The word "abuse" is so often used when talking about transgressive power dynamics in marriage, but without the necessary component of actual dependence, I wonder if it is a word that sometimes gets in the way of the issues. Sometimes, people who behave abusively with their power do not do it consciously because they are unaware that they wield that power, especially in a space of intimacy & domesticity, where the lines between people are blurred in partnership. It is possible that they have inherited the oppressive regimes of the world and are enacting them without knowing it, too. That doesn't excuse it, of course. It's just that the word itself is so inflammatory that sometimes, I think it gets in the way of discourse because it incites reaction, rather than discussion.
I found this passage today in a book I was reading and wondered your thoughts. As marriage is sometimes enacted as an institution that contains and furthers the ideologies of dominant culture, it seemed interesting to think about the idea of "oppression" within the paradigm of marriage.
"Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not important; to alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them into objects" -- Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
In marriages where one spouse is walking on eggshells constantly to keep the other spouse from lashing out, the submissive spouse has become an object or instrument by which the domineering spouse maintains a sense of control. Thinking about how to re-gain agency and reject object status seems important to me in regaining balance within the marriage.
I LOVE this topic. That said my categorization may not map very well to yours.
If I break it into simple stuff:
- Financial power: Extremely one sided in my favor
- Sexual power: Extremely one sided in her favor
- Physical power: Extremely one sided in my favor
- Interpersonal power: Well balanced - feels 50/50
In the areas of balance, we are unfiltered with each other and not "careful". In areas where the dynamic is heavily skewed, paradox rules apply.
The person with the power adopts a "love through service" posture. On money stuff, I always went out of my way to make sure she felt supported and loved when it had anything to do with buying stuff. I could sense her anxiety about it not being "her" money. This was simply situational because I earned most/all the money. And she felt that way desite me always repeated the same mantra: "I couldn't not do what I do without your incredible support. Every dollar WE earn is OUR dollar. Thank you for supporting me so I can work the types of jobs I do". The end result is however good. She feels free to do what she needs to, and with my encouragement she feels comfortable doing the occassional splurge - like a home renovation thing. When there was the occassional hiccup I was very careful. I would never make her feel bad about a few hundred dollars, or if it were spilt milk a few thousand. The power dynamic is too skewed, it would feel abusive - bullying.
Sexually the same is true in reverse. My drive/need is much higher. I DO have situational anxiety about it. She is exceptionally kind, loving and uses a very soft touch when we have a disconnect. She is keenly aware of how much power she has in the bedroom and does not abuse it.
In terms of physical strength - because of the disparity - she is allowed to be as aggressive as she wants. When she gets the itch to be playfully violent she is quite comfortable punching me in the arm - hard. Same place repeatedly if she can pull it off. I would never, ever punch her under any circumstances. That said this often morphs into some type of wrestling match which is some type of "lite" foreplay to her. Fine by me.
For lack of a better term, the person in power is gentle and respectful in that area of the relationship. This is not condecension, it is love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxy
The word "abuse" is so often used when talking about transgressive power dynamics in marriage, but without the necessary component of actual dependence, I wonder if it is a word that sometimes gets in the way of the issues. Sometimes, people who behave abusively with their power do not do it consciously because they are unaware that they wield that power, especially in a space of intimacy & domesticity, where the lines between people are blurred in partnership. It is possible that they have inherited the oppressive regimes of the world and are enacting them without knowing it, too. That doesn't excuse it, of course. It's just that the word itself is so inflammatory that sometimes, I think it gets in the way of discourse because it incites reaction, rather than discussion.
I found this passage today in a book I was reading and wondered your thoughts. As marriage is sometimes enacted as an institution that contains and furthers the ideologies of dominant culture, it seemed interesting to think about the idea of "oppression" within the paradigm of marriage.
"Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not important; to alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them into objects" -- Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
In marriages where one spouse is walking on eggshells constantly to keep the other spouse from lashing out, the submissive spouse has become an object or instrument by which the domineering spouse maintains a sense of control. Thinking about how to re-gain agency and reject object status seems important to me in regaining balance within the marriage.
