WTF is wrong with Wives these days?

FrankKissel · 03-21-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHTlump

I agree with some of the substance of the post you're objecting to. But I agree that the style is off putting.

The commenter says that women have emotional weakness. That's not a flattering statement. But I would say that women are more emotional than men. I think most people would agree that women are more emotional than men. In some instances that may be favorable, or unfavorable. However, I won't just dismiss the statement because it was phrased negatively.

Had that writer said "women are more emotional than men" and left it like that, I wouldn't take issue. An overgeneralization, sure, but certainly some truth to it.
But that's not what he wrote. He wrote that women - all women, because it's hard-wired in their brain - believe their emotions are fact, let emotions govern everything they do, are incapable of introspection, etc.
That's not the point you are defending.
I'm at least thankful you're not defending some of his other theories.
Posted via Mobile Device

PHTlump · 03-21-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankKissel

Had that writer said "women are more emotional than men" and left it like that, I wouldn't take issue. An overgeneralization, sure, but certainly some truth to it.

Well, I won't defend the style of the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankKissel

But that's not what he wrote. He wrote that women - all women, because it's hard-wired in their brain - believe their emotions are fact, let emotions govern everything they do, are incapable of introspection, etc.
That's not the point you are defending.
I'm at least thankful you're not defending some of his other theories.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think you're arguing against a straw man here. If I state that women are hard-wired in their DNA to be shorter and weaker than men, does that mean that I'm arguing that every single woman must be shorter and weaker than all men? Not at all.

I think the substance of the post is informative. And I've used the authors' exact sentiment in my own marriage. As I wrote earlier, I used to treat my wife like a man with breasts. When she said something, I didn't step back and remember that she was a woman who thought, spoke, and acted much differently than I did.

For example, I used to try to help my wife with her problems. She would come to me complaining of a problem. I would listen to her, ask questions to better understand the situation, and then offer my suggestions for how to deal with the problem. This infuriated my wife. She wasn't interested in solving the problem. She wanted to complain about the problem. I wasn't giving her what she needed. I was giving her what a man in her position would need.

So I stopped. Now, when she comes to me with a problem, I halfheartedly listen. I gather just enough information that I could answer a question or two if she accuses me of not listening. I ask no questions. I stay silent until she is finished with her rant. At that point, I say something brilliant like, "Wow!", or, "That sounds rough." And my wife absolutely loves it. I'm putting forth absolutely no effort and she is texting me an hour later thanking me for being such a good listener and really connecting with her. As the commenter wrote, she just wanted to wallow in her emotions for a while. By passively observing her and not engaging in any way, she actually thinks I'm engaged with her. She's happy. I'm happy.

I think my situation is typical of the male/female dynamic. Most men, in my wife's situation, would want others to react the way I used to. And most women would want others to react the way I do now. Different strokes.

Entropy3000 · 03-23-2012, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broncos Fan

This raises a lot of interesting issues that relate. I don't have a link, but I saw a discussion on a talk show about female infidelity. This professor type who'd written a book on the subject basically said that the notion that women don't commit infidelity is a "comforting fiction" that both men and women have an interest in enforcing. She argued that when societies become aware that women commit infidelity as often as they do, social unrest almost always follows and both men and women suffer for it.

I remember from history class learning about Chairman Mao doing a final "big project" in the 1970s in which he ordered the use of the basic genetic research that was usable at the time to trace the ancestral lines of various villages (something very important in China). In the process of doing this, the party officials unintentionally made the villagers aware of how many of the children weren't in fact the biological children of their alleged fathers, resulting in almost instant chaos. Mao quickly ordered that the project be abandoned because the sudden spontaneous upheaval really freaked him out, and this was a guy who not only started the Cultural Revolution but pretty much laughed his way through it.

We as humans know that women cheat, probably just as much as men do, but because of our biology and our inability (as men) to know for sure that our kids are ours, we all spend a lot of time pretending that women can't or won't or don't cheat very often, and when they do its because he deserved it somehow (I guess this last part comforts other people and helps maintain the social cohesion).

The academic and author Stephanie Coontz was also on the air (I think it was NPR) not too far back. She and others had found that women admit to cheating only slightly less than men do. When the interviewer asked if women were "catching up" to men because they were economically empowered and so now could safely cheat more, Coontz responded by saying they were catching up in the sense that they no longer had to lie about it. So she seemed to think that women have always cheated as much as men, but just had greater need to hide that reality.

Yes, interesting. This makes sense to me.

Entropy3000 · 03-23-2012, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tall Average Guy

I have often wondered if this independence has also provided a greater opportunity. That is, women cheat more now not because they are worse people than they used to, but because they are in an environment where they have an oportunity to meet and get to know more men due to being out in the work force. Thus, they have greater opportunity to meet a man with whom they would be tempted to cheat with.

I learned a long time ago in the Navy that putting people in certain situations can give you some very surprising results. Situations test us. It is easy to be "good" if never tested. We are human. Those that understand that have a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls.

Workplace affairs are huge. I am thinking though that SAHMs can become very bored and Facebook, texting, going to the GYM and so on offer temptations of thier own.

I do think EAs are very widespread. Folks do not even realize what is happening until they are in deep.

I keep hearing the ladies here say that they get hit on all the time. At the grocery store, at church and not just at bars. My point is that it is easier for the average woman to hookup than the average guy if so inclined.

But in general women have less to be concerned about if caught cheating than they used to be. I am not saying that there are no consequences. But compared to say fifty years ago, much has changed.

Entropy3000 · 03-23-2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TashaB

WTF is wrong with men who work long hours as if they dont have a wife at home?

I HAVE NEEDS!!!!

Many men feel pressurred to provide financially for their families and also be there for their wives. A balance is very hard to find. Many men rightly or wrongly define themselves by what they do for a living.

Many men choose to not do this and are at risk of their wives being more attracted to men with more power and money. Not saying this is true for all.

Sooooo. I suggest that you do His Needs Her Needs with your hubby if you have not already. Trust me, he may not know. He may feel he is doing what a man is supposed to do. He may feel he is a great husband. You have to tell him.

By doing the HNHN you can emphasize your need for him being their with you and show him that his financial support is not important to you.

When I am in a particualarly cynical mood I wonder if some women do not require two men to fullfill their needs. A sugar daddy to support them. That responsible male to take care of her children and that other man ( like in the movie of the same name ) to be her romantic lover.

Out of that cynicism I have decided I want to be 1) My wifes exclusive lover 2) her best male friend and 3) her husband. In that order. These are just three personas to meet the needs of a woman.

As the song goes, a man wants a lady on the street and a freak in the bed. So it goes both ways.

It is very possible to meet 80% your SO needs 80% of the time. Maybe even 100% for short periods. But sometimes we can only focus on certain needs because those needs take all of our focus to meet.

That means even good marriages can be vulnerable to affairs due to not meeting needs. A predator only has to meet that 5% need for a short time. Meeting each others needs can help make a marriage more resistent to these temptations. Yes having good character is key of course. It is just not a garantee. So that is why HNHN while stressing the meeting of needs also stresses boundaries.

While it seems I am minimizing your situation, I really am not. I suspect your husband loves you very much and for one reason or another is doing what he thinks is best. You need to hit him with the proverbial 2 x 4 and get his attention.