# Relationship truths



## jld

Saw this the other day, and wanted to share it. 

_12 Amazing Relationship Truths (as discovered by John Gottman, a marriage researcher at U of WA)

1. Fighting doesn't break up marriages. Losing your friendship does. If you focus on feeding your connection in the good times, you will have the "emotional bank account" in place to make it through the difficult times. Do you have positive sentiment override or negative sentiment override? It's not the fight that counts, but the repair attempt and how it is received. The strength of your friendship will determine how successful repair attempt are.

2. Arguments don't hurt your relationship, it's how you argue. Harsh set-up, followed by criticism, contempt, defensiveness, or stonewalling (ignoring, shutting the other person out) can lead to flooding (becoming shell-shocked and overwhelmed and disengaging emotionally).

3. Successful repair attempts are the key. These are more successful if the couple are intimately familiar with each other's lives on a daily basis. They have a richly detailed "love map" of the other person (where you store all the relevant info about your partner's life).

They remember major events in each other's history, keep updating the information as their partners world changes, know each other's goals in life, worries, hopes, and fears. From this knowledge springs not only love, but the fortitude to weather stressful events and conflict.

They are in touch, not just with the outlines of each other's lives but with each other's deepest longings, beliefs and fears and no matter how busy they are, they make each other their priority. (Even over family of origin. He puts her first before his mom and makes it clear to all involved.)

4. Two of the most crucial elements for lasting love are fondness and admiration. You have to remain aware of how crucial fondness and admiration are to the friendship that is at the core of a good marriage. Fondness and admiration are the antidotes to what Gottman calls "The Four Horses of the Apocolypse": contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

5. Real life romance is fueled by hundreds of small ways that you turn toward each other rather than away. Daily small connections keep the couple emotionally engaged and build up an "emotional savings account" that can be drawn from in times of stress. Turning toward your mate in the little things is the key to long lasting romance.

In a couple, partners make "bids" for their partner's attention, affection, humor, or support. People either turn toward one another after these "bids", or turn away. Turning toward is the basis for emotional connection, romance and passion. Turning away (ignoring) a bid kills intimacy. The relationship won't survive. Often, a partner's protest is simply a bid for more connection. When the other partner ignores it, anger increases and distance is created.

The first step in turning toward each other more is simply to be aware of how crucial these mundane moments are, not just to the stability of your relationship, but to it's ongoing sense of romance. Often, a person in the couple turns away, not out of malice but out of mindlessness. They must realize the importance of little moments and gestures and pay attention to doing them.

6. Things that fill the emotional bank account (things that say, "I love you and I want more of you")

exercising together
playing board games
celebrating milestones
traveling together
cooking together
eating meals and each talking about your day to keep updated
talking by open fire
reading together out loud

7. Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and didn't resist power sharing and decision making with her but actively searched for common ground with her. (Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).

Women tend to allow their husbands to influence them. The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. If the husband accepts her influence, the wife is less likely to be harsh when something causes stress. If she feels hopeless about being able to influence him, she will be "triggered" and her negativity will escalate.

When a husband accepts his wifes influence, his open attitude heightens the positive in his relationship by strengthening his friendship with his wife. It makes it easier for him to deepen his love map of her, bolster fondness and admiraton and turn toward his wife. This helps him learn from his wife many of the emotional skills that she learned growing up and he didn't. Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally.

8. The emotionally intelligent husband:

Learns how to connect with his wife
Chooses "us" over "me"
Makes his career less of a priority than his marriage
Makes a detailed map of his wife's world
Keeps in daily touch with his admiration and fondness of her
Communicates his admiration and fondness of her by turning toward her in a myriad of daily actions
This leads to a meaningful and rich life
Having this happy home base makes it possible for him to create and work effectively
Because he is so connected to his mate, she will not only come to him when she is troubled but also when she is delighted

9. More than 80% of the time, it is the wife who brings up sticky marital issues, while the husband tries to avoid discussing them. This isn't a symptom of a troubled marriage- it's true in most happy marriages as well.

10. Marital conflicts fall into two categories: Perpetual (unsolvable) and Resolvable. Couples can get gridlocked over perpetual problems until they realize that unrequited dreams are at the core of every gridlocked conflict. The endless arguement symbolizes some profound difference between them that needs to be addressed before the problem can be put in it's place (and a compromise reached).

In gridlock:
Conflict makes you feel rejected by your partner
You talk but make no headway
You become entrenched in your position and unwilling to budge
When you do discuss it, you end up more frustrated and hurt
You start to villify each other
Humor and amusement and affection disappear
Become less and less willing to compromise
Finally, disengage emotionally

11. The basis for coping effectively is communicating a basic acceptance of your partner's personality. People can only change if they feel they are basically liked and accepted as they are. To be able to repair what's already happened, you have to forgive each other for past differences and give up past resentments.

12. To resolve conflict:

Soften your start up approach (women are usually responsible for harsh start-up but husband can make sure she is feeling known, respected, and loved and that he accepts her influence and her stance will soften)
Learn to make and receive repair attempts
Soothe yourself and each other when emotions get high
Compromise
Be tolerant of each other's faults
Build "we-ness", make sure your partner comes before anyone else
Work as a team on financial issues
Keep working on your unresolvable conflicts. Couples who are demanding of their marriage are more likely to have deeply satisfying unions than those who lower their expectations.

Condensed from The Seven Principles of Making a Marriage Work by John Gottman._


----------



## Aspydad

I do agree with most of this except #6. The author makes an assumption that all couples can do all of these activities. 

While my wife and I can do some of these without conflict (like exercising, celebrating milestones, traveling, eating meals, getting alone and just talking) we have discovered that she does not like me in the kitchen when she cooks and I don't argue since I do not enjoy cooking. With regards to board games - we used to play Backgammon in college and in the early part of our marriage. We are both very competitive and SHE especially does not like to lose. The last game we played was about 20 years ago and she ended up crying because I kept sending her chip back to ground zero no matter how far along it was - she accused me of doing this just to be mean!! Now, I am super competitive - I was doing it to win the game - and I would say I used to win 70% of the time - having my wife cry and become mad at me kind of took the enjoyment out of the game - so we do not play board games anymore.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *1*. Fighting doesn't break up marriages. Losing your friendship does. If you focus on feeding your connection in the good times, you will have the "emotional bank account" in place to make it through the difficult times. Do you have positive sentiment override or negative sentiment override? It's not the fight that counts, but the repair attempt and how it is received. The strength of your friendship will determine how successful repair attempt are.
> 
> *2*. Arguments don't hurt your relationship, it's how you argue. Harsh set-up, followed by criticism, contempt, defensiveness, or stonewalling (ignoring, shutting the other person out) can lead to flooding (becoming shell-shocked and overwhelmed and disengaging emotionally).


I stopped at these 2....as soon as I seen John Gottman's name.. I knew I would *love* your post.. and ALL he spoke...







... 

I feel this Author is a mastermind on Relationship harmony ....what works, what doesn't ...and his study on Conflict styles is RIGHT ON... before reading some of his work... I think I felt a little embarrassed , maybe guilty for how "Volatile" my temper can be in a moment.... but after reading about his conflict styles...(my thread here : http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ead-4-types-5-1-ratio-marriage-conflicts.html )

... I realized how NORMAL I am.. I kinda knew that anyway .. but how could I explain it !...


----------



## Wolf1974

I see number three railed against here often. The notion that both spouses should be open to one another in all things, past present and future. I agree with it just interesting that many here don't 

Number seven is a bit of a mystery to me. Guess I haven't seen that one before. 

Don't know that I would call these truths but it certainly isn't a bad list


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *4.* Two of the most crucial elements for lasting love are fondness and admiration. You have to remain aware of how crucial fondness and admiration are to the friendship that is at the core of a good marriage. Fondness and admiration are the antidotes to what Gottman calls "The Four Horses of the Apocolypse": contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling.


Admiration...I don't think it's talked about nearly enough.. how does one feel that..so much depends on US ...and how we treat our partners, of course... 










Those 4 Horsemen... a little more depth here..



> *** *Criticism*- the act of passing judgment as to the merits of another / faultfinding. "Criticism is “really a way of fueling the attack, so you state your complaint as an attack on the other person.” ... “It’s not constructive, it winds up leading to an escalation of the conflict" ......No Criticism Please!
> 
> *** *Contempt*... When we communicate in this state, we are truly meaning - treating others with disrespect, mocking them with sarcasm, ridicule, name-calling, mimicking, and/or body language such as eye-rolling. The target of contempt is made to feel despised and worthless.....The Danger of Contempt
> 
> *** *Defensiveness*- conveys the message, “*The problem is not me. It’s you.*” From this position you imply that, because your partner threw the first stone, they are responsible for the entire conflict. You avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior by pointing to something they did prior to their complaint about you. You do not acknowledge that which is true in what they are saying about your behavior.
> 
> Defensiveness: The Poison Pill to Relationships
> 
> *** *Stonewalling* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also known as "the Silent treatment". .. stonewalling is the absolute refusal to consider your partner’s perspective. If you listen at all, you do it dismissively or contemptuously.This is the passive-aggressive stance many people take during a fight. It's the "Nothing's wrong, I'm fine!" said even when there is clearly something wrong.
> 
> Other common songs of the stonewaller are:“Just leave me alone…”...“Do whatever you want"....“End of conversation"..."that's enough"....
> 
> Stonewalling: How to recognize and fix ......... How to Ruin a Perfectly Good Relationship - Stonewall


----------



## john117

We now return you to our regular programming featuring LD wives, a-hole husbands, bratty kids, and our perennial favorite... Krappy Inlaws!!!

(This $1500 kitten is really giving me attitude)


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
That's an awesome and exceptionally accurate list. 

SA,
IME the genuine and spontaneous look of admiration - is the apex of a healthy marriage. Giving it and getting it. 

As for playing board games and walking together, those activities are SO MUCH better for bonding than watching tv. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> Admiration...I don't think it's talked about nearly enough.. how does one feel that..so much depends on US ...and how we treat our partners, of course...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those 4 Horsemen... a little more depth here..


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I see number three railed against here often. The notion that both spouses should be open to one another in all things, past present and future. I agree with it just interesting that many here don't
> 
> Number seven is a bit of a mystery to me. Guess I haven't seen that one before.
> 
> Don't know that I would call these truths but it certainly isn't a bad list


Gottman did his research over a long period of time, I believe. I have heard him referred to as the leading American, if not world-wide, researcher on marriage.

Number 7, to me, is a key point. It shows the unique position of the husband to influence the course of the marriage:

_7. Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. *The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and didn't resist power sharing and decision making with her but actively searched for common ground with her. *(Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).

Women tend to allow their husbands to influence them. The research bears out that *she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage.* If the husband accepts her influence, the wife is less likely to be harsh when something causes stress. If she feels hopeless about being able to influence him, she will be "triggered" and her negativity will escalate.

*When a husband accepts his wifes influence, his open attitude heightens the positive in his relationship by strengthening his friendship with his wife.* It makes it easier for him to deepen his love map of her, bolster fondness and admiraton and turn toward his wife. This helps him learn from his wife many of the emotional skills that she learned growing up and he didn't. Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally._

Also important is the conflict resolution technique in point 12: Even if a woman approaches her husband angrily, the husband can defuse her anger by making her feel listened to and respected ("*husband can make sure she is feeling known, respected, and loved, and that he accepts her influence and she will soften*").


----------



## john117

It seems to me that Herr Gottman is putting way too much of the responsibility on marital success to the man...


----------



## jld

I think that is what his research findings led him to conclude.


----------



## john117

So, women get a relative free pass while men get the responsibility. What could possibly go wrong here?


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> Gottman did his research over a long period of time, I believe. I have heard him referred to as the leading American, if not world-wide, researcher on marriage.
> 
> Number 7, to me, is a key point. It shows the unique position of the husband to influence the course of the marriage:
> 
> _7. Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. *The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and didn't resist power sharing and decision making with her but actively searched for common ground with her. *(Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).
> 
> Women tend to allow their husbands to influence them. The research bears out that *she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage.* If the husband accepts her influence, the wife is less likely to be harsh when something causes stress. If she feels hopeless about being able to influence him, she will be "triggered" and her negativity will escalate.
> 
> *When a husband accepts his wifes influence, his open attitude heightens the positive in his relationship by strengthening his friendship with his wife.* It makes it easier for him to deepen his love map of her, bolster fondness and admiraton and turn toward his wife. This helps him learn from his wife many of the emotional skills that she learned growing up and he didn't. Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally._
> 
> Also important is the conflict resolution technique in point 12: Even if a woman approaches her husband angrily, the husband can defuse her anger by making her feel listened to and respected ("*husband can make sure she is feeling known, respected, and loved, and that he accepts her influence and she will soften*").


My experience bears this out. Marriage of 32 year is ending.

My H persistently refused to receive my influence regarding his drinking habit. Oh, he gave up drinking for 15 years for a JOB (christian college with "no alcohol" rule) but he was unwilling do do so for me and the M.

So he does that thing that is so often recommended on here of going out to bars and flirting... which does not make me want to compete with the women who flirt back, it just makes me ANGRY... and it leads to cheating... which leads to divorce

and he's mad at ME, blames ME, because I am the wicked evil woman who had the audacity to initiate D and he's the victim... poor baby!


----------



## john117

You're talking about the case of a specific individual having a specific problem. If you were the one drinking and did not want to give it up, how fair would it be if your husband was held responsible for your actions?


----------



## Blonde

I'm talking about his persistent long term unwillingness to receive my influence, John. When a wife feels she has no voice, she's invisible, irrelevent, and taken for granted..., one day when she wakes up and smells the coffee, she's going to want out.

This could happen around many issues besides drinking, many many issues. 

Based on your posts, I would look at Gottman's work on the 4 horsemen. I hear a great deal of contempt toward your W in your posts and a M cannot survive contempt. One of the things I realized about my M at the end was that I really was feeling a great deal of contempt toward my H, just cannot respect him and his actions and his failure to take responsibility for damage he has caused.