...
In the areas of balance, we are unfiltered with each other and not "careful". In areas where the dynamic is heavily skewed, paradox rules apply.
...
For lack of a better term, the person in power is gentle and respectful in that area of the relationship. This is not condecension, it is love.
I think these are wonderfully compassionate ways to balance power rather than exploit it. That's a loving and respectful way to be. It makes me glad to hear it because it means there are people out there who are actually considerate to each other!
I saw a poster on someone's facebook once, very controversial and I'm not going to waffle about all it's political & ideological ramifications, but part of it seemed interesting to me -- the poster was a cartoon of a man and a woman having an argument through speech bubbles. They are arguing and she says to him "you are not treating me as an equal" and so he punches her the way he would punch a guy he was arguing with. It obviously trivializes the idea of equality (and of abuse), and uses some shock value to make us question the underlying commentary, but I think it does so for a purpose. It reminds us that equality isn't always necessarily a mercenary, quid pro quo type transaction. Respecting someone as your equal doesn't mean demanding half for half at each and every turn and it isn't about balancing some score-sheet.
You have raised the pivotal point, I think, and that is the role of genuine awareness of where balance is maintained. For instance, if you have a see-saw and on one side a box that weighs 50lb and the other a box of 75lb, the exact middle, the exact point of physical equality isn't going to balance those scales and it has to be shifted to make a balance. In interpersonal relationships, allowing for that sense of balance is considerate and it means no one is being exploited or controlled. I think, MEM, that you and your wife have based your relationship on mutual respect and that means honoring differences in power in compassionate rather than exploitative ways.
On a related note. It seems to me like most of the men on the board wield more financial power and most of the women wield more sexual power, of course, that's what mainstream American culture teaches, anyway, and this may be inaccurate because I haven't calculated the percentage. I wonder if, for those men, the power dynamic would be less based on compassion if that were reversed. That is....is the element of balance likely to destabilize if the financial power lies in favor of the woman and the sexual power in favor of the man? Given that culture still promotes the male-provider/female-nurturer dynamic, do you all think that power would still balance with compassion or would there be an oppressive element lingering in the mix? Or...is this a totally BS parallel?
Moxy,
I guess I would be ok with a reversal of the sex/money dimension. The sex thing is so very powerful though. I am not sure I want that kind of power. My wife really, really loves me and that is apparent in all our interactions. I have no way of telling if my "default" behavior would remain if the physical dynamic was removed. For instance, generally I like putting her first. It just feels right. She isn't selfish or spoiled and there is absolutely no transactional element to it. I cringe reading about "date nights". If I want to connect we do. If she is radiating a strong "non sexual" vibe I don't give her the slightest hint that I feel desire. The notion I would have to do something specific to have sex seems sad. Equally if she wants to go to dinner somewhere nice, which is something she rarely requests, we go and have fun. But I have no expectation that because I "took her out" we are going to connect later. To be fair this is all a testament to her not playing games and using sex to reward/punish behavior. Well and me having a spine helps as I would not tolerate that.
But the other side of this unbalanced see saw - I liked that analogy, is that I have learned her list of turns ons and turn offs. As the HD partner it is my job to avoid making an inherently challenging situation even more difficult. So I consistently do the turn on stuff - stay fit, dress nicely, be a bit playfully rough, be more "low affect" than I am by nature. And avoid the turn offs. Mostly common sense mixed with a little skill and discipline.
Of course it isn't always wine and roses here. Occasionally I do create tension over sex. Not deliberately of course. Many months ago I said something uncalled for. And my w proceeded to give me a taste of what it is like to be the LD partner. She did that by pressuring me to have an unmanageable amount of sex for 3 straight weeks. And she mimicked my behavior perfectly. I would not want to live like that. And no I absolutely do not treat her that way to that degree. She caricatured me to teach me an accelerated lesson. Still it was not fun.
QUOTE=moxy;667768]I think these are wonderfully compassionate ways to balance power rather than exploit it. That's a loving and respectful way to be. It makes me glad to hear it because it means there are people out there who are actually considerate to each other!
