I think there’s a few things. First off they’re missing the fact that these men (and men like Deejo) do in fact have a STRATEGY for handling the WOMAN in their wife. Just like us men, women also have their “dark side”. This is their “shadow” in Jungian terms. That shadow side of a woman can create havoc in a marriage if it is not managed and handled correctly.
I don't see what is so horrible about this. PEOPLE have faults. We have to handle the faults. There are a set of tools in the tool box that we use. We have setting personal boundaries, we have managing the temperature, we have love bank deposits, we have non violent communication skills...
We teach children how to behave with these tools. What is wrong with teaching our partner how we expect to be treated with these same tools.
The tools must be used in a way to not violate either spouse's integrity. For me, one of the tools I need to use from time to time is personal boundary setting. I do not like to be take for granted on the practical front. If I feel like I am pulling more than my share of work, it is not simply a matter of feeling overworked. I feel resentful. I then apply limit setting. I tell him that I am beginning to feel resentful again. (As a matter of fact, having successfully set this limit in the past, this step is usually all it takes now.) Then I proceed to take my limit setting steps if needs be.
Did this always come naturally to me? No. I had to LEARN this skill. Does it make it inauthentic to me. No. I just learned a new skill that became part of me.
I do not feel I am manipulating him. I caused a change to his behavior, sure. But I did violate either of our integrity. I did not seek to punish or hurt him. I tried to reestablish peace and good feelings between us.
It seems to me that cooling down is simply a tool to make communication effective as a subset of limit setting. Since its goal is to return peace and good feelings to BOTH PARTIES I don't see how it violates integrity. And the proof is in the pudding of how the wives are responding to their husbands. If they felt that their integrity was violated, their subconscious would have a hard time responding positively. Over time, they would be developing resentment, not positive feelings.
Quote:
....
But these men actually have a STRATEGY to cope with all of this and come out the other side laughing and joking as a couple.
Maybe that’s what some of the women don’t like about it all? That these men can no longer be emotionally manipulated to anger and that therefore their wives have lost a certain amount of emotional control of their men.
Bob
No. I think it has to do with some people look at life in a way that is a tad unrealistic. Remember back when you were a kid when you thought life was supposed to be fair? I think some people get stuck there intellectually. You see a lot of folk talking about which spouse SHOULD do this, and who is to blame and who is responsible. I think that the issue is people getting stuck in right fights fail to see that if a change is done and it is good... then it is good. I see these failures of comprehension go hand in hand.
Errrr...no, what I don't like about it at all is that when a woman is engaging with her man to get what she feels/thinks she needs/wants out of a relationship you smack the term emotional manipulation on it but when a man does the same thing it is considered a gift to womankind/man'ing up/temperature control.
There is a difference, in my opinion, between the motives of effective communication and the situation he describes, the POKE. I know the poke. I have done the poke. DH used to respond as a Nice Guy and kneel to me. Yuck! I did not realize I was doing it at the time. But when he finally set effective limits on it by cooling, and sending some good humor at me to highlight the poke, I was like... oh hey that was rude.
If you were talking about him saying that effective limit setting behavior was emotional manipulation, I would agree with you. But there are things that are objectively wrong to do. Taking your stress/anger whatever out on your spouse one of them. So a spouse must learn to respond in an effective manner.
I think you are *assuming* that just because they are men that they consider a wife not having sex with him withholding. There is no direct link between the man up / thermostat conversation and the accusation from others that a woman OWES her husband sex. Quite the opposite. The men who espouse manning up are changing THEMSELVES to be attractive to their wives. Not whining that they don't put out.
Here I often hear the generalization that a woman puts out to get the man and then stops after the marriage begins. I am well aware there are hundreds of reasons as to why this happens (all of which are certainly not intentional) but chose that specific example as if it is done on purpose, it is a selfish manipulative behavior a woman would take to get the relationship she wants.
And you do it all in the name of Feminism. It gets very tiresome. But not only that your constant poking does get a response from people like MEM. But good Men like MEM should never feel the need to defend himself against feminists.
Bob
Why not? I never will understand this. You come to a forum, you need to put on your fire proof suit. Life isn't fair. If the thoughts cannot hold up to a discussion of feminism then they should be revised. So far, as far as I am concerned, to those expressing them and understanding them rightly, I think that they do. But I will never understand saying that someone should not HAVE to defend their position on internet.
Here I often hear the generalization that a woman puts out to get the man and then stops after the marriage begins. I am well aware there are hundreds of reasons as to why this happens (all of which are certainly not intentional) but chose that specific example as if it is done on purpose, it is a selfish manipulative behavior a woman would take to get the relationship she wants.