----------



## john117

Contempt is the key thing but as we can see from our own less than Gottman-approved marriages  it's a responsibility on both partners. Gottman seems to suggest it's primarily the man's responsibility and I don't think this is so.


----------



## samyeagar

Number 7 seems to be written from the assumption that men hold almost absolute power and control in the relationship. It seems to assume it is not a partnership of equals.


----------



## Blonde

samyeagar said:


> Number 7 seems to be written from the assumption that men hold almost absolute power and control in the relationship. It seems to assume it is not a partnership of equals.


Number 7 says that where men are unwilling to share power, their M is at high risk for failure. Such men are not in a "partnership of equals" because they absolutely refuse to listen to and respect their wives' input and receive her influence. 

number 7 is just based on observations from a laboratory that wives nearly universally are willing to receive their husbands' influence. There are SOME husbands who are not and in those cases where a husband is not, it does not bode well for the M

Here's a link to his report of the clinical research: https://books.google.com/books?id=cQsX_UgESWUC&lpg=&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## samyeagar

Blonde said:


> Number 7 says that where men are unwilling to share power, their M is at high risk for failure. Such men are not in a "partnership of equals" because they absolutely refuse to listen to and respect their wives' input and receive her influence.
> 
> number 7 is just based on observations from a laboratory that wives nearly universally are willing to receive their husbands' influence. There are SOME husbands who are not and in those cases where a husband is not, it does not bode well for the M
> 
> Here's a link to his report of the clinical research: https://books.google.com/books?id=cQsX_UgESWUC&lpg=&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false


I think it also suggests that some men are just more tolerant of negative behaviors from their wives.


----------



## 1marriedlady

"5. Real life romance is fueled by hundreds of small ways that you turn toward each other rather than away. *Daily small connections keep the couple emotionally engaged *and build up an "emotional savings account" that can be drawn from in times of stress. Turning toward your mate in the little things is the key to long lasting romance.

In a couple, partners make "bids" for their partner's attention, affection, humor, or support. People either turn toward one another after these "bids", or turn away. Turning toward is the basis for emotional connection, romance and passion. Turning away (ignoring) a bid kills intimacy. The relationship won't survive. Often, a partner's protest is simply a bid for more connection. When the other partner ignores it, anger increases and distance is created.

The first step in turning toward each other more is simply to be aware of how crucial these mundane moments are, not just to the stability of your relationship, but to it's ongoing sense of romance. Often, a person in the couple turns away, not out of malice but out of mindlessness. They must realize the importance of little moments and gestures and pay attention to doing them."


I find HB and I are lacking #5 - that connection, that intimacy. That bond that makes the difference between marriage and roommates. I want to and need to connect with my hubby this way. 

For me - figuring out how to get this back is the million dollar question.


----------



## Married but Happy

john117 said:


> Contempt is the key thing but as we can see from our own less than Gottman-approved marriages  it's a responsibility on both partners. Gottman seems to suggest it's primarily the man's responsibility and I don't think this is so.


I don't think Gottman is suggesting that it's primarily the man's responsibility. I think he is saying that it is an equal responsibility, BUT typically women _already _accept their husband or partner's influence, but men often do not and need to make an effort to do so as it is outside their usual pattern of behavior.


----------



## samyeagar

What are some examples of a husband allowing his wife to influence him? Are we talking like...

H: Where do you want to go for dinner?
W: How about that nice Italian place we haven't been to in a while?
H: Ok.


I guess I'm not getting it...


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> What are some examples of a husband allowing his wife to influence him? Are we talking like...
> 
> H: Where do you want to go for dinner?
> W: How about that nice Italian place we haven't been to in a while?
> H: Ok.
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not getting it...


Here is an example from my own marriage:

Fifteen years ago I developed gum disease. I was going to the dentist every three months, brushing and flossing multiple times a day, and using a special, expensive rinse the dental office sold me. Yet every checkup, I was getting worse.

I started to do some research. I read that brushing with a mix of baking soda, salt, hydrogen peroxide, and water would cure it. I started doing it.

Next visit, my pockets had stabilized.

Visit after that, they had shrunk.

After that, great checkups. No more gum disease.

I was excited and urged Dug to do the same. 

For _nearly fifteen years,_ he dismissed my protocol. It took too much time. It tasted funny. It was weird. Wouldn't the dentist have told him if it would help? He travelled too much. It would be a pain to carry all that around, or have to go get it in each country. 

A year or so ago he developed gum disease, and bought the special rinse. Did not help. Last fall he was told he needed a special procedure that would cost around $2k. He was told it was not guaranteed to work, though.

I told him to use my $1 formula. He started immediately and . . . next visit: perfect bill of health.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> What are some examples of a husband allowing his wife to influence him? Are we talking like...
> 
> H: Where do you want to go for dinner?
> W: How about that nice Italian place we haven't been to in a while?
> H: Ok.
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not getting it...


It isn't about what restaurant you eat at, but on life choices, values and principles: how to raise the children, how to manage the finances, how to manage important household affairs, how to self-improve. And so on.

More and more relationships are, I think, equal partnerships with both sides influencing each other. But the Western tradition is (was?) that men do the influencing (leading) and women are to be influenced (led). This is where you get to hear phrases like "shush dear, men are talking" or "don't you worry your pretty little head about that" or "how dare you tell me how to run my (our) affairs?"


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> So, women get a relative free pass while men get the responsibility. What could possibly go wrong here?


Err, I don't think anyone is getting a free pass. I think that statistically, men are more likely to (a) not invest time and energy into building and maintaining emotional bonds, and (b) be unilateral in their approaches to problem solving.

See in particular #8 which, although a stereotype, is telling. 

And so it is these statistical generalizations plus the fact that these two things are absolutely critical to a successful relationship (between equals) that make it seem as though the burden is on the man.


----------



## john117

Married but Happy said:


> I don't think Gottman is suggesting that it's primarily the man's responsibility. I think he is saying that it is an equal responsibility, BUT typically women _already _accept their husband or partner's influence, but men often do not and need to make an effort to do so as it is outside their usual pattern of behavior.


reading the various "be the best man", "lead by example", and similar corporatespeak marriage advice posted here one would be hard pressed to agree about the equal responsibility part.


----------



## RClawson

exercising together - Prefers to do that with friends.

playing board games - Last two times I asked she said no

celebrating milestones - I have quit putting any emotion into these events because they are met with disappointment generally.

traveling together - together? Just us? Twice in the last seven years.

cooking together - never

eating meals and each talking about your day to keep updated - 
we do talk about our day everyday.

talking by open fire - sounds fun. maybe a fire pit this summer?

reading together out loud - I am not reading Jane Austen.

My therapist suggested this book to me along with Sue Johnson's "Hold me Tight". I think my therapist has me pegged as I am in agreement with the approach that both Gottman and Johnson teach.

I do look at that list and wonder why I try.


----------



## Blonde

they SHOULD have equal responsiblity for the M but women tend to take on too much (see #9) and men tend to take on too little (see #7-9). 

as far as the 4 horsemen, John, nowhere does Gottman says only men do them. There are tendencies for men to do some of them over others and vice versa but both men and women are guilty

IMO if you are really stuck at contempt, it's done, put a fork in it. See I did not like MYSELF when I felt that way; I don't want to feel that way but with no influence with H it became chronic and it was better for both of us IMO to put the pitiful M out of its misery


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> they SHOULD have equal responsiblity for the M but *women tend to take on too much (see #9) and men tend to take on too little* (see #7-9).


:iagree:

That is what I have seen in life, too, Blonde.


----------



## jld

RClawson said:


> reading together out loud - I am not reading Jane Austen.


That is where you could be open to accepting her influence.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> :iagree:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I have seen in life, too, Blonde.



Not in my specific case but I can't generalize


----------



## john117

Blonde said:


> IMO if you are really stuck at contempt, it's done, put a fork in it. See I did not like MYSELF when I felt that way; I don't want to feel that way but with no influence with H it became chronic and it was better for both of us IMO to put the pitiful M out of its misery



I'm well past contempt. 

I'm more interested in a spectacular finish than anything else. T - 24 months.


----------



## Faithful Wife

For you guys who doubt the validity of Gottman's research and claims, you could actually _read the books yourselves_, and then decide if you still doubt it. Why argue with jld or anyone else about what it means or how he got to his conclusions? If you want to know about it, read it. They are national best sellers and have been around for a very long time and are the most respected bit of research on marriage ever done.


----------



## MEM2020

His research and my personal experience are fully aligned. 

Last night we had a hiccup. M2 felt rejected and was upset with me. 

From a 'mechanical' standpoint, I did nothing wrong. Still, M2 was genuinely upset and feeling rejected. 

The 26 year old me would have gotten angry at her. I would have been angry that she was mad at me without a logically valid reason. 

The 40 year old version of me would have calmly explained why I was not at fault and shrugged it off if she remained upset. 

The 52 year old version responded with: 

I'm sorry. This is my fault. In an effort to not pressure you, I've created the false impression that I don't desire you. Nothing will stop me from rocking your world tomorrow night. 

She accepted that as true and slowly relaxed. 

This morning - first words out of my mouth were: I'm looking forward to ensuring that tonight, I make up for last night. 

----------
This isn't a zero sum game. I didn't feel worse to make M2 feel better. I felt BETTER helping M2 feel good. 




QUOTE=jld;12474090]I think that is what his research findings led him to conclude.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

There are lots of books that fit the above description... And books I disagree with. 

In psychology we do a great job being descriptive (describing and categorizing an issue) and a not so great a job being prescriptive (providing a blueprint to repeat / predict what it is to do). 

I deal with a lot of the same methods in my lab - high speed video recording, eye tracking... Vital measurements... All to describe and predict user satisfaction with gadgets we design or use every day. It is phenomenally difficult to do it for a cell phone or dishwasher. To do it to a pair of humans... Describe - yes. Predict and suggest ? I have my doubts.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> His research and my personal experience are fully aligned.
> 
> Last night we had a hiccup. M2 felt rejected and was upset with me.
> 
> From a 'mechanical' standpoint, I did nothing wrong. Still, M2 was genuinely upset and feeling rejected.
> 
> The 26 year old me would have gotten angry at her. I would have been angry that she was mad at me without a logically valid reason.
> 
> The 40 year old version of me would have calmly explained why I was not at fault and shrugged it off if she remained upset.
> 
> The 52 year old version responded with:
> 
> I'm sorry. This is my fault. In an effort to not pressure you, I've created the false impression that I don't desire you. Nothing will stop me from rocking your world tomorrow night.
> 
> She accepted that as true and slowly relaxed.
> 
> This morning - first words out of my mouth were: I'm looking forward to ensuring that tonight, I make up for last night.
> 
> ----------
> This isn't a zero sum game. I didn't feel worse to make M2 feel better. I felt BETTER helping M2 feel good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is what his research findings led him to conclude.
Click to expand...

I understand the point here...basically suck it up to keep the peace. So...since the mechanical problem is now your fault, when it happens again, what then? What are you doing to fix it to ensure that it never happens again? That is the problem with allowing someone to put the blame on you for an issue that is beyond your control, or for reasons that are not accurate. Part of accepting blame for something is the implication that you will actively work to keep it from happening again.

I do get what your purpose was, and lord knows I've done the same thing, but it does potentially set a dangerous precedent.


----------



## azteca1986

john117 said:


> Describe - yes. *Predict* and suggest ? I have my doubts.


This is the second time in a week I've come across Gottmann in a week.


> [Gottman’s] “thin-slicing” process boasts a staggering 91% success rate in predicting whether newly-wed couples will divorce within 10 years — a staggeringly high result for any psychological research.
> 
> 6 Healthy Relationship Habits Most People Think Are Toxic


Impressive predictive stats


----------



## Wolf1974

Married but Happy said:


> I don't think Gottman is suggesting that it's primarily the man's responsibility. I think he is saying that it is an equal responsibility, BUT typically women _already _accept their husband or partner's influence, but men often do not and need to make an effort to do so as it is outside their usual pattern of behavior.



Yep guess that's the part I have never seen so I find skeptical. That a woman already accepts a partner/ husbands influence. Mine personal history was more of them wanting it all thier way and flat out rejecting any thoughts or suggestions I might have. Even when proven I was right all along they still have denied that made that suggestion. :scratchhead:


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> Yep guess that's the part I have never seen so I find skeptical. That a woman already accepts a partner/ husbands influence. Mine personal history was more of them wanting it all thier way and flat out rejecting any thoughts or suggestions I might have. Even when proven I was right all along they still have denied that made that suggestion. :scratchhead:


Sort of like what pervades popular television and such with the buffoon husbands and fathers?


----------



## MEM2020

Deep sigh. 

This wasn't conflict avoidance. 

This was a situation where a legitimate schedule conflict happened after a few weeks of what seemed to M2 to be total sexual disinterest on my part. 

So the schedule thing would not have caused an issue by itself. But coming on the heels of the last couple weeks it did. 

So yes - I set a precedent. If M2 is feeling neglected, she ought to tell me - and I'll fix it.....





QUOTE=samyeagar;12478730]I understand the point here...basically suck it up to keep the peace. So...since the mechanical problem is now your fault, when it happens again, what then? What are you doing to fix it to ensure that it never happens again? That is the problem with allowing someone to put the blame on you for an issue that is beyond your control, or for reasons that are not accurate. Part of accepting blame for something is the implication that you will actively work to keep it from happening again.