I saw a poster on someone's facebook once, very controversial and I'm not going to waffle about all it's political & ideological ramifications, but part of it seemed interesting to me -- the poster was a cartoon of a man and a woman having an argument through speech bubbles. They are arguing and she says to him "you are not treating me as an equal" and so he punches her the way he would punch a guy he was arguing with. It obviously trivializes the idea of equality (and of abuse), and uses some shock value to make us question the underlying commentary, but I think it does so for a purpose. It reminds us that equality isn't always necessarily a mercenary, quid pro quo type transaction. Respecting someone as your equal doesn't mean demanding half for half at each and every turn and it isn't about balancing some score-sheet.
You have raised the pivotal point, I think, and that is the role of genuine awareness of where balance is maintained. For instance, if you have a see-saw and on one side a box that weighs 50lb and the other a box of 75lb, the exact middle, the exact point of physical equality isn't going to balance those scales and it has to be shifted to make a balance. In interpersonal relationships, allowing for that sense of balance is considerate and it means no one is being exploited or controlled. I think, MEM, that you and your wife have based your relationship on mutual respect and that means honoring differences in power in compassionate rather than exploitative ways.
On a related note. It seems to me like most of the men on the board wield more financial power and most of the women wield more sexual power, of course, that's what mainstream American culture teaches, anyway, and this may be inaccurate because I haven't calculated the percentage. I wonder if, for those men, the power dynamic would be less based on compassion if that were reversed. That is....is the element of balance likely to destabilize if the financial power lies in favor of the woman and the sexual power in favor of the man? Given that culture still promotes the male-provider/female-nurturer dynamic, do you all think that power would still balance with compassion or would there be an oppressive element lingering in the mix? Or...is this a totally BS parallel?[/QUOTE] Posted via Mobile Device
The government should interfere in relationships between men and women only for purposes of the protection of children and of public health. Nothing else. Purely religious marriages should be permitted but should carry a public disclaimer repudiating any recognition of such ceremonies, in law, of any kind.
Once this oppressive fraud is ended people will, at last, be free to make any clear, legal contracts, drafted by knowledgeable attorneys they wish, and providing whatever terms in their relationship they desire. Gold diggers, greedy divorce lawyers and demagoguic politicians will, at last, have to retrain for honest work. Given their existing, intimate experience in dealing in all manner of excrement, I would recommend plumbing!
Once this oppressive fraud is ended people will, at last, be free to make any clear, legal contracts, drafted by knowledgeable attorneys they wish, and providing whatever terms in their relationship they desire.
I appreciate your enthusiasm. I wonder what you mean by "oppressive fraud". I can see that marriage, as an institution, becomes potentially oppressive in the absence of an alternative manner of social advancement (but that isn't the case is it?) and that it often creates a system within which the woman is valuable as sexual object and the man as source of wealth (or vice versa; some variation in same sex unions), some might see that as a commodities exchange in unflattering ways and reinforce the notion that the system is oppressive, or that it is a form of capitalist oppression. However, to indicate that it is a "fraud" is to indicate that a non-institutionalized contract is somehow more authentic and valid. I'm not sure I agree with that notion and wondered if you cared to explain why you see it so.
I guess I would be ok with a reversal of the sex/money dimension.
I have no way of telling if my "default" behavior would remain if the physical dynamic was removed.
To be fair this is all a testament to her not playing games and using sex to reward/punish behavior. Well and me having a spine helps as I would not tolerate that.
But the other side of this unbalanced see saw - I liked that analogy, is that I have learned her list of turns ons and turn offs...Mostly common sense mixed with a little skill and discipline.
Of course it isn't always wine and roses here....She caricatured me to teach me an accelerated lesson. Still it was not fun.