Yah, you chose a specific example that does not happen to apply to the topic under discussion it seems to me.
Did this always come naturally to me? No. I had to LEARN this skill. Does it make it inauthentic to me. No. I just learned a new skill that became part of me.
For some positive traits, some people just have it naturally, and others have to try very hard to acquire it.
My husband is naturally a calm and patient person. I was not. It took me quite a few years to achieve my peaceful personality, but I still get worked up sometimes.
Talking to people on TAM has actually helped me a lot in this area. It is strange that I was not asking for advice directly, but just by interacting with all of you, it has helped me a lot.
Hey - she kept calling me a manipulative spade. I prefer to think of myself as a loving diamond.
All I did was ask her to stop being a nattering nabob of negativism. Hey it worked for Spiro Agnew. Oh - well actually I guess not. Now that I think about it he ended up in jail for tax evasion....
She wasn't calling you anything. She was saying that this behavior to HER is manipulative and pointed out that if women were to do this, it would be viewed as manipulative and not some other fancy word. Wouldn't it? Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?
Yah, you chose a specific example that does not happen to apply to the topic under discussion it seems to me.
It does in that manipulation is manipulation. You can call it whatever you like to make it taste better or make yourself feel justified but it is still manipulation. If you want authentic then you should go for authentic. If you want to manipulate your behaviors to bring about a certain reaction from your spouse or create a certain level of satisfaction in your own life, then you should manipulate your behaviors, but why pretend you're actually growing in emotional intelligence rather than manipulating your behaviors and reactions? What offends the individual about what they're doing to make them call what they're doing something else?
In the scenario I gave about the woman it applies because the woman is clearly manipulating the scenario to bring about action. If a man turns the thermostat down or acts aloof to bring about certain behaviors in his wife and/or in his own life then that is also manipulation.
We can argue semantics forever. The real question is why so many readers find me saying that some of the principles of man up and 180 are manipulative? So much so that they aren't able to admit the obvious.
Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?
Good question. So here I am the domineering one married to a PA man. I've had to cool off and tone down my personality to get more love and attention from my husband. Does that make me manipulative? Controlling? Selfish?
She wasn't calling you anything. She was saying that this behavior to HER is manipulative and pointed out that if women were to do this, it would be viewed as manipulative and not some other fancy word. Wouldn't it? Would the guys here like to have this happen to them or would they view it as domineering and controlling behavior?
No worries. I appreciate you feel a desire to defend me out of friendship but it doesn't bother me. I know the difference between thoughtful conversation and personal attacks that make no sense and don't apply so I can easily disregard them.
It does in that manipulation is manipulation. You can call it whatever you like to make it taste better or make yourself feel justified but it is still manipulation.
Tell me this. What does the word manipulation mean to you? If manipulation is manipulation, then there can be NO setting of personal boundaries at all.
Quote:
If you want authentic then you should go for authentic. If you want to manipulate your behaviors to bring about a certain reaction from your spouse or create a certain level of satisfaction in your own life, then you should manipulate your behaviors, but why pretend you're actually growing in emotional intelligence rather than manipulating your behaviors and reactions? What offends the individual about what they're doing to make them call what they're doing something else?
Because you don't understand the word manipulation? I have described it in another post. Manipulation is different than setting personal boundaries on 2 specific ways
- motivation: the motivation to bring loving, peaceful, enriching change. Not motivated to punish or hurt
- integrity: Does not violate the integrity of either party.
The dictionary definition supports me somewhat
"to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings. "
Especially in an unfair manner.
Another one
1: exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous" [syn: {use}]
Shrewd or devious influence.
So manipulate does not mean to influence another. That is where the violation of integrity comes in.
Quote:
In the scenario I gave about the woman it applies because the woman is clearly manipulating the scenario to bring about action. If a man turns the thermostat down or acts aloof to bring about certain behaviors in his wife and/or in his own life then that is also manipulation.
We can argue semantics forever.
Actually I find being precise about language is not semantics. I think it is useful to understanding.
Quote:
The real question is why so many readers find me saying that some of the principles of man up and 180 are manipulative? So much so that they aren't able to admit the obvious.
You feel you have proven "the obvious". It sure is not obvious to me. Why would you expect someone to "admit" something that was far from obvious? Simply because your mind has made many logical leaps to get there is seems obvious to you?
Re: Why Deejo, MEM, and Wolf are right 