I do get what your purpose was, and lord knows I've done the same thing, but it does potentially set a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]


----------



## manfromlamancha

I recognise and fully accept this list - very accurate. The real problems faced by those coming onto this forum is when the damage has already been done and the seemingly impossible repair that needs to be done to undo the damage. Far too often people coming here are in situations where its too late and maybe even infidelity has taken place as a result. In such situations its useful to remember and act on this list, but only after repair has been done which is the hard part.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Yep guess that's the part I have never seen so I find skeptical. That a woman already accepts a partner/ husbands influence. Mine personal history was more of them wanting it all thier way and flat out rejecting any thoughts or suggestions I might have. Even when proven I was right all along they still have denied that made that suggestion. :scratchhead:


But any person's personal experience can be different than the average experience. Does that mean your personal experience trumps the truth of the thousands of other experiences that don't match it, and the research that has been done on it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I understand the point here...basically suck it up to keep the peace. So...since the mechanical problem is now your fault, when it happens again, what then? What are you doing to fix it to ensure that it never happens again? That is the problem with allowing someone to put the blame on you for an issue that is beyond your control, or for reasons that are not accurate. Part of accepting blame for something is the implication that you will actively work to keep it from happening again.
> 
> I do get what your purpose was, and lord knows I've done the same thing, but it does potentially set a dangerous precedent.


sam, you could _just read the books_. Why bother arguing against something you don't have the facts about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> There are lots of books that fit the above description... And books I disagree with.
> 
> In psychology we do a great job being descriptive (describing and categorizing an issue) and a not so great a job being prescriptive (providing a blueprint to repeat / predict what it is to do).
> 
> I deal with a lot of the same methods in my lab - high speed video recording, eye tracking... Vital measurements... All to describe and predict user satisfaction with gadgets we design or use every day. It is phenomenally difficult to do it for a cell phone or dishwasher. To do it to a pair of humans... Describe - yes. Predict and suggest ? I have my doubts.


No, there are not other books that are the top of the heap of all books. There's ONE on top, the rest are not. Go ahead and apply your experience as if it matches anyone else's and stay stuck in your thinking. It really doesn't change the reality of other people for you to stay stuck.


----------



## Wolf1974

[/QUOTE]

Sort of like what pervades popular television and such with the buffoon husbands and fathers?[/QUOTE]

Well nothing that outright disrespectful I would say. That would not ever keep me in a relationship being talked to or demeaned that way. 

This is more of a general disregard for things suggested or opinions shared. Even if I knew a great deal about the topic or had direct experience with. Example happend just today. My GF was upset because her son went to a field trip and this place takes pictures. She was promised they would be up by this week by his teacher so here is Monday , they aren't on the website so she is upset. Her kiddo and mine go to different schools but this company is the exact same that my oldest daughter used last year. I explained that they post the pictures once all the grades have been through, kinda post them all at once type thing. Well she went on and on about what the teacher said and it would be this week. Guess what... She called the teacher and I was right. This will be posted THIS Friday after the 6th grade class goes through. 

So she automatically dismissed what I was saying, even though I had direct experience with this last year, and instead went with what the year one teacher said. It's more just that kinda stuff


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep guess that's the part I have never seen so I find skeptical. That a woman already accepts a partner/ husbands influence. Mine personal history was more of them wanting it all thier way and flat out rejecting any thoughts or suggestions I might have. Even when proven I was right all along they still have denied that made that suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But any person's personal experience can be different than the average experience. Does that mean your personal experience trumps the truth of the thousands of other experiences that don't match it, and the research that has been done on it?
Click to expand...


So just becAuse I don't agree with some research I'm not allowed to express my opinion on it .....


Umm no

I'm
Not saying he is wrong. Just not what I have experienced personally


----------



## Faithful Wife

IMO the men here who are saying "no no, it isn't like that, we accept the influence of our women" are actually displaying the truth of the fact that most men don't. You can't even talk about it without being contemptuous and mad about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> So just becAuse I don't agree with some research I'm not allowed to express my opinion on it .....


Along with your opinion about it, you implied the doubt that the research on everyone else wasn't true.

But it is true, no matter what your opinion is. Research is research. Your experience is different. But the research isn't wrong. It has been shown over and over.

You could also actually read the books to find out for yourself what we mean, what research, what it was based on, and what it says.

If you want to have an opinion about whether the research is true or not, go ahead...but this is like having an opinion about whether the sky is blue or not.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Along with your opinion about it, you implied the doubt that the research on everyone else wasn't true.
> 
> But it is true, no matter what your opinion is. Research is research. Your experience is different. But the research isn't wrong. It has been shown over and over.
> 
> You could also actually read the books to find out for yourself what we mean, what research, what it was based on, and what it says.
> 
> If you want to have an opinion about whether the research is true or not, go ahead...but this is like having an opinion about whether the sky is blue or not.


great another thread where your going to tell me what I implied lol. 

I stated I didn't doubt the research just that I hadn't seen it. The only person I see here as upset it you. But seems to be standard line to throw out to you which is think whatever you want. Just because I haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means I haven't seen it. And I'm more than allowed to share that opinion cause in my life that's what has happened ...


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf,

Lots of experience with this type behavior. It's insecurity. 

The more secure M2 feels around me, the less competitive / dismissive she is. 




Sort of like what pervades popular television and such with the buffoon husbands and fathers?[/QUOTE]

Well nothing that outright disrespectful I would say. That would not ever keep me in a relationship being talked to or demeaned that way. 

This is more of a general disregard for things suggested or opinions shared. Even if I knew a great deal about the topic or had direct experience with. Example happend just today. My GF was upset because her son went to a field trip and this place takes pictures. She was promised they would be up by this week by his teacher so here is Monday , they aren't on the website so she is upset. Her kiddo and mine go to different schools but this company is the exact same that my oldest daughter used last year. I explained that they post the pictures once all the grades have been through, kinda post them all at once type thing. Well she went on and on about what the teacher said and it would be this week. Guess what... She called the teacher and I was right. This will be posted THIS Friday after the 6th grade class goes through. 

So she automatically dismissed what I was saying, even though I had direct experience with this last year, and instead went with what the year one teacher said. It's more just that kinda stuff[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> IMO the men here who are saying "no no, it isn't like that, we accept the influence of our women" are actually displaying the truth of the fact that most men don't. You can't even talk about it without being contemptuous and mad about it.


Total BS.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Total BS.


Lol!

That was funny.


----------



## notmyrealname4

jld said:


> . . .*Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally.*
> 
> . . . .


Years and years ago my husband told me point blank to my face that "guys only listen to other guys"; with regards of how to do something, or in forming an opinion.

I think I've still tried in vain over the years to communicate about things I feel real strongly about. He either doesn't listen [the worst is when he turns up the volume on the TV with the remote when I'm talking]; or I trust that he is listening --- but then later I realize he wasn't [by his total lack of recall of that conversation].

So I don't try to influence him about anything anymore. I can't remember when I foundered and gave up.

The only possible exception is I insist on preparing him a 2x daily regimen of vitamins/herbs. He constantly laughs/ridicules it.

I guess I "stonewall" (?) now. I keep doing it and ignore his comments.

I have thought about giving up doing this. Then he can let his lack of exercise, crummy diet and avoidance of my food supplementation take their natural course.

We did lower his borderline high blood pressure "naturally", but that was only because a male acquaintance affirmed what I said and told him to get his blood pressure regulated naturally and avoid the pharmaceuticals as long as possible.


He has no music, in his vast collection, of any female musicians.


jld - what is that recipe for the natural gum rinse? I'm always looking for new ways to clean my teeth and gums.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> For you guys who doubt the validity of Gottman's research and claims, you could actually _read the books yourselves_, and then decide if you still doubt it. Why argue with jld or anyone else about what it means or how he got to his conclusions? If you want to know about it, read it. They are national best sellers and have been around for a very long time and are the most respected bit of research on marriage ever done.


I doubt the validity and I've read at least one of his books.

And got value out of it.

The basic problem as I see it with analyzing his work, is that it's very, very subjective.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of truth there. Hell, I've used some of the concepts to great success.

My problem is where he attempts to intersect with science.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

I'm seeing neither contempt nor anger from the men on this thread. 

Honest disagreement yes. 

If you would like to point to specific posts that seem angry or contemptuous of Gottman or his research - that would be helpful. 

Maybe I missed something. 




Faithful Wife said:


> IMO the men here who are saying "no no, it isn't like that, we accept the influence of our women" are actually displaying the truth of the fact that most men don't. You can't even talk about it without being contemptuous and mad about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is sad that a lot of men can't just understand this message.

If someone presents me with a lot of research showing that women are more likely to:

nag
whine
b*tch
gossip
talk more
be lazier
etc.....

Just because I may feel like I don't do those things, I'm not going to say it isn't true on an average. And in fact, it would prompt me to look at myself to work on any of those issues above (though I pulled them from thin air, they may or may not be true I don't know, but if they were, I would look at myself). 

Of course there are plenty of women who don't want to hear what part of marriage problems they contribute the most to. And those who refuse self help, those who are cruel, those who do NOT accept influence from their husbands, those who are cheaters....on and on.

But on average, we have a known list of behaviors that are harmful to marriage that men do *more often* (which doesn't mean women do NOT do them)...and it is telling that this list is rejected by some men, even though it isn't up for negotiation whether the research is accurate or not.

The research doesn't tell us WHY men are more prone to certain behaviors, we can only speculate on that. IMO, for the purposes of the marriage books Gottman wrote, the why is irrelevant.

"Well, I don't that so meh, I don't buy it" is exactly the behavior that is hi-lighted in the research.

I can say straight up that my husband clearly doesn't think that what I think has as much validity as what he thinks. Generally speaking, most men seem to be like this to me. Male privilege is real, and this is part of it....the idea that you are superior and so is your thinking. I'm not saying most men are huge jerks, not at all. Most men don't even realize these thoughts are deep beneath their thought processes, or that's how it seems anyway. My husband does not consciously realize this, but it is evident to me every day.

Women tend to tip toe around stuff like this and try to influence their men in whatever way they can. SOME women will never accept that type of influence, I get that, too. SOME men are far TOO influenced by their women and can't think on their own.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> I'm seeing neither contempt nor anger from the men on this thread.
> 
> Honest disagreement yes.
> 
> If you would like to point to specific posts that seem angry or contemptuous of Gottman or his research - that would be helpful.
> 
> Maybe I missed something.


I don't see honest disagreement, I see "no, women already tell us what to do all the time and we listen and do it so don't tell me we aren't influenced" and "oh sure so we're supposed to bear all the burden and responsibility" and "oh yeah just keep the peace and do whatever they say"....all without having actually read the books to see what the source actually says.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also Mem....we have an entire industry of books written around the central idea that WOMEN DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT and that men need to show them and tell them what they want. The biggest one is MMSL.

So....we can conclude from this that men actually WANT to hear that they should tell women what they want...that they do NOT want to hear that they should find out from women what they want and be influenced by it.

I would wager money that nearly every wife of a legit Nice Guy can point out dozens of ways she attempted to influence her husband that did not work, because he wouldn't listen. He was too busy making covert contracts.


----------



## jld

intheory said:


> Years and years ago my husband told me point blank to my face that "guys only listen to other guys"; with regards of how to do something, or in forming an opinion.
> 
> This has mostly been my experience, too.
> 
> I think I've still tried in vain over the years to communicate about things I feel real strongly about. He either doesn't listen [the worst is when he turns up the volume on the TV with the remote when I'm talking]; or I trust that he is listening --- but then later I realize he wasn't [by his total lack of recall of that conversation].
> 
> He is so disrespectful to do that, intheory. How can you stand that?
> 
> So I don't try to influence him about anything anymore. I can't remember when I foundered and gave up.
> 
> So sorry to hear this.
> 
> The only possible exception is I insist on preparing him a 2x daily regimen of vitamins/herbs. He constantly laughs/ridicules it.
> 
> So sorry he does not respect and appreciate your caring. Again, don't know how you stand it.
> 
> I guess I "stonewall" (?) now. I keep doing it and ignore his comments.
> 
> I have thought about giving up doing this. Then he can let his lack of exercise, crummy diet and avoidance of my food supplementation take their natural course.
> 
> But then, if he died, you would miss his companionship (and financial support?). Many women feel similarly trapped.
> 
> We did lower his borderline high blood pressure "naturally", but that was only because a male acquaintance affirmed what I said and told him to get his blood pressure regulated naturally and avoid the pharmaceuticals as long as possible.
> 
> Very foolish on his part not to listen to you. Textbook case of what Gottmann describes.
> 
> He has no music, in his vast collection, of any female musicians.
> 
> He is missing out.
> 
> 
> jld - what is that recipe for the natural gum rinse? I'm always looking for new ways to clean my teeth and gums.
> 
> A pinch of salt, a little bit (maybe half teaspoon) hydrogen peroxide, and enough baking soda and water to make a paste. Use like toothpaste. For gum repair, let sit on gums for ten minutes after brushing, morning and evening, until healed.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
I did see posts saying essentially:
- This isn't fair/it puts too much burden on the H
- There was one about me - biting the pillow 

But I am making a sincere request of you now. Show me the post(s) that struck you as contemptuous or angry. 

And FWIW - I haven't read the books. I have merely read Gottmans conclusions - as provided by JLD. I mapped them to my life experience and nodded vigorously. 





QUOTE=Faithful Wife;12479834]I don't see honest disagreement, I see "no, women already tell us what to do all the time and we listen and do it so don't tell me we aren't influenced" and "oh sure so we're supposed to bear all the burden and responsibility" and "oh yeah just keep the peace and do whatever they say"....all without having actually read the books to see what the source actually says.[/QUOTE]


----------



## azteca1986

john117 said:


> It seems to me that Herr Gottman is putting way too much of the responsibility on marital success to the man...


Hang on. This is good, isn't it? I like responsibility. If as a husband I exert the most influence on the success of our marriage this is great. I'm happy to take that responsibility. 


jld said:


> 7. Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and* didn't resist power sharing and decision making* with her but actively searched for common ground with her. (Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).


I don't really understand why this point should be so contentious. I'd like to illustrate this idea of "influence" with an example from my own life.