I find this really interesting to me because it looks like you both have a healthy and mutually enforced power dynamic. It doesn't look like either is using the other, nor like either is exacting demands based on inherited gender roles that are fixed. It looks like things work well between the two of you because you both make a conscious effort to be considerate and not take advantage of the system that has been created in your marriage. You guys have agreed upon certain interactive measures and balances and neither is trying to play for power or domination over the other. It helps that the sex/money dynamic is traditionally based, because it gives you both the chance to weigh the lessons all around you, but it also looks like neither of you are forcing the other into a gender-normative role based on tradition. I don't know whether it is coincidence or not that your system works because it fits the traditional model or whether it would work anyway because of what you both bring to it. The system of marriage in your case does not challenge culturally enforced notions of gender roles and so it doesn't suffer the problems imposed by such a challenge.
I am not entirely convinced that the hot wife/rich dude scenario (not to be so reductive, but I'm doing so to make the point that follows) could so easily be reversed. The hot dude/rich wife scenario seems to backfire more often than not because while some men are okay with the economic reversal, it is more often that their culturally biased self-perceptions get in the way. (Of course, I'm not talking about queer landscapes, in this example, and gender-queer, sex-queer, or culture-queer folks might just discard systematized traditions in favor of reifying them personally more often than those whose lived cultural politics are coincident with the heteronormative traditions.) It isn't that I think that the reversal is inherently problematic, just that it fits less easily into cultural expectation and then becomes problematized by cultural demands.
(Personally, I wonder how much culture politics has played a role in the problems in my own marriage. I suspect that was a factor. H & I are not traditional, but our families are, and I wonder how much we got caught up in something that felt antithetical to our relationship and then collapsed under the weight of it. I might just be looking for a story in which he isn't a cheater and I am not a doormat, though; alas, we took on those roles too much before our separation).
I appreciate your enthusiasm. I wonder what you mean by "oppressive fraud".
Marriage is an oppressive fraud because the parties think they have a “contract”, but they really have nothing, because either party can terminate the relationship at any time and for no other reason but their own convenience.
The oppression is imposed upon the party who ultimately finds himself in the position of having more to lose in this process of termination of the relationship, than the other party, at which time he must then condescend to, and patronize this other party, to the point of virtually becoming her slave---in the desperate hope that she will not choose to divorce him and take her payoff in the form of property (which he alone worked to acquire), alimony and child support.
If that’s not an oppressive fraud, I don’t know what would be!
Marriage is an oppressive fraud because the parties think they have a “contract”, but they really have nothing, because either party can terminate the relationship at any time and for no other reason but their own convenience.
I see your reasoning, that the contract isn't really a contract, which makes it fraudulent. However, your warrant for that claim, that termination at any time somehow diminishes its validity as a contract doesn't quite seem to have enough backing to be forceful or convincing. It does, however, raise some interesting questions about the nature of the marriage contract!!
For instance, most contracts have an exit clause; one pays a penalty and leaves the contract. Not all contracts have an exit clause, nor do all of them have penalties. Given that the contract is personal in nature and not involving fiscal or economic constraints (unless there's a prenuptial agreement stating otherwise, which makes the money part of the contract), it makes sense that few penalties are mandated for breach of contract because the contract's purpose is not strict enforcement of behavior, but the basis of a foundation for the meeting of two minds regarding expectations about behavior.
Of course...it also assumes sincerity and honesty. Some will cheat the system because they are unethical and of low moral character. Others will slip up, and allowances are made for that out of compassion, at times, depending on the gravity of the mistake.
If you have a good solid marriage, then you have likely negotiated the boundaries and terms of that contract between yourselves. This serves to ensure that both parties are agreeing to what they are getting into.
If one doesn't agree to the terms, one should not enter into the contract; simple. Marriage is essentially voluntary in our culture, which means that as a contractual meeting of the minds, understanding and thought should go into making that declaration of allegiance to your partner through your vows. Enforcing through penalty does not enhance the personal nature of the contract, just makes it more...commercial, which is why pre-nups are seen as so distasteful. However, I think they make excellent sense; if you want to be sure your partner doesn't cheat, associate a fiscal penalty for the breach of contract and the partner is less likely to cheat because a desire to not pay a fine is enforcement enough of a marital boundary.
