before slavery ended as well. That certain conditions make it easier for one's needs/wishes to be met is no justification for conditions that entail the oppression/subordination/lack of respect for others as persons of equal moral worth and dignity.
I see this applying to abuse of any type, be it direct physical abuse, emotional abuse, or abuse by withholding and withdrawing (a combination of the first two?)
Thanks for your response. It appears that there is not so much to disagree with here as it may have seemed. A couple of thoughts...
(1) I am puzzled by your problem with feminism. On my view it is part of the remedy to the problem, not its cause, as it encourages women to be independent and authentic, thus moving them out of a role in which they are expected to sacrifice their identities for an R, and toward R's that avoid unhealthy enmeshment. Insofar as it generates a problem, it creates a new social situation that we need to learn how to handle. Just like doing away with slavery creates a need for plantation owners to learn how to be as successful without exploiting others.
(2) Re children. I would think raising happy healthy children who are independent and confident would make moving toward a healthy partnership rather than a sick enmeshment even more important. Of course, I can see how it would also make it scarier -- it is emotionally risky and children make the stakes even higher. But, that doesn't make it any better for children who are living with parents who have a disfunctional marriage in which both partners are emotionally handicapped and without a clear sense of self.
I haven't read this thread closely enough to take sides. Without trying to place blame, without trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong, I see something very familiar in the dynamics of this thread and in the sitches of many people who find themselves on the DB board.
The dynamics on this thread remind me of an R in which people take a stand, become increasingly polarized, put more and more ego on the line, become more and more sure of their rightness and the other person's wrongness, take on the role of the victim, and block themselves in separte corners in which all they can do is posture in the hopes that the other person will breakdown. The polarized positions are so extreme and the parties so stubborn, none has a clue as to how to create space for reconcilliation without requiring that they be proven right and the other person breakdown. The stakes move to the level of rightgeous indignation on one side that can only be salved by humiliation on the other side. There looks to be no way back.
I think things have gotten to this point partly because of the actual interaction on the thread, partly because many of us are prone to this kind of pride and stubbornness, and partly because we are projecting the anger of our own current stuck sitches (or past stuck sitches) onto this thread.
It will be interesting to see if reconciliation can occur and trust rebuilt in this microcosm that mirrors so much of what is or has been a problematic dynamic in many of our Rs.
Thanks and I agree. I broke out of enmeshement when I was D. Oddly enough, XH did not. He switched the parent-child extreme enmeshment in our old M with parent-child extreme enmeshment in a new R. He simply switched from being the child to being the parent. My point is that even D does not guarantee a move away from enmeshement. Why? Because enmeshement has to do with one's integrity of self, not the current R one is in.