One day my wife and I had a passionate (not heated) discussion on the new colour for the walls of our living room. We were broadly in agreement, she wanted it darker, I had my reasons on why it should be a shade lighter. Eventually I said "I'm an art director. My clients pay for my taste. I'm known for my colour control and for being understated. I've done this for years. What gives you the right to over rule me?". This was all said in good humour., btw. My wife's reply was very simple. "I'm your wife". And that was it. It was enough. Who cares what I do for a living. I'm not allowed to "pull rank" on my wife we're a marriage of equals. This is what we both want. So, I deferred.

And when I came home that afternoon she was with the painters making the paint lighter. I just walked in and gave her a wink. 

My learning: My wife has said she was delighted I was willing to fight tooth and nail for that colour (without aggression). She didn't want me to be like many husbands. It was my living space too. But, as I deferred and allowed "her influence" she was open to the fact that she was in error. It 's not important. We're on the same side.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> No, there are not other books that are the top of the heap of all books. There's ONE on top, the rest are not.



Wishful thinking with all due respect. There are many heaps (theories) and you're only looking at one. In addition, as nearly every lecture in psychology I had in college made sure to remind us, we rarely know enough to get past the "it's a theory" stage. 

Gottman's theory and method sounds intriguing, don't get me wrong, but as I said, descriptive for a population is easy. Prescriptive for an individual, not much so.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> So....we can conclude from this that men actually WANT to hear that they should tell women what they want...that they do NOT want to hear that they should find out from women what they want and be influenced by it.



You seem to be attributing superpowers to both genders... Especially the ability of more mature individuals to influence each other. 

Not everything in a relationship is a point if contention, or needs to be discussed to death to make a decision (wonder how I know ). 

I think it all boils down to the view that marriage is a true union / mind meld versus a less casual form of dating. Or that at some point it's all about the relationship and not about the individuals.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM, I will just make this easy and say "all of the posts by john117".


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf,
> 
> Lots of experience with this type behavior. It's insecurity.
> 
> The more secure M2 feels around me, the less competitive / dismissive she is.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a new way to look at it. I never considered it was just insecurity.
> 
> How did you move her from one to the other if I may ask? Is it just about time?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I can say straight up that my husband clearly doesn't think that what I think has as much validity as what he thinks. Generally speaking, most men seem to be like this to me. Male privilege is real, and this is part of it....the idea that you are superior and so is your thinking. I'm not saying most men are huge jerks, not at all. Most men don't even realize these thoughts are deep beneath their thought processes, or that's how it seems anyway.


Again, total BS.

I see far more of the opposite of that.

But we both have confirmation bias. It's part of the human condition.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Also Mem....we have an entire industry of books written around the central idea that WOMEN DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT and that men need to show them and tell them what they want. The biggest one is MMSL.


I don't think most people, men or women, actually know what they want.

The thing is, in many cases, women are the gateway to sex.

So where that leaves many couples is the man trying to figure out what the woman want so he can get laid.

It also happens the opposite way, of course.


> So....we can conclude from this that men actually WANT to hear that they should tell women what they want...that they do NOT want to hear that they should find out from women what they want and be influenced by it.


You're hilarious.

Most guys I know are *terrified* to tell a woman what he wants, or what he thinks she should want.


> I would wager money that nearly every wife of a legit Nice Guy can point out dozens of ways she attempted to influence her husband that did not work, because he wouldn't listen. He was too busy making covert contracts.


Last time I checked, women were just as fantastic as men at being passive-aggressive and making covert contracts, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Again, total BS.
> 
> I see far more of the opposite of that.
> 
> But we both have confirmation bias. It's part of the human condition.


Yes, I totally agree that everyone has confirmation bias. And there are a lot of things about my experience that are much different than the average person. (such as that my husband is a sex god, ha!) But when we do intersect with those averages, it does help us understand a greater amount of other people because we have similar experiences. 

When we have widely varying experiences, yet assume ours is an average experience, is when we get into trouble. I really don't assume my experience is the same as others, except when it has been proven that it is (such as in large scale research like the Gottman project).


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't see honest disagreement, I see "no, women already tell us what to do all the time and we listen and do it so don't tell me we aren't influenced" and "oh sure so we're supposed to bear all the burden and responsibility" and "oh yeah just keep the peace and do whatever they say"....all without having actually read the books to see what the source actually says.


I've read at least one book and I frequently disagree with you.

And still respect you.

Even when you go off like this.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I totally agree that everyone has confirmation bias. And there are a lot of things about my experience that are much different than the average person. (such as that my husband is a sex god, ha!) But when we do intersect with those averages, it does help us understand a greater amount of other people because we have similar experiences.
> 
> When we have widely varying experiences, yet assume ours is an average experience, is when we get into trouble. I really don't assume my experience is the same as others, except when it has been proven that it is (such as in large scale research like the Gottman project).


Back to square 1.

Gottman has many valuable insights.

I don't think there's much science going on, is all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I don't think most people, men or women, actually know what they want.


Speak for yourself, I guess.

I will always listen to and abide by what others say they want, as I assume they have self-agency and enough self-awareness to know.

To assume otherwise would just be arrogance.

Even if someone does not know what they want, it is not my position to figure that out or speculate on who knows what they want and who doesn't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Back to square 1.
> 
> Gottman has many valuable insights.
> 
> I don't think there's much science going on, is all.


If you prefer to call it research instead of science, I have no issue with that.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If you prefer to call it research instead of science, I have no issue with that.


Then we're good.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Speak for yourself, I guess.
> 
> I will always listen to and abide by what others say they want, as I assume they have self-agency and enough self-awareness to know.
> 
> To assume otherwise would just be arrogance.
> 
> Even if someone does not know what they want, it is not my position to figure that out or speculate on who knows what they want and who doesn't.


So then covert contracts don't exist, right?

Because they'd be overt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I've read at least one book and I frequently disagree with you.
> 
> And still respect you.
> 
> Even when you go off like this.


Whether it appears so in my posts or not, I actually respect almost everyone at TAM. Including you. Different opinions don't bother me, ever. Regardless of how it may appear.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> When we have widely varying experiences, yet assume ours is an average experience, is when we get into trouble. I really don't assume my experience is the same as others, except when it has been proven that it is (such as in large scale research like the Gottman project).


Waitaminute FW...

Didn't you just go off on men in general?

Why are you so angry at subjects like this?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Whether it appears so in my posts or not, I actually respect almost everyone at TAM. Including you. Different opinions don't bother me, ever. Regardless of how it may appear.


It appears like you're very angry.

At anything that seems to approach men focusing on themselves to be better, for one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Waitaminute FW...
> 
> Didn't you just go off on men in general?
> 
> Why are you so angry at subjects like this?


I pointed out that the men on this thread are making a direct example of what jld pointed out of Gottman's research. This is not the same as "going off on men in general".

If you need me to even out the score, feel free to point out research about what women do (I made a case for this in another post) and I will be happy to point out that yes, in fact, women do do that.


----------



## Wolf1974

intheory said:


> *Years and years ago my husband told me point blank to my face that "guys only listen to other guys"; with regards of how to do something, or in forming an opinion.
> *
> I think I've still tried in vain over the years to communicate about things I feel real strongly about. He either doesn't listen [the worst is when he turns up the volume on the TV with the remote when I'm talking]; or I trust that he is listening --- but then later I realize he wasn't [by his total lack of recall of that conversation].
> 
> So I don't try to influence him about anything anymore. I can't remember when I foundered and gave up.
> 
> The only possible exception is I insist on preparing him a 2x daily regimen of vitamins/herbs. He constantly laughs/ridicules it.
> 
> I guess I "stonewall" (?) now. I keep doing it and ignore his comments.
> 
> I have thought about giving up doing this. Then he can let his lack of exercise, crummy diet and avoidance of my food supplementation take their natural course.
> 
> We did lower his borderline high blood pressure "naturally", but that was only because a male acquaintance affirmed what I said and told him to get his blood pressure regulated naturally and avoid the pharmaceuticals as long as possible.
> 
> 
> He has no music, in his vast collection, of any female musicians.
> 
> 
> jld - what is that recipe for the natural gum rinse? I'm always looking for new ways to clean my teeth and gums.


I would say the opposite is true for me. My father and grandfather repeatedly told me two things in life

1). Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one and they all stink.

2). To become wise you must listen to every side of the issue and then make your own conclusion for how you want to live your life. 

I have learned far more about life from women, my mother and grandmother especially, than guys.


----------



## notmyrealname4

> A pinch of salt, a little bit (maybe half teaspoon) hydrogen peroxide, and enough baking soda and water to make a paste. Use like toothpaste. For gum repair, let sit on gums for ten minutes after brushing, morning and evening, until healed.


Thanks, jld. I printed it out


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> It appears like you're very angry.
> 
> *At anything that seems to approach men focusing on themselves to be better, for one*.


Yes, of course I am accused of being "angry". That's the default position some men take when a woman speaks out.

And since I have never once discouraged any man to be a better man I'd like you to point out any post I have ever made that suggests so.

Case in point, the Gottman books ARE an approach that men (and women) can use to better themselves, and I am all for it.

What you are confused by is that I am opposed to MMSL, and somehow you've concluded this means I don't want men to find paths to better themselves. Instead, I am against any relationship book that pits the genders against each other, which MMSL definitely does.

OTOH, I loved NMMNG and have bought it and given it to many people. Including my own son because I wanted to make sure he understood the risks involved with having a more influential mother than father (his father was in his life, but was somewhat of a NG himself and did not take much of an active role in modeling male behavior for my son).


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> So then covert contracts don't exist, right?
> 
> Because they'd be overt.


Yes, they exist...I'm not sure where you are even going here. Just because they exist does not mean that "most people don't even know what they want" which is what you said.

If a person tells me directly they want X, I will assume they want X. I will not assume they don't know what they want, why would I assume I know better than they do what they want? :scratchhead:

That doesn't mean that some people aren't self-delusional and making covert contracts. But typically, that happens one on one in a relationship and wouldn't affect me personally. So I wouldn't dare to guess that someone is doing this. If they became aware they were doing it and told me so, then I would believe what they tell me they've learned about themselves.

To say that "most" people don't know what they want...where in the world are you getting that? :scratchhead:


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> If you prefer to call it research instead of science, I have no issue with that.



The non profit scholarly work he's done is peer reviewed and all that so it's safe to call it science.

The for profit part of the building I have questions about as to how they apply to more boundary cases. His work is very good, granted, but gospel it is not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So john are you saying that you feel that men and women accept influence from each other equally ON AVERAGE in marriages in the US?


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> So john are you saying that you feel that men and women accept influence from each other equally ON AVERAGE in marriages in the US?



I am saying that the decision / influence process (an area that I just happen to have spent a bit of time studying and modeling) is way too complicated to be thrown around as the next magic potion. 

Men have influence over some decisions, women over other decisions, some are joint, etc. It's a no brainer that a relationship where this process is mitigated somehow the family will be happier. That's descriptive.

What is less clear is how the process can be improved if it is not where it is needed to be. That's the prescriptive part.

I'm sure if I had a couple decades I could come up with a decent model or two of influence. But using the model from a healthy relationship to fix an unhealthy one is a bit of a stretch. You can improve it a bit but fixing.....


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can't recall, have you read the books or not? Because he doesn't just simply say "ok so all you men out there, do everything your wife wants you to and allow her to influence you and everything will be ok". Instead he does actually line out some processes that do work very well.

He also doesn't say all problems can or will be fixed by this. Again, he describes a process.

He also gives lots of examples of contemptuous speech by both men and women and doesn't make it out like women are sweeties while men are jerks.

Have you read it?


----------



## john117

I'm talking about the general methodology which I read a few today (slow day at work ). His peer reviewed papers are quite good. I have not read the books yet but I will now that you brought it up. 

I'm talking more from the general descriptive vs prescriptive process point of view where things don't always pan out as desired...


----------



## john117

But just for fun...

Gottman states that " the happiest marriages are those where the husband shares his power with his wife and allows himself to be influenced by the wife. "

Well, Paducah is a ways off from Seattle but methinks I share power with wifey pretty well. I allow her to influence me - sure as he!! (Building a McMansion wasn't my idea but went along) and I'm not the confrontational type - if I want something I can convince her or better yet, convince her to "convince me"...

I think his suggestion is sound in a healthy or mostly healthy marriage but in a Mayo Clinic case like mine laden with skeletons his method isn't as helpful. I wish it were but basic triage tells you that you need to fix big things first. At least he admits that many marriages aren't fixable which I appreciate.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I pointed out that the men on this thread are making a direct example of what jld pointed out of Gottman's research. This is not the same as "going off on men in general".
> 
> If you need me to even out the score, feel free to point out research about what women do (I made a case for this in another post) and I will be happy to point out that yes, in fact, women do do that.


I don't get why it's always men v women.

I mean, that's all fun and games when it's shirts v skins and all that, but I just don't see the point in always picking sides.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, of course I am accused of being "angry". That's the default position some men take when a woman speaks out.
> 
> And since I have never once discouraged any man to be a better man I'd like you to point out any post I have ever made that suggests so.
> 
> Case in point, the Gottman books ARE an approach that men (and women) can use to better themselves, and I am all for it.
> 
> What you are confused by is that I am opposed to MMSL, and somehow you've concluded this means I don't want men to find paths to better themselves. Instead, I am against any relationship book that pits the genders against each other, which MMSL definitely does.
> 
> OTOH, I loved NMMNG and have bought it and given it to many people. Including my own son because I wanted to make sure he understood the risks involved with having a more influential mother than father (his father was in his life, but was somewhat of a NG himself and did not take much of an active role in modeling male behavior for my son).


Again, what exactly is it that makes you angry about MMSL, or people thinking Gottman has problems?