Most people do not adequately negotiate their marriage contracts and just assume that the default wording used by church or state is sufficient. Or they go through the motions mindlessly following tradition with little in-depth thought given to their actions. Most people do have the opportunity to write their own vows. Vows are not necessarily meant to be moments to declare one's romantic attachment public, though they are often so interpreted these days, but are actually meant to be expressions of the contract's terms. "Love, honor, forsake all others..." are all acts or intentions.
If one wants to associate a penalty with termination, then a stronger negotiation of a marriage contract should be considered. Pre-nuptial agreements contain a great many things pertaining to behavior and expectation. Why shouldn't we give such thought to the person we will be spending our lives with, considering the dynamics we want to use within our joint life? It may not be romantic, but, the head keeps the heart in check when on dangerous ground. As many of us on the boards can attest, love makes us do stupid things, and logic makes us stop and think for a moment. If we were better at negotiating what we wanted out of our partners, we wouldn't be negating the romance of the union, but would be deepening it. Again, this assumes sincerity and ethical integrity.
So, I can understand your perspective that the marriage contract is often seen as a weak contract or an unsatisfying one, but I think that has to do with the individuals rather than the entire notion of marriage as a contract. I will concede, though, that MOST marriages are weak contracts and I attribute this to the thoughtless way in which they are negotiated and entered into.
This does not make them oppressive, in my opinion...just a little unfair if one person is sincere and another isn't or if people haven't had the chance to work out the details and just inherit the terms without such an opportunity. Customizing one's contract would make this feel less unfair. One can feel oppressed by an unfair contract, but true oppression comes from lack of choice and freedom, not from failure to act in advance to secure the desirable power dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galt
The oppression is imposed upon the party who ultimately finds himself in the position of having more to lose in this process of termination of the relationship, than the other party, at which time he must then condescend to, and patronize this other party, to the point of virtually becoming her slave---in the desperate hope that she will not choose to divorce him and take her payoff in the form of property (which he alone worked to acquire), alimony and child support.
If that’s not an oppressive fraud, I don’t know what would be!
To call it an oppressive fraud might be hyperbolically resonant, if not literally accurate, especially for those of us who feel betrayed by our partners and by our marriage's failures (I am among the betrayed).
It does seem rather unfair to be subject to a system that one didn't design, which is why pre-nups are a good idea. And, I agree that the one who has been betrayed by a failure or breach of contract will feel immensely disappointed and duped and victimized. It does indeed suck to be on the losing end of a divorce and it sometimes feels like the thief has gotten a reward for being dishonest.
I am currently feeling oppressed by the dynamic of my failing marriage, though I would say it fits figuratively more than literally.
Great points here! Have I sparked any thoughts in your perspective about the contract aspect?
Moxy,
You hit a key theme for us which is fairness. I have a post where I have attempted to categorize the primary types of "one sided" interpersonal behavior. When evaluated against that list she does very well and would say that I do as well.
And trust is big. Really big. I will touch on a core theme of our marriage that I hope resonates. As the stronger partner it is absolutely necessary to respect her physical preferences.
About one year in - this is more than 21 years ago - she turns to me in a fury and says "I hate that you grope me, I hate it".
Followed by short, painfully accurate depiction of my behavior.
I turn red. Apologize for abusing the proximity granted me by marriage. And that's it. Touch has now been partitioned. There is non sexual affection which we both love. And then there is some very subtle cue she gives that is an invitation. Or if not - I am welcome to initiate via a kiss.
So there is a two decade plus precedent in place. When I come up behind her and hug her she melts back into me. Incredibly intimate - yes. Overtly sexual - no.
I read a lot of posts here about guys in sexually screwed up marriages. They grope a lot. Often the explanation is "well that is all I get - better than nothing". I dislike reading that stuff. If my wife responded badly to affection - that would make me feel sick. These guys - often their wives don't like affection - because it includes unwanted sexual touching.
Trust and fairness go a long way. Early on my wife told me: "you will be tempted. It will happen. It is my job to make you happy at home and I will do so. And if despite my taking good care of you in there "pointing to bedroom", you give in to temptation, I promise you will wish you had never met me, no not that, wish you had never been born".