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/263794-fws-invitation-marduk.html


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, they exist...I'm not sure where you are even going here. Just because they exist does not mean that "most people don't even know what they want" which is what you said.
> 
> If a person tells me directly they want X, I will assume they want X. I will not assume they don't know what they want, why would I assume I know better than they do what they want? :scratchhead:
> 
> That doesn't mean that some people aren't self-delusional and making covert contracts. But typically, that happens one on one in a relationship and wouldn't affect me personally. So I wouldn't dare to guess that someone is doing this. If they became aware they were doing it and told me so, then I would believe what they tell me they've learned about themselves.
> 
> To say that "most" people don't know what they want...where in the world are you getting that? :scratchhead:


If "most people" know what they want, they would be happy when they got it, right?

And be able to articulate what they wanted, right?

Therefore...

We'd be a lot more straightforward?


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

I'll just give examples from the marriages I know well. 10 are familial - sisters, in laws and then niece and nephews.

Female influence/male influence. So if the first number is bigger, the female Ina's more influence. 

S1: 60/40 in favor of my sister - my BIL is strong - she's stronger
S2: 10/90 marriage ended after 17 years, it was a bitter divorce

SIL1: 20/80 traditional marriage between 2 devout Catholics - mostly happy
SIL2: 30/70 seems to work for them
SIL3: 50/50 seems to work well

niece1: 30/70 very religious - seems to be working well 
Niece2: 60/40 very religious - seems to be working well
Nephew1: 10/90 bad marriage 
Nephew2: 50/50 not a great marriage 

Friend1: 60/40 happy marriage
Friend2: 20/80 very unhappy marriage 

M2 and me 60/40 very happy marriage




Faithful Wife said:


> So john are you saying that you feel that men and women accept influence from each other equally ON AVERAGE in marriages in the US?


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> I think his suggestion is sound in a healthy or mostly healthy marriage but in a Mayo Clinic case like mine laden with skeletons his method isn't as helpful.


Just to be very very very clear...I don't think Gottman is helpful for a sitch like yours either. I get it. Some cases are simply beyond the area of a generalized book.

I do hope you'll read it, but not because I think it offers any hope for you. I hope you'll read it because I would be interested in your opinion of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk, see my link a page back....


----------



## john117

Will do, FW! I'm reading Schronach right now... His approach is a bit more palatable.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> I can say straight up that my husband clearly doesn't think that what I think has as much validity as what he thinks. *Generally speaking, most men seem to be like this to me. Male privilege is real, and this is part of it....the idea that you are superior and so is your thinking.* I'm not saying most men are huge jerks, not at all. Most men don't even realize these thoughts are deep beneath their thought processes, or that's how it seems anyway. My husband does not consciously realize this, but it is evident to me every day.
> 
> Women tend to tip toe around stuff like this and try to influence their men in whatever way they can. SOME women will never accept that type of influence, I get that, too. SOME men are far TOO influenced by their women and can't think on their own.


I feel myself & H have a balance here that neither feels is Over bearing on one side or the other... but leans to be that "helpmate"... there is *influence* here.. what we'd both deem - an equal partnership.. even if our roles are more traditional to modern standards...in the give & take of daily decisions.. how we run our family, where we are headed in all things.... there is a comradeship of "working together" - each caring how the other feels.. because really.. when one of us hurts, is upset, feels left out... it affects US .. we don't LIKE THAT.. we have to make it right.. .... we are both very sensitive TO THIS...and couldn't enjoy living like that..

It's gravely important to us, our marriage..and our harmony. 

Mine has NEVER been one to parade "male privilege" over me...I've seen a couple marriages where I felt the woman was treated as lessor ...the one I think borders abuse.. very unsettling ... just imagining being in her shoes... I can't imagine the resentment.. I know she has her outlets in other areas to cope... it's very sad really...

I've always felt thankful for the way my H treats me....he's always shown he cares about my happiness.. he's one to seek my thoughts before going forth..keeping me informed... I asked him one day (due to a thread here )..why he's always done this..as some men just take the Lead & let the wife know what HAS happened -after the fact.....he said something to how intelligent I am (love him!) and he wants my input... and really.. I am the same way..I am always ASKING HIM..and seeking how he feels.. what *WE* should do.. We are like 2 peas in a pod here.. .. it's never been something we had a quarrel over -ever.. 

Now... there was a few occasions I was basically STUPID , blowing him off...didn't listen to his sound judgement in our earlier years.. (driving too fast, got a ticket on the way to Disney, kept talking to my aunt & her H going through a divorce/ nasty custody battle , they both kept calling ME...he wanted me to put a stop to this (I thought I was being helpful), then I got called into court - YIKES!! - thankfully didn't have to testify.. and another time before we married I was dumb enough to trust a friend to double $500 -he was a shyster & I was a fool.. Live & learn.. but Yeah.. those came back to BITE ME.. and he KNEW better ! 

Oh he was happy to rub it in a little.. with a Grin & a funny story to boot... "I told you so!!"... and I deserved that..

I greatly respect my Husband.. his judgment has an awesome track record... he has surely influenced ME for the good..and I know he would also say the same here... I've gotten better over the years..


----------



## jld

Great post, FF. I like the way you handled that. Your husband needed to learn on his own, and you let him (within reason, of course). You were not controlling, so you did not create some sort of authority for him to rebel against. 

And your husband, to his credit, did not just accept mounting credit card charges. He knew that would not be helpful to your mutual financial future. He looked at reality, swallowed his pride (probably something Gottman is subtly trying to suggest to husbands), and asked for your help.

I think no. 7 is a very important part of Gottman's findings, too. It bears repeating:

_7. Men who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives' influence. *The happiest, most stable marriages were the ones in which the husband treated his wife with respect and didn't resist power sharing and decision making with her but actively searched for common ground with her. *(Stonewalling and refusing to plan things out with her is a power play. The one who says the least has the most power. When a man ignores her influence, it creates instability in the relationship and the marriage will be damaged).

Women tend to allow their husbands to influence them. *The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. *If the husband accepts her influence, the wife is less likely to be harsh when something causes stress. If she feels hopeless about being able to influence him, she will be "triggered" and her negativity will escalate.

*When a husband accepts his wifes influence, his open attitude heightens the positive in his relationship by strengthening his friendship with his wife. *It makes it easier for him to deepen his love map of her, bolster fondness and admiraton and turn toward his wife. This helps him learn from his wife many of the emotional skills that she learned growing up and he didn't. Studies show that from a very young age (1 1/2 years), boys will accept influence only from boys when they play and girls accept influence from boys and girls equally._

Gottman specifically addresses husbands in that list. He shows them how they can use their influence to make their marriages better. 

I think it is the wise, mature husband who looks with an open mind at that list, in an effort to improve himself, and does not automatically become defensive.


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> But just for fun...
> 
> Gottman states that " *the happiest marriages are those where the husband shares his power with his wife and allows himself to be influenced by the wife. *"
> 
> Well, Paducah is a ways off from Seattle but methinks I share power with wifey pretty well. I allow her to influence me - sure as he!! (Building a McMansion wasn't my idea but went along) and I'm not the confrontational type - if I want something I can convince her or better yet, convince her to "convince me"...
> 
> I think his suggestion is sound in a healthy or mostly healthy marriage but in a Mayo Clinic case like mine laden with skeletons his method isn't as helpful. I wish it were but basic triage tells you that you need to fix big things first. At least he admits that many marriages aren't fixable which I appreciate.


I think where part of my hang up is that this statement strongly implies an assumption of the man having the power in the relationship, and then proceeds from that assumption. I do not necessarily agree with the initial assumption.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> *I think where part of my hang up is that this statement strongly implies an assumption of the man having the power in the relationship, and then proceeds from that assumption. I do not necessarily agree with the initial assumption*.


You feel automatically women have the power.. or more influence? I am the more dominant personality in our marriage.. .. my husband would probably agree with you.. but he doesn't feel I abuse it.. does this matter ? if either partner abuses their influence/ power (whatever we want to call it).... by not appreciating, taking advantage..ignoring the other, dissing their needs, wants.. this is when we invite much trouble into our marriages.. and resentment will begin to fester, if we don't get it weeded out. 

Gotta have *Respect* on both sides, or it's all going to fall apart.. 

I so agree with the premise of this book >> Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, The Respect He Desperately Needs: Dr. Emerson Eggerichs: ...

Can't speak for other women here.. but when I FEEL deeply loved & cared for, I WANT TO GIVE BACK.. if not.. well.. I wouldn't be so wonderful to live with -by any means!! 

When a man feels greatly respected (and he's a caring man, loves his wife).. this upholds many things...


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Can't speak for other women here.. but when I FEEL deeply loved & cared for, I WANT TO GIVE BACK.. if not.. well.. I wouldn't be so wonderful to live with -by any means!!


I think this is what Gottman is trying to say: when women feel loved and respected, they soften. It all starts with how the man treats her.


----------



## jld

I would like to share the abstract of a study that relied on Gottman's research that I found interesting, _*What we can learn from husbands who share power with their wives*_, by Donna Emmanuel. Unable to link, so will quote the abstract in its entirety:

_This qualitative study sought to explore the connection between three phenomena. The first was *the researcher's prior observation, as a marriage and family therapist, of several married couples in which the husband's inability or unwillingness to accept influence from his wife played a central role in the couples' subsequent divorce. *The second was research (Gottman, 1999) that suggests that the refusal of husbands to accept their wife's influence is highly predictive of divorce. The third phenomenon was the author's observation that although there is evidence that a man's willingness to accept his wife's influence is central to a stable marriage and marital satisfaction, there are no idiomatic, positive terms to describe husbands who do so. To the contrary, when husbands do explicitly and publicly seek input from their wives, the commonly used terms used to describe them are distinctly pejorative (e.g., "hen-pecked," "she wears the pants in the family," etc.).

This study focused on 18 heterosexual husbands who were identified as adept at sharing power with their wives. The project sought to identify the belief systems, attitudes, and behaviors of these husbands; the factors within and outside of their marriages which contributed to their skillfulness in this regard; and what advice they would give to other husbands who wish to develop these capacities. In order for the husband to be included in this study, both the participants and their wives completed the "Locke-Wallace Marital Inventory" (Locke & Wallace, 1959) and the "Gottman Accepting Influence Questionnaire" (Gottman, 1999), and both partners agreed that their marriages were satisfying and that the husband accepted his wife's influence.* Gottman's statement, "marriages will work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with, women" (p. 52) was the springboard for this 12-question, depth-psychological study.

The participants attributed their skillfulness at accepting influence to three major factors: (1) they married women they whole-heartedly loved, respected, and admired; (2) they were totally committed to their wives and to their marriages; and (3) they valued the role of conflict in their marriages and they learned to listen to their wife's complaints without defensiveness.*_


----------



## Blonde

My STBXH would probably claim that I had more power. Not sure why he thinks of me as such a dominatrix? But I think it is along the lines of what JLD said here:



> Your husband needed to learn on his own, and you let him (within reason, of course). You were not controlling, so *you did not create some sort of authority for him to rebel against.*


Anything I ever felt strongly about and expressed a passionate opinion became an area where he could poke and goad me. Never in my M did I feel like we were a team working together. If I expressed a need- such as for working HEAT, HOT WATER, or DRYER (with a family of 10 to care for) he would withhold it and IMO it was deliberate to upset me and make me angry so he could feel like the "victim" and work out his "authority issues".

For decades, I was the dutiful submissive wife, following wherever he led. He had power over where we lived (moved 25 times during our 32 year M, lived in 6 states and two foreign countries); how many children we had (he didn't believe in BC so we had 11 pregnancies with 8 births): where we went to church: etc.

Around 2004 I started moving away from religious fundamentalism and the uber control. H missed the silent submissive doormat, I guess.

Anyway, the final straw came on Christmas Day 2014 when he got into a car carrying 4 of our children with an open container of alcohol and I asked him to dump it out and he refused. I can't even tell you how POWER-less and disrespected I felt and I pretty much decided- That's it! 
Not. one. more. Christmas.

Most of the arguments we have had for the past 7 years (since I stopped being a "submissive wife" and hire a contractor if he doesn't do what I ask) is over issues related to his drinking and how he treats the children (abusive IMO). He was supposed to be in counseling to work on how he treats the children but in his opinion he is just fine, thank you very much. I am the problem.

OK. 
Bye.

As a single mom, I have a great deal of power over the atmosphere in my own home. And I like that.  I try very hard to maintain an atmosphere of Peace and Respect (sometimes challenging with sibling issues between 12yos and 15yos) but infinitely less stressful than it was with the 6o year old rebellious adolescent shenanigans.


intheory said:


> the worst is when he turns up the volume on the TV with the remote when I'm talking]; *or I trust that he is listening --- but then later I realize he wasn't [by his total lack of recall of that conversation*].


Scary and triggering for me. Long story you can read here about STBXH lack of listening escalating into DV toward then 17yod.

intheory, nowadays when I read of marriages that sound like mine was, I soooo want to advise "RUN!!!"


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think this is what Gottman is trying to say: when women feel loved and respected, they soften. It all starts with how the man treats her.



But since women get to determine if/when/how they feel loved it can get ugly in a hurry especially when prior experiences from family or culture come into play.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> *You feel automatically women have the power.. or more influence?*


No. Not at all. I don't grant any assumptions regarding a default power and influence position in any given relationship.

In the most general sense, I think what he is suggesting is that the most successful marriages are ones where there is amicable power and influence sharing between partners...which has it's basis in respect and trust for and in ones partner. I know that for many it's not, but for me, and I suspect you as well, this is just something that is self evident.


----------



## jld

I am so glad you left him, Blonde. I wish more women had the courage to do what you did.

Churches should not put an emphasis on women being submissive. According to Gottman's research, that happens anyway. The emphasis should be on a husband's being worthy of the influence she allows him to have over her. That is certainly my message to men.

So important that women have their own independent sources of income. So glad my own daughter is going to be financially independent. Many women stay in unhealthy marriages because of financial necessity. They feel trapped.