And then she stared at me in a way I still remember. Carrot and stick my a$$.
More like heroin (yes she is that good) on one side, and a freaking crucifix on the other.
I think the relationship folks would call this communication of and enforcement of boundaries - proactively so to speak.
Of course the "mean" while instructive, isn't as interesting as the outliers. I do have a whole thread about a sexual Mexican standoff that lasted three days and included some fairly blunt discussions about alternatives to monogamy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxy
I find this really interesting to me because it looks like you both have a healthy and mutually enforced power dynamic. It doesn't look like either is using the other, nor like either is exacting demands based on inherited gender roles that are fixed. It looks like things work well between the two of you because you both make a conscious effort to be considerate and not take advantage of the system that has been created in your marriage. You guys have agreed upon certain interactive measures and balances and neither is trying to play for power or domination over the other. It helps that the sex/money dynamic is traditionally based, because it gives you both the chance to weigh the lessons all around you, but it also looks like neither of you are forcing the other into a gender-normative role based on tradition. I don't know whether it is coincidence or not that your system works because it fits the traditional model or whether it would work anyway because of what you both bring to it. The system of marriage in your case does not challenge culturally enforced notions of gender roles and so it doesn't suffer the problems imposed by such a challenge.
I am not entirely convinced that the hot wife/rich dude scenario (not to be so reductive, but I'm doing so to make the point that follows) could so easily be reversed. The hot dude/rich wife scenario seems to backfire more often than not because while some men are okay with the economic reversal, it is more often that their culturally biased self-perceptions get in the way. (Of course, I'm not talking about queer landscapes, in this example, and gender-queer, sex-queer, or culture-queer folks might just discard systematized traditions in favor of reifying them personally more often than those whose lived cultural politics are coincident with the heteronormative traditions.) It isn't that I think that the reversal is inherently problematic, just that it fits less easily into cultural expectation and then becomes problematized by cultural demands.
(Personally, I wonder how much culture politics has played a role in the problems in my own marriage. I suspect that was a factor. H & I are not traditional, but our families are, and I wonder how much we got caught up in something that felt antithetical to our relationship and then collapsed under the weight of it. I might just be looking for a story in which he isn't a cheater and I am not a doormat, though; alas, we took on those roles too much before our separation).
Very good. Our dynamic is similar. Putting the HDTV in the bedroom was very painful. After the nth ugly conversation about it, I offered to move the tv and myself up to the guest bedroom.
Now: she loves the tv. And acknowledges being a bit out of control for a while. Still, she runs everything smoothly and has beautiful taste so overall I mainly limit my feedback to: thank you for doing all of this.
UOTE=*Dean*;671882]I see a 5th power in my relationship with the wife.
- Running of the Household power: Extremely one sided in her favor
She runs the show, takes care of everything at home. Controls checking account, pays bills, etc.
I do the normal guy stuff (take care of outside, work on any honey do list she has for me, etc).
We both take pride of our home, land, etc.
This is the one area where I'm very easy going and our taste is the same.
Normally I'm ok, yes, ok well do, go head and just buy it if you want it, etc.
Since she controls this power, from time to time that power tends to make her bossy.
When it gets bad, there is friction and I have to do a reset to eliminate the bossy attitude.
It doesn't happen often but it does happen.
I wish I could remain calm when I do a reset but she is so strong-minded that staying calm never works.
I always have to raise my voice a little, tell her why her #1 priority is #10 on my list and to chill out.
She gets mad, I'm in the dog house, then after making my point.......go back and give her a hug, she is still mad but the bossy attitude is gone and she is open to listen to me.
It normally takes 24 hours for me to completely get out of the dog house but I then make a point to take care of her #1 thing within a time frame that we both agree to.[/QUOTE] Posted via Mobile Device
Sorry to thread hi jack but Moxy, are you an academic or something? your literary/analytical skills are very impressive to say the least.
Thanks, Complexity, for your kind words. I am an academic, though I must confess, my literary flourishes are often lazy on this board and I ramble a lot. Are you an academic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM11363
You hit a key theme for us which is fairness.
About one year in - this is more than 21 years ago - she turns to me in a fury and says "I hate that you grope me, I hate it". Followed by short, painfully accurate depiction of my behavior. // I turn red. Apologize for abusing the proximity granted me by marriage. And that's it. Touch has now been partitioned.
Trust and fairness go a long way.
If you can't trust your partner not to mistrust the power that you give them in your partnership, then you've got a problem. If your partner demonstrates consistent interpersonal exploitation that never balances out in fair ways, it reinforces that trust. I think that if you respect your partner, it's easier to be considerate in the ways that are fair, trustworthy, and honest. You've shown, not only fairness, but consideration of your wife's feelings in way that isn't proprietary, that doesn't treat her as an object. Balance is so important. I suppose that without an awareness of the power dynamics in ones situation by both partners, it is easy to slip into oppressive behaviors in ignorance of the gravity of the offense. You guys do seem to have good, clear communication about boundaries, but it is reinforced by a willingness between you both to respect rather than tear down those boundaries. Perhaps that is a key point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dean*
I see a 5th power in my relationship with the wife.
- Running of the Household power: Extremely one sided in her favor
This is interesting to me. Domestic Power is complex, mixed with both financial and other elements. I like that you are specific, as "running the household" and other maintenance related powers have the ability to impair any kind of mobility or dynamism in the relationship, I think.
Would you all say that domestic power is a counteractive force to fiscal power, or that it has to be? And, how do you suppose it relates to things like interpersonal and sexual power dynamics?
Would you say that Psychological Power falls under the realm of interpersonal in a social manner or that it overlaps between interpersonal and sexual and domestic and/or others as something relating to affection. I don't know that I see it as a distinct thing, but i my own marriage, I feel like I had no power at all because I conceded it all to my h, who abused it and betrayed me (me = doormat). In some way, secrets can be a kind of currency. I don't know that this kind of power dynamic is good. It seems dysfunctional to me because it seems to exist only as an amalgam of parts of the rest in troubled ways. Anyway, in my opinion, marriages that become dysfunction are imbalanced in multiple ways, though I don't know how it would fit within the parameters of power you both have suggested?....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM11363
Very good. Our dynamic is similar. Putting the HDTV in the bedroom was very painful. After the nth ugly conversation about it, I offered to move the tv and myself up to the guest bedroom.
I'm assuming ultimatums like this are either occasional or offered by and conceded to in somewhat equivalent measure between you both; would you characterize it so?
Would love to read your "Mexican Standoff Thread", if you'd like to include a link. I feel like that's what I'm in with my wh/stbxh.
Moxy,
Ultimatums are rare. And I don't like them as I don't bluff. The tv of course wasn't the issue. She really felt angry that I insisted on putting a big tv in our house. She felt that her veto rights were being ignored. I had never before even questioned a home decor decision.
A typical interaction out shopping together.
Me: isn't that "item" cool?
Her: that looks interesting (code for ugly or bizarre)
Me: ok
Her: did you really want to get that? (code for: there is no way in hell we are buying it, but I hope you aren't mad at me)
Me: no (sincerely, she has nice taste, the house is beautiful, and if she has to look at someing she dislikes every day it will bother her, so I am not mad when that happens)
Her: do you think I'm difficult
Me: laughing and shaking my head
So the tv was a radical departure from near 20 years of precedent.
Now there were two ways to evaluate this situation:
Foolish, angry man risking his marriage over a tv or
My wife had to decide whether 100 percent control over the contents of the house was a pre-condition for remaining married.
I had no anxiety about leaving that decision in her hands.
Now - of course my wife sooooo wishes she had never provided me with such delightful raw material.
Sometimes with friends or family I will find a way to bring up what I refer to as The Incident.
Of course I have politicized and satirized it.
More on that from a full keyboard.
UOTE=moxy;673675]Thanks, Complexity, for your kind words. I am an academic, though I must confess, my literary flourishes are often lazy on this board and I ramble a lot. Are you an academic?