I think a lot of women end up carrying a marriage, not because they want to, but because the man is too weak to do so. And some women cannot come right out and admit they married a weak guy. They defend and protect his fragile ego. It ends up hurting both of them, because he is not forced to look honestly at himself. 

If she would stop protecting him, he would be forced to sink or swim. I think the woman knows that, but she does not want to face it. It would be crushing. Easier to just protect and defend him, and keep propping up his ego, at least in the short term. But long term, I think the woman will come to regret it.

The solution to all this, imo, is being totally honest with the man from the get go. No protecting his feelings. She needs to speak her truth clearly, and trust he will eventually thank her for it.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> You feel automatically women have the power.. or more influence? I am the more dominant personality in our marriage.. .. my husband would probably agree with you.. but he doesn't feel I abuse it.. does this matter ? if either partner abuses their influence/ power (whatever we want to call it).... by not appreciating, taking advantage..ignoring the other, dissing their needs, wants.. this is when we invite much trouble into our marriages.. and resentment will begin to fester, if we don't get it weeded out.
> 
> Gotta have *Respect* on both sides, or it's all going to fall apart..
> 
> I so agree with the premise of this book >> Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, The Respect He Desperately Needs: Dr. Emerson Eggerichs: ...
> 
> Can't speak for other women here.. but when I FEEL deeply loved & cared for, I WANT TO GIVE BACK.. if not.. well.. I wouldn't be so wonderful to live with -by any means!!
> 
> When a man feels greatly respected (and he's a caring man, loves his wife).. this upholds many things...


That's what I was stating before when my words got twisted once again on a post. I have never felt that I had more power inside a relationship. Not when married not when a BF never ..

And before I get jumped on again I'm not saying the research is wrong here. But something in the way I either pick women or dynamics I set up in relationships. I have my own theory about why I might be that way but I'm still learning about me so it's a process 

Good post SA


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> But since women get to determine if/when/how they feel loved it can get ugly in a hurry especially when prior experiences from family or culture come into play.


Until you are ready to listen to wise counsel from someone like Blonde, your marriage is unlikely to improve.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think this is what Gottman is trying to say: when women feel loved and respected, they soften. It all starts with how the man treats her.


Yup. Core message.

What Gottman misses, in my opinion, is how attraction works.


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> I am so glad you left him, Blonde. I wish more women had the courage to do what you did.
> 
> Churches should not put an emphasis on women being submissive. According to Gottman's research, that happens anyway. The emphasis should be on a husband's being worthy of the influence she allows him to have over her. That is certainly my message to men.
> 
> So important that women have their own independent sources of income. So glad my own daughter is going to be financially independent. Many women stay in unhealthy marriages because of financial necessity. They feel trapped.
> 
> I think a lot of women end up carrying a marriage, not because they want to, but because the man is too weak to do so. And some women cannot come right out and admit they married a weak guy. They defend and protect his fragile ego. It ends up hurting both of them, because he is not forced to look honestly at himself.
> 
> If she would stop protecting him, he would be forced to sink or swim. I think the woman knows that, but she does not want to face it. It would be crushing. Easier to just protect and defend him, and keep propping up his ego, at least in the short term. But long term, I think the woman will come to regret it.
> 
> The solution to all this, imo, is being totally honest with the man from the get go. No protecting his feelings. She needs to speak her truth clearly, and trust he will eventually thank her for it.



Submissive wifery enables and creates a self centered monster and at age 60, its too late to go back and undo the damage... ((((((sigh)))))))

Look at this description of being a wife in that culture:

Will you be a wife? Lay you in the casket.
To be one man’s Help Mate. To follow respect submit obey
Will you stand behind a man? Purge you of dignity you of self-determination.
Will you be weak so He will be strong?
Will you be a wife? … Rid you of ambition
He is you now
u disappear

by Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly VI​
and this is from a ministry of Focus on the Family which is wildly popular in the evangelical subculture: What does submission look like for Christian women?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Yup. Core message.
> 
> What Gottman misses, in my opinion, is how attraction works.


Marduk, I think you put too much emphasis on sex. It is part of marriage, but it is not the main thing. 

A trust-based emotional connection is the main thing. It is the glue that holds the marriage together in the long run.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> The non profit scholarly work he's done is peer reviewed and all that so it's safe to call it science.
> 
> The for profit part of the building I have questions about as to how they apply to more boundary cases. His work is very good, granted, but gospel it is not.


The concerns I have John -- given this is your domain so I'm seeking your wisdom here -- are that his classifications seem to lack objectivity (hence confirmation bias) and they lack data supporting the predictions.

Meaning he took a bunch of couples, classified the successful marriages vs unsuccessful, found correlations in both.

And then made predictions... but to my knowledge never field tested those predictions in any meaningful study. Perhaps I missed it...

But we all know correlation does not mean causation.

And I think he missed some very core concepts on human sexuality that is a big influencer on marriages.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, I think you put too much emphasis on sex. It is part of marriage, but it is not the main thing.
> 
> A trust-based emotional connection is the main thing. It is the glue that holds the marriage together in the long run.


It's very possible that I do, JLD.

My point is that I've experienced loving and respectful relationships with zero attraction, and high attraction relationships that were not loving or respectful.

I would like to have my cake and eat it too, I guess.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> *Will you be weak so He will be strong?*


That is awful. A woman should never compromise herself for a man. She should be herself. A man strong enough for her will accept her authenticity without feeling threatened by it.

Strong men do not require the velvet glove treatment from women. Strong men are not emotionally fragile. 

Not only do they not need protection, they welcome her disagreement without defensiveness. They know they can learn from her.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Marduk, I think you put too much emphasis on sex. *It is part of marriage*, but it is not the main thing.
> 
> A trust-based emotional connection is the main thing. It is the glue that holds the marriage together in the long run.


It's what defines marriage and sets marriage apart from any other relationship.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> It's very possible that I do, JLD.
> 
> My point is that I've experienced loving and respectful relationships with zero attraction, and high attraction relationships that were not loving or respectful.
> 
> I would like to have my cake and eat it too, I guess.


Then I would listen to Gottman. He has experience in how to create a happy marriage.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> It's what defines marriage and sets marriage apart from any other relationship.


And so if a couple is physically unable to have sex, they are no longer married?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *Churches should not put an emphasis on women being submissive. According to Gottman's research, that happens anyway. The emphasis should be on a husband's being worthy of the influence she allows him to have over her. That is certainly my message to men*.


Ok ...not trying to cause a firestorm here ...if the "head of the household" ideal is ever to be one worthy of what was intended... it goes something like this.. please take a moment to read ...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/relationships-spirituality/61081-head-house.html ...JLD, I see you did post your thoughts on this thread..*Mr Blunt* felt it was the best explanation of those verses he ever read.. 

I, too, much enjoyed THIS explaining...(but again.. it ALL hinges on the man treating his wife with the utmost of love & respect, deeply caring for her in every way)...this is what is lost .. and far too often abused.. 

I did my own post - Will copy & paste here..



> *Simplyamorous said:*
> Not long ago ...we had a woman speaker at our Mops Meeting.....what was the Subject.... Being "Submission" to our husbands...
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed it... agreeing with her every word....(and of course this doesn't mean when the man is abusive in any way shape or form...it was explained as you laid out here >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Serif said *: We will start with the second: wives, submit to your husbands. Note that it DOES NOT say, "Husbands, make your wives submit." Submission is not an act of force, it is an act of will. Further, it is not just an act of will, *but an act of heart*. If two children fight and their mother says, "Apologize to your brother!" And they apologize, have they submitted? I can promise you not... trust me, my brother and I proved that one.
> 
> Submission isn't just about doing what you're told, it's a matter of purposefully lifting someone else above you. Supporting them in a way that raises them, not because you have to, because you want to. It means putting aside your rights for theirs and yes, even obedience. Something like this can start with choosing what you don't necessarily feel, but it doesn't need to stay there.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I no longer call myself a Christian, I so agreed with the message that came forth... it's pretty much how we live... I know what works for us.... I was very happy to meet this woman ... this is her book >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherproof Your Home . . . Against the Storms of Life:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She gave her own story...she laid her faults & failings bear...how her way of living was hindering her own marriage/ her children.....for 20 yrs they were in a power struggle/ turmoil... came close to divorcing a couple times, separated a few times, she earned more than her husband.... she bulked, they argued , fights never ending...
> 
> Then in her 40's, their son on drugs.....his example of leadership from his parents was not there... no respect....she wanted to blame him.... she got down on her knees in desperation... the fingers were pointing back at HER.. she changed...she even quit her higher paying Job .......A lot of talk about respecting our husbands ..... her marriage revived... what she learned through that - led to many speakings & this book ~ helping many marriages.
> 
> I really loved this one thing she said....
> 
> *A woman is meant to yield to her husbands *Lead... *and He, in turn is to provide for* her NEED... How does one argue with this? IF he is a GOOD man leading the family in an honorable way...being the Provider & Protector he was meant to be, this being the heart of his concern as a MAN.
> 
> A couple needs to be on the same page....this = a workable marriage...
Click to expand...


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Until you are ready to listen to wise counsel from someone like Blonde, your marriage is unlikely to improve.



I have listened to wise counsel and that's why I am bailing out. However, even Blonde dragged it out for a decade longer than she should have. As will have I.

My mistake, and I'm not speaking for her but just taking a guess, her mistake, was we thought it could improve. Not when you're dealing with "that kind of person"...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> It's very possible that I do, JLD.
> 
> My point is that I've experienced loving and respectful relationships with zero attraction, and high attraction relationships that were not loving or respectful.
> 
> I would like to have my cake and eat it too, I guess.


I think if you have the base of emotional connection and love, it's much easier to build attraction. If I am feeling loved, I notice the things that make me attracted more. If I am feeling disrespected and unheard, he could come in the room looking like a movie star and I don't care. 

Obviously don't just sit around in your underpants with a big, hairy gut sticking out. Be what your wife finds attractive but I do agree that connection is #1 priority.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Then I would listen to Gottman. He has experience in how to create a happy marriage.


Oh, I am JLD, you know that.

What I'm starting to realize is that nobody has a complete set of solutions.

Now reading Esther Perel. She's like the exact opposite of Gottman... and yet, somehow, complimentary.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> The concerns I have John -- given this is your domain so I'm seeking your wisdom here -- are that his classifications seem to lack objectivity (hence confirmation bias) and they lack data supporting the predictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning he took a bunch of couples, classified the successful marriages vs unsuccessful, found correlations in both.
> 
> 
> 
> And then made predictions... but to my knowledge never field tested those predictions in any meaningful study. Perhaps I missed it...
> 
> 
> 
> But we all know correlation does not mean causation.
> 
> 
> 
> And I think he missed some very core concepts on human sexuality that is a big influencer on marriages.



That's more or less how I feel. But having done a similar methodology for the interaction between humans and inanimate objects I can tell you it's a b!tch to even begin to predict, regardless how good your analysis and design work is.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Marduk, I think you put too much emphasis on sex. It is part of marriage, but it is not the main thing.
> 
> 
> 
> A trust-based emotional connection is the main thing. It is the glue that holds the marriage together in the long run.



Chicken and egg problem...


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think if you have the base of emotional connection and love, it's much easier to build attraction. If I am feeling loved, I notice the things that make me attracted more. If I am feeling disrespected and unheard, he could come in the room looking like a movie star and I don't care.
> 
> Obviously don't just sit around in your underpants with a big, hairy gut sticking out. Be what your wife finds attractive but I do agree that connection is #1 priority.


I think it's like a bell curve.

To little respect and love, and there's no attraction of course. At least in an LTR.

Too much respect and love, and attraction may wane for some LTRs. Because if I respect and love my wife, I may not want to just bone her brains out, you know? Be a little selfish?

What Perel is teaching me is that there needs to be a sense of 'other' to keep the spark. 

What Gottman shows is that there must be enough of a sense of 'oneness' to keep you together.

Many strategies to have both, is what I'm thinking.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> That's more or less how I feel. But having done a similar methodology for the interaction between humans and inanimate objects I can tell you it's a b!tch to even begin to predict, regardless how good your analysis and design work is.


Exactly.

Which is why I bristled at his opening series of statements that he can predict if a couple is going to stay together with 98% accuracy.

I just don't buy it. At least to that kind of precision.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I have listened to wise counsel and that's why I am bailing out. However, even Blonde dragged it out for a decade longer than she should have. As will have I.
> 
> My mistake, and I'm not speaking for her but just taking a guess, her mistake, was we thought it could improve. Not when you're dealing with "that kind of person"...


Gottman says men have influence over women. He is trying to show you how to use it. But you have to be willing to hear it.


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> Marduk, I think you put too much emphasis on sex. It is part of marriage, but it is not the main thing.


I won't claim that is universal but I think it's extremely common among men

IME it's a sign of immaturity and a M at risk if ongoing sexual chemistry is the only litmus test

From a female perspective, I really resonate with Gottman's "Embrace her Anger". https://books.google.com/books?id=z...v=onepage&q=gottman embrace her anger&f=false Used to tell my H that for me anger is very very close to passion. If you harness it the right way and get good communication going, the make-up sex is awesome. If I am angry and he walked out of the room (withdraw/stonewall), it's equivalent to me getting him all excited, initiating intercourse then pulling out and leaving the room to leave him frustrated without a climax.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Gottman says men have influence over women. He is trying to show you how to use it. But you have to be willing to hear it.


I think John's perspective is that both his and his wife's feelings are too far gone.

And I can understand that.

I just wish he would bring her in on the ending the marriage strategy.

And set himself up for more positive relationships in the future.


----------



## Marduk

Blonde said:


> I won't claim that is universal but I think it's extremely common
> 
> IME it's a sign of immaturity and a M at risk if ongoing sexual chemistry is the only litmus test
> 
> From a female perspective, I really resonate with Gottman's "Embrace her Anger". https://books.google.com/books?id=z...v=onepage&q=gottman embrace her anger&f=false Used to tell my H that for me anger is very very close to passion. If you harness it the right way and get good communication going, the make-up sex is awesome. If I am angry and he walked out of the room (withdraw/stonewall), it's equivalent to me getting him all excited, initiating intercourse then pulling out and leaving the room to leave him frustrated without a climax.