If you can't trust your partner not to mistrust the power that you give them in your partnership, then you've got a problem. If your partner demonstrates consistent interpersonal exploitation that never balances out in fair ways, it reinforces that trust. I think that if you respect your partner, it's easier to be considerate in the ways that are fair, trustworthy, and honest. You've shown, not only fairness, but consideration of your wife's feelings in way that isn't proprietary, that doesn't treat her as an object. Balance is so important. I suppose that without an awareness of the power dynamics in ones situation by both partners, it is easy to slip into oppressive behaviors in ignorance of the gravity of the offense. You guys do seem to have good, clear communication about boundaries, but it is reinforced by a willingness between you both to respect rather than tear down those boundaries. Perhaps that is a key point.
This is interesting to me. Domestic Power is complex, mixed with both financial and other elements. I like that you are specific, as "running the household" and other maintenance related powers have the ability to impair any kind of mobility or dynamism in the relationship, I think.
Would you all say that domestic power is a counteractive force to fiscal power, or that it has to be? And, how do you suppose it relates to things like interpersonal and sexual power dynamics?
Would you say that Psychological Power falls under the realm of interpersonal in a social manner or that it overlaps between interpersonal and sexual and domestic and/or others as something relating to affection. I don't know that I see it as a distinct thing, but i my own marriage, I feel like I had no power at all because I conceded it all to my h, who abused it and betrayed me (me = doormat). In some way, secrets can be a kind of currency. I don't know that this kind of power dynamic is good. It seems dysfunctional to me because it seems to exist only as an amalgam of parts of the rest in troubled ways. Anyway, in my opinion, marriages that become dysfunction are imbalanced in multiple ways, though I don't know how it would fit within the parameters of power you both have suggested?....
I'm assuming ultimatums like this are either occasional or offered by and conceded to in somewhat equivalent measure between you both; would you characterize it so?
Would love to read your "Mexican Standoff Thread", if you'd like to include a link. I feel like that's what I'm in with my wh/stbxh.[/QUOTE] Posted via Mobile Device
To call it an oppressive fraud might be hyperbolically resonant, if not literally accurate, especially for those of us who feel betrayed by our partners and by our marriage's failures (I am among the betrayed).
The marriage “contract” must be seen as genuinely fraudulent because of the obvious illegal collusion, between the judicial and legislative branches of the state, in creating and/or recognizing a maze of confused and self-contradictory contractual elements for their own purposes. These elements include the wording of vows, statutory and case law and, most often overlooked, local “judicial custom.”
The unspoken purpose of this collusion is: (1) to effect the confiscation of wealth, without constitutionally required due process, in order to relieve the state of a large degree of responsibility---which it would otherwise have to bear---for the support of impulsive women who leave their husbands without good cause, and would otherwise end up “on the street”; (2) to financially reward the “divorce industry”, including the lawyers who argue both sides of these cases and, thereby, collude further with the judiciary and legislatures in this massive fraud, and (3) to ensure adequate reward for the “gold diggers”, without whom the entire anti-male, oppressive scheme would collapse, and who comprise the most essential element of this entire diabolical process.
Slogans and other particular language and words are routinely employed by the perpetrators of this fraud, for the purpose of masking its true nature and eliciting a knee-jerk reaction from the general public, in favor of the process. These include the very name of the courts which implement it, namely so-called “family” courts (who could be against anything involving a “family?”), so-called “community property” (who could be against a “community?“ Or “property?“) Who could even be against the “equity“ of the notorious so-called “equitable division“ which legally steals even more assets---and children--from men than does “community property?”
In summary what we are really looking at here, in modern American divorce law, is a vast but subtle conspiracy to enslave (yes, that’s what I said) men to the state, using their natural instincts for procreation and to care for their wives and children, as the “bait” to get them involved with a family---thereby setting them up for appearance in "family” court, where they are subsequently exploited and defrauded by the above-enumerated actors. These opportunists have only the well-known, age-old and whorish motivation that we are all too familiar with, namely money!
13Likes
marriage & oppression -- a question 
and it sometimes feels like the thief has gotten a reward for being dishonest. 