On the list, I'll check it out. I can buy the premise.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I think it's like a bell curve.
> 
> To little respect and love, and there's no attraction of course. At least in an LTR.
> 
> Too much respect and love, and attraction may wane for some LTRs. Because if I respect and love my wife, I may not want to just bone her brains out, you know? Be a little selfish?
> 
> What Perel is teaching me is that there needs to be a sense of 'other' to keep the spark.
> 
> What Gottman shows is that there must be enough of a sense of 'oneness' to keep you together.
> 
> Many strategies to have both, is what I'm thinking.


A man has to be secure in himself, Marduk. True strength comes from within. That is what is necessary for long term attraction.


----------



## Deejo

I think Gottman has some great stuff. So does Sue Johnson.

I also think Glover, Levine, Kay, and Manson have some great stuff.

Research and numbers are interesting.

What I'm most interested in is observable results. 

MY observable results.

I have learned many relationship truths for me over the last decade. Many, I thought were utter heresy, or completely mis-aligned in how one goes about forging a healthy happy relationship.

Until I saw them work.

What some see as influence, others will see as manipulation.

What some see as loving acceptance others will see as being a doormat and capitulation.

Here is what I can tell you about my own confirmation bias.

It's always right.

For me.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> I won't claim that is universal but I think it's extremely common
> 
> IME it's a sign of immaturity and a M at risk if ongoing sexual chemistry is the only litmus test
> 
> From a female perspective, I really resonate with Gottman's "Embrace her Anger". https://books.google.com/books?id=z...v=onepage&q=gottman embrace her anger&f=false Used to tell my H that for me anger is very very close to passion. If you harness it the right way and get good communication going, the make-up sex is awesome. If I am angry and he walked out of the room (withdraw/stonewall), it's equivalent to me getting him all excited, initiating intercourse then pulling out and leaving the room to leave him frustrated without a climax.


I definitely agree that how a man deals with a woman's anger says much about him. A mature, secure man will be able to hear her out and seek to understand her without feeling threatened and in need of shutting her down.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> A man has to be secure in himself, Marduk. True strength comes from within. That is what is necessary for long term attraction.


Necessary, sure.

Sufficient, no.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Which is why I bristled at his opening series of statements that he can predict if a couple is going to stay together with 98% accuracy.
> 
> I just don't buy it. At least to that kind of precision.


Is that really the part you object to? Or is it the suggestion that the man is the key factor in the healthiness of the marriage, and in particular, the way Gottman advises him to make it so?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I think John's perspective is that both his and his wife's feelings are too far gone.
> 
> And I can understand that.
> 
> I just wish he would bring her in on the ending the marriage strategy.
> 
> And set himself up for more positive relationships in the future.


He is capable of turning things around. Blonde has given him excellent input on why his marriage is in trouble. And listening to Gottman could get him out of it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> It's what defines marriage and sets marriage apart from any other relationship.


I would not choose a marriage like this compared to the one described by JLD. We both had plenty of lovely sex before I was married. 

What I have with DH is SO MUCH more than a "definition" of marriage where for us that definition is not even useful. The light that fires us to be the best for each other is not just getting laid every now and then. He loves me with a seriousness and intent that can border on scary, and I he. We accept each other, augment each other. The trust, the knowledge that he is there for me. That is the kind of intimacy that just bumping bits cannot achieve.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Is that really the part you object to? Or is it the suggestion that the man is the key factor in the healthiness of the marriage, and in particular, the way Gottman advises him to make it so?


Nope.

It's the presumption of the use of the scientific method, when it doesn't seem to actually have been applied.

I have no issue with focusing on the man to fix the marriage... but then again, I'm a man, so I'm looking for that kind of thing.

As a woman I might be concerned with the presumption of lack of agency on the wife's role.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He is capable of turning things around. Blonde has given him excellent input on why his marriage is in trouble. And listening to Gottman could get him out of it.


I think... if I peel back all the bluster about it... and read what he's been writing to Anon...

It's that he doesn't _want_ to. And I can grok that.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Gottman says men have influence over women. He is trying to show you how to use it. But you have to be willing to hear it.



I have 95% influence over J2, not an easy task given get education, income, age, and attitude.

Influence does not bring happiness. That's where we disagree. I influence what clothes she buys, where the kids go to college, all practical aspects of our life. 

She simply does not care or have an opinion. Some things she has a pig headed opinion about based on preconceived notions and those aren't fixable. You could have the head of Fidelity Investments talk her into downsizing our home and she won't listen. 

I feel you have never dealt with such a person that is not influence-able for some things. I hope you never do. If your frame of reference is your own marriage, a fairly laid back normal marriage by all accounts, you really have no idea what it's like to be dealing with someone who can be influenced into 95% but never into the last 5%.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> He is capable of turning things around. Blonde has given him excellent input on why his marriage is in trouble. And listening to Gottman could get him out of it.



Mega Epic :rofl: with all due respect.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I think... if I peel back all the bluster about it... and read what he's been writing to Anon...
> 
> 
> 
> It's that he doesn't _want_ to. And I can grok that.



Could it be the "95% / 5%" part?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> *It's the presumption of the use of the scientific method, when it doesn't seem to actually have been applied.*
> 
> I have no issue with focusing on the man to fix the marriage... but then again, I'm a man, so I'm looking for that kind of thing.
> 
> As a woman I might be concerned with the presumption of lack of agency on the wife's role.


Well, I am not a sociologist or psychologist, so I don't really know how that would be judged accurately. But his predictions are not my focus. His findings seem accurate to me.

Women already accept the influence of men. That was one of his main points. It is men's not accepting influence that was the problem.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I influence what clothes she buys, ..., all practical aspects of our life.


Why?


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Could it be the "95% / 5%" part?


Not sure.

I just think you've had enough of her.

Right?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, I am not a sociologist or psychologist, so I don't really know how that would be judged accurately. But his predictions are not my focus. His findings seem accurate to me.
> 
> Women already accept the influence of men. That was one of his main points. It is men's not accepting influence that was the problem.


Some women actually define themselves by the lack of influence by men, or the opposite of influence JLD.

Not all women accept influence by their husbands, or men in general.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I have 95% influence over J2, not an easy task given get education, income, age, and attitude.
> 
> Influence does not bring happiness. That's where we disagree. I influence what clothes she buys, where the kids go to college, all practical aspects of our life.
> 
> She simply does not care or have an opinion. Some things she has a pig headed opinion about based on preconceived notions and those aren't fixable. You could have the head of Fidelity Investments talk her into downsizing our home and she won't listen.
> 
> I feel you have never dealt with such a person that is not influence-able for some things. I hope you never do. If your frame of reference is your own marriage, a fairly laid back normal marriage by all accounts, you really have no idea what it's like to be dealing with someone who can be influenced into 95% but never into the last 5%.


You don't want to meet her emotional needs. You don't want to apologize to her for leaving those divorce papers on the table. You are where MEM was when he was 40, before he became secure enough in himself to see through his wife's eyes, and take responsibility for reaching out and soothing her the way only her husband can.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You don't want to meet her emotional needs. You don't want to apologize to her for leaving those divorce papers on the table. You are where MEM was when he was 40, before he became secure enough in himself to see through his wife's eyes, and take responsibility for reaching out and soothing her the way only her husband can.


I think there's more there, JLD.

She's been independently diagnosed BPD. Pretty tough to deal with, that.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Some women actually define themselves by the lack of influence by men, or the opposite of influence JLD.
> 
> Not all women accept influence by their husbands, or men in general.


Is that according to research, or just your own opinion? Because I think Gottman's research has said something different.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I think there's more there, JLD.
> 
> She's been independently diagnosed BPD. Pretty tough to deal with, that.


Was she diagnosed, or was it an offhanded remark by Dr. Jamie?

I think John has tremendous influence over his wife. I believe he is absolutely capable of turning things around.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Is that according to research, or just your own opinion? Because I think Gottman's research has said something different.


My opinion, and I know several women that are perfectly happy being that way.

I don't take it as an a priori assumption that all women must accept influence from men to be happy.

I come from the school of diversity is strength. Monocultures and one way of looking at things are frail.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Was she diagnosed, or was it an offhanded remark by Dr. Jamie?
> 
> I think John has tremendous influence over his wife. I believe he is absolutely capable of turning things around.


He thought she was, and had it independently verified.

Right John?


----------



## jld

Well, Gottman has his research backing up what he is saying. That is credible to me.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, Gottman has his research backing up what he is saying. That is credible to me.


I think his ideas are very powerful. 

Just not predictive.

And only partially covers the domain. I reference of course back to attraction and sex.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I think his ideas are very powerful.
> 
> Just not predictive.
> 
> And only partially covers the domain. I reference of course back to attraction and sex.


Marduk, I know I have said it before. I do not know how to say it more gently. _When you become secure in yourself, you will not worry about attraction issues anymore. Your inner security will earn your wife's trust, and her reliable attraction. And your trust in yourself will be the beginning of that._


----------



## jld

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, John. That was not my intention.

I do believe you can turn things around. I agree with Marduk that you just don't want to. But I do believe you could do it.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Was she diagnosed, or was it an offhanded remark by Dr. Jamie?
> 
> 
> 
> I think John has tremendous influence over his wife. I believe he is absolutely capable of turning things around.



Real diagnosis by Dr. Jamie after 8 FC sessions. 

I still remember us walking to the car after that day. J2 asked me what's BPD. I have her the standard DSM IV definition and so on. Her only question was "can you get physically sick from it". I responded negative. That was the extent of her care.

I do have phenomenal influence over J2 mostly because her mind is so tied up with, BPD and work that there simply isn't much time for her to think of anything else. 

I mean, krap, I've seen Turing machines that were less predictable . 

Guess what Herr Doctor Gottman? It doesn't work. I could convince J2 that aliens from Mars are about to attack Paducah and that we should move far from the river. I have done it on many occasions. She trusts me. 

But not enough where it counts. There are different kinds of influences and different domains of decision making that IMO Gottman does not consider. Maybe he does. We rarely fight about much in the last couple years. 

But it has not helped one bit.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Marduk, I know I have said it before. I do not know how to say it more gently. _When you become secure in yourself, you will not worry about attraction issues anymore. *Your inner security will earn your wife's trust, and her reliable attraction*. And your trust in yourself will be the beginning of that._


And that just does not come close to applying across the board. Just look at all of the cases where women are treated like crap, cheated on, do not in any way trust their man, and yet are still very attracted to them, and attracted to other men who behave the same way, thus the bad picker syndrome.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And that just does not come close to applying across the board. Just look at all of the cases where women are treated like crap, cheated on, do not in any way trust their man, and yet are still very attracted to them, and attracted to other men who behave the same way, thus the bad picker syndrome.


I think in marduk's case, it could work.

But yes, there are some very hurt women out there who accept to be abused by men.


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> Real diagnosis by Dr. Jamie after 8 FC sessions.
> 
> I still remember us walking to the car after that day. J2 asked me what's BPD. I have her the standard DSM IV definition and so on. Her only question was "can you get physically sick from it". I responded negative. That was the extent of her care.
> 
> I do have phenomenal influence over J2 mostly because her mind is so tied up with, BPD and work that there simply isn't much time for her to think of anything else.
> 
> I mean, krap, I've seen Turing machines that were less predictable .
> 
> Guess what Herr Doctor Gottman? It doesn't work. I could convince J2 that aliens from Mars are about to attack Paducah and that we should move far from the river. I have done it on many occasions. She trusts me.
> 
> But not enough where it counts. There are different kinds of influences and different domains of decision making that IMO Gottman does not consider. Maybe he does. We rarely fight about much in the last couple years.
> 
> But it has not helped one bit.


Not sure if there is anything quantifiable stated, but at least maybe in principle, if one could place relationships on a bell curve to determine a normal, like anything else, the more standard deviations one gets from the center, the less applicable these findings are? Though, based on number 7, it seems as if his baseline is not the center of the curve, but shifted towards where men are in the power position...of course,it could be that men having a disproportionate amount of power as compared to their wives is the norm, and natural power sharing is the extreme?

With relation to your wife being diagnosed BPD, my ex wife is diagnosed NPD, and as hard as it is for some people to wrap their minds around, there are some cases where it is flat out impossible to fix.


----------



## RoseAglow

Interesting conversation.

I haven't read Gottman so I am not sure what he means by "accept influence." 

It sounds like, in the most basic terms, it means "Husband takes wife's opinions/thoughts/concerns seriously." And if that IS what he means, then TAM shows #7 to be accurate, day in and day out.

I could pull several threads right now where the wife is leaving, and the husband now realizes that his wife HAS complained, she has told him that were problems, but he didn't really hear her. *He didn't take her seriously.* He didn't "accept her influence", maybe? He wasn't willing to listen and make changes.

I think the best marriages are when both partners prioritize the other spouse's wants and needs. In this case both partner always take the other spouse's request under careful and thoughtful consideration. I have seen cases where both men and women have walked because their needs/wants were on the bottom of the priority list- but I think it is true that women walk away more frequently then men. 

I agree that there is a bell curve of behaviors for men and women. Some people are just incapable of being in a healthy romantic partnership on the outskirts, while the great majority of us can, although we all have some issue or other. No one is perfectly mentally/emotionally healthy- that is a Socratic ideal that is impossible to meet in real life.

But since 95% falls somewhere in the middle, the work can apply to most.


----------



## Deejo

RoseAglow said:


> Interesting conversation.
> 
> I haven't read Gottman so I am not sure what he means by "accept influence."


I don't think that is by accident. It is interpretive.

Hell even Athol Kay acknowledged that MANY guys utterly screw up, misinterpret and use his advice incorrectly.

He blames men for their failed relationships too. One could just as easily say MMSL is a guide for men to take ownership for their part, participation and failing in their intimate relationships.

I'm not saying the two authors are equivalent. I'm perfectly comfortable saying they are both correct ... in a number of areas.

Allowing yourself to listen, respond to, change your thinking paradigm, or be 'influenced' by your spouse isn't a bad thing at all.

I don't really see that as rocket surgery. Makes perfect sense. Influenced by is not the same as managed, or controlled by.

People get caught up in the window dressing around it. Same way the ladies get caught up in Kay's description of 'Sperm Wars'.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I have 95% influence over J2, not an easy task given get education, income, age, and attitude.
> 
> Influence does not bring happiness. That's where we disagree. I influence what clothes she buys, where the kids go to college, all practical aspects of our life.


Oh, dear. This is psych101 isn't it, john? 

I get that BPD is something that probably most people couldn't live with or manage, and so surely there's more to your story. But the way this reads, it strikes me as abundantly and absolutely obvious why your wife is fighting you on some core issues.

Indeed, I'd venture that you're completely missing the value of influence -- and the of sharing that influence.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I don't think that is by accident. It is interpretive.
> 
> Hell even Athol Kay acknowledged that MANY guys utterly screw up, misinterpret and use his advice incorrectly.
> 
> He blames men for their failed relationships too. One could just as easily say MMSL is a guide for men to take ownership for their part, participation and failing in their intimate relationships.
> 
> I'm not saying the two authors are equivalent. I'm perfectly comfortable saying they are both correct ... in a number of areas.
> 
> Allowing yourself to listen, respond to, change your thinking paradigm, or be 'influenced' by your spouse isn't a bad thing at all.
> 
> I don't really see that as rocket surgery. Makes perfect sense. Influenced by is not the same as managed, or controlled by.
> 
> People get caught up in the window dressing around it. Same way the ladies get caught up in Kay's description of 'Sperm Wars'.


Except that Kay explicitly encourages men to completely ignore the influence of women, and instead manipulate them into responding certain ways, while Gottman explicitly encourages men to accept the influence of women, to listen to what they are telling them, and to act accordingly.

This is not window dressing, but a fundamental difference in approach, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

RoseAglow said:


> It sounds like, in the most basic terms, it means "Husband takes wife's opinions/thoughts/concerns seriously." And if that IS what he means, then TAM shows #7 to be accurate, day in and day out.
> 
> I could pull several threads right now where the wife is leaving, and the husband now realizes that his wife HAS complained, she has told him that were problems, but he didn't really hear her. *He didn't take her seriously.*


:iagree: And how many arguments have there been basically saying that it isn't enough for a woman to state her needs or raise her points, she basically needs to hit him over the head with a hammer before he'll even look up from the TV and realize that she might be saying something more than "quack, quack, quack."

Now, obviously this describes only one dynamic, and certainly not the only one, but it is clearly very, very common.


----------



## john117

Maybe. But feel free to call my advisor and have them revoke my phd since it was in decision analysis of all things 

Part of what I do is study what factors in design influence consumers to buy our krap... And how to design krap so that it gets consumers what they (think they) want.

Some people are not influenceable for some things - car buying is a good example. They stick to stereotypes, beliefs, and add plenty of personal bias to the point that it's nearly impossible to influence a happy customer to switch brands without resorting to massive giveaways...

Somehow influencing our spouses is different? Forgive me if I have some doubts


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

ALL of M2's 'BPD lite' traits have largely diminished since I started running my show the way it's was intended to be run. 

Is M2 'BPD lite' or isn't she? 

Turns out that's up to me. When she feels safe and supported, she isn't. When she feels anxious and uncertain, she is. 

That doesn't mean doormatting. It does mean - not making stuff about you - that isn't about you.



UOTE=marduk;12485426]I think there's more there, JLD.

She's been independently diagnosed BPD. Pretty tough to deal with, that.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Blonde

marduk said:


> As a woman I might be concerned with the presumption of lack of agency on the wife's role.


It's not lack of agency. It's lack of POWER

I would liken dealing with my H to dealing with an unbroken stallion who bucks and tramples everything in his path.

I simply had NO POWER to reign in his baser impulses (self indulgence of his addictions, meanness). Attempting to do so just got me trampled.

ZERO INFLUENCE

The agency kicks in with getting my ducks in a row so I did not have to remain in an atmosphere where me and my children are continually trampled: Go to school, get the RN, get a job, and be in a position where I am confident enough to leave with my children and start over without him.

I have noticed on forums that many many MANY men only seek Marital assistance when the sex dries up. They think the marriage is just peachy if they are "getting laid" (HATE that expression, it is sooo disrespectful!) 

Well, I got news for you. Good M sex does not make the M good.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> ALL of M2's 'BPD lite' traits have largely diminished since I started running my show the way it's was intended to be run.
> 
> Is M2 'BPD lite' or isn't she?
> 
> Turns out that's up to me. When she feels safe and supported, she isn't. When she feels anxious and uncertain, she is.
> 
> That doesn't mean doormatting. It does mean - not making stuff about you - that isn't about you.


:iagree:

I question these BPD diagnoses. Dug thinks the problem is HiBPD (Husband-induced BPD).


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld...with all due respect....PD's are very much real and are very much a problem in most relationships between a person with a PD and a person without one. It is unkind to doubt the reality of them because it is a severe mental illness. It is similar to stating that kids with autism are actually just stupid or goofing around and could act normal if the parents were different. 

PD's are also on a spectrum, so there is actually such a thing as a light case of one, to where the sufferer is almost 100% as functional as a non-personality disordered person.

But by and large, the sufferer truly does suffer and it is not under their own control.

It is also usually caused by extreme childhood trauma and/or abuse, which is another reason to be sensitive about the topic.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Except that Kay explicitly encourages men to completely ignore the influence of women, and instead manipulate them into responding certain ways, while Gottman explicitly encourages men to accept the influence of women, to listen to what they are telling them, and to act accordingly.
> 
> This is not window dressing, but a fundamental difference in approach, IMHO.


There you go ... parsing those differences between influence and manipulate.

They are the same. One word is simply more palatable than the other depending upon who is framing it's use.

The outcome both authors want ... is the same. Balanced, happy, intimate marriages. If you believe otherwise, you are being, or have been manipulated ... errr ... influenced in your thinking.
I'm really not a defender of Kay, or a huge advocate for that matter. Both authors tell relationship 'truths'.

Truth around here is of course, subjective.

I don't care what the truth is. I care what the results are.
Gottman's book didn't help my marriage. Doesn't mean he was all wrong.

Kay's book helped ME. Doesn't mean he's all right.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Somehow influencing our spouses is different? Forgive me if I have some doubts


Yes! The biggest difference is that the consumer is interested in only a very limited set of more easily controlled parameters, and will simply exercise their autonomy by choosing to buy another brand. 

It's not like all the careful design in the world is going to make every consumer buy whatever product, right?

The spouse is interested in a much richer, and more complex set of parameters that can't be easily controlled. And while they can exercise their autonomy simply by walking away, they will often find all sorts of other ways to do so.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Except that Kay explicitly encourages men to completely ignore the influence of women, and instead manipulate them into responding certain ways, while Gottman explicitly encourages men to accept the influence of women, to listen to what they are telling them, and to act accordingly.
> 
> This is not window dressing, but a fundamental difference in approach, IMHO.


I can't believe I'm defending the guy, but he actually doesn't. At least not in totality.

There is a 'breaking in' period where you do this, but I think the intention is for you to be able to stand alone from your wife, and to have both of you realize that.

Then you re-inject paying attention when you're strong enough to do that without being wishy washy about it.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...with all due respect....PD's are very much real and are very much a problem in most relationships. It is unkind to doubt the reality of them because it is a severe mental illness. It is similar to stating that kids with autism are actually just stupid or goofing around and could act normal if the parents were different.
> 
> PD's are also on a spectrum, so there is actually such a thing as a light case of one, to where the sufferer is almost 100% as functional as a non-personality disordered person.


I do so love how you can make me shake my head one minute, and make me smile the next.

My ex-MIL was exactly the person you describe in your last sentence.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> I have noticed on forums that many many MANY men only seek Marital assistance when the sex dries up. They think the marriage is just peachy if they are "getting laid" (HATE that expression, it is sooo disrespectful!)
> 
> Well, I got news for you. Good M sex does not make the M good.


THIS. Nothing enters through the ears until the sex dries up OR she's "WAW". It's just that she talks too much. Or I did this and that _because_. Look your because is not the only because. What you are not doing is listening to HER.

You know what thread comes to mind? The guy in Ladies Lounge who wants appreciation from his wife. He has a master plan of rightness. That does not include input about either practical matters or feelings from his wife.

Power.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...with all due respect....PD's are very much real and are very much a problem in most relationships. It is unkind to doubt the reality of them because it is a severe mental illness. It is similar to stating that kids with autism are actually just stupid or goofing around and could act normal if the parents were different.


I am sure that is true with some people, FW, but I do not believe it is true with all. My guess is that these diagnoses are subjective, and that there is a range involved.

And it is not like these people are all single. Some spouses have found ways of succeeding with them. That could be helpful to look at. 

My guess is that they are using Gottman's advice, along with clear boundaries with the best interests of the spouse in mind. And they have to be very strong in themselves to take on the challenge!


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I am sure that is true with some people, FW, but I do not believe it is true with all. My guess is that these diagnoses are subjective, and that there is a range involved.
> 
> And it is not like these people are all single. *Some spouses have found ways of succeeding with them*. That could be helpful to look at.
> 
> My guess is that they are using Gottman's advice, along with clear boundaries with the best interests of the spouse in mind. And they have to be very strong in themselves to take on the challenge!


I'm sorry but you are wrong, honey. With severe cases and even moderate ones, most spouses do NOT succeed with them.

I know it is hard to understand, but without knowing more about the issue, you really shouldn't speculate like this. It is cruel and unkind.

Relationships and Borderline Personality Disorder - Borderline Personality Disorder


----------



## Married but Happy

Deejo said:


> There you go ... parsing those differences between influence and manipulate.
> 
> They are the same. One word is simply more palatable than other depending upon who is framing it's use.
> 
> The outcome both authors want ... is the same. Balanced, happy, intimate marriages. If you believe otherwise, you are being, or have been manipulated ... errr ... influenced in your thinking.
> I'm really not a defender of Kay, or a huge advocate for that matter. Both authors tell relationship 'truths'.
> 
> Truth around here is of course, subjective.
> 
> I don't care what the truth is. I care what the results are.
> Gottman's book didn't help my marriage. Doesn't mean he was all wrong.
> 
> Kay's book helped ME. Doesn't mean he's all right.


My wife and I have read both Kay and Gottman.

Kay's book didn't help me at all - it really didn't apply to our situation. I can see that some of his ideas will work for some people in certain situations.

Gottman's books and research also didn't help me - we already do all the things he suggests (and don't do the things he says are problems), and our marriage works great. We happen to think that Gottman's work is extremely valuable and useful more generally, but realize that some people can't or won't accept or apply it even if it would help them.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> There you go ... parsing those differences between influence and manipulate.
> 
> They are the same. One word is simply more palatable than other depending upon who is framing it's use.


I disagree. The difference is in the direction. Influence is about listening, hearing, taking into consideration. Note that Gottman doesn't say that women should work harder to influence their men; he says that men should open themselves up to their wives's influence. And presumably would say the same to women, if they too were shown in his research to be prone to refusing influence. 

Kay, on the other hand, is all about the guy taking control, punching numbers into limbic systems to make the wife act the way he wants. Note that he never really cares what the women actually do or want, he just dictates what they do or want. 

So sure, broadly defined that's "influence", but the tack and direction are completely different.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...with all due respect....PD's are very much real and are very much a problem in most relationships between a person with a PD and a person without one. It is unkind to doubt the reality of them because it is a severe mental illness. It is similar to stating that kids with autism are actually just stupid or goofing around and could act normal if the parents were different.
> 
> PD's are also on a spectrum, so there is actually such a thing as a light case of one, to where the sufferer is almost 100% as functional as a non-personality disordered person.
> 
> But by and large, the sufferer truly does suffer and it is not under their own control.
> 
> It is also usually caused by extreme childhood trauma and/or abuse, which is another reason to be sensitive about the topic.


Okay, just saw what you added here. Yes, I agree there is a range. I also think how the spouse treats the BPD spouse has a huge influence. And yes, I agree, they do need to be approached with a great deal of sensitivity.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I disagree. The difference is in the direction. Influence is about listening, hearing, taking into consideration. Note that Gottman doesn't say that women should work harder to influence their men; he says that men should open themselves up to their wives's influence. And presumably would say the same to women, if they too were shown in his research to be prone to refusing influence.


Yup.

The problem is, of course, the hen pecked husband syndrome.

Plenty of dudes listen to their wives. So much so, that they lose all self-determination.


> Kay, on the other hand, is all about the guy taking control, punching numbers into limbic systems to make the wife act the way he wants.


The point is to assume leadership.


> Note that he never really cares what the women actually do or want, he just dictates what they do or want.


Waaaaaay off base there.

Witnes his sudden turnaround to cater 99.99% to the female market.


> So sure, broadly defined that's "influence", but the tack and direction are completely different.


I don't think leadership is a bad thing. From men or women alike.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry but you are wrong, honey. With severe cases and even moderate ones, most spouses do NOT succeed with them.
> 
> I know it is hard to understand, but without knowing more about the issue, you really shouldn't speculate like this. It is cruel and unkind.
> 
> Relationships and Borderline Personality Disorder - Borderline Personality Disorder


I did not say _most._ I said some. And I am sure it is an undertaking. 

I have to believe there is hope, FW. If I did not think there were hope, I would give up. And I do not want to give up.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

I don't believe we yet have good stats on the spectrum of PDs.

No doubt that some folks have hard core PD issues. 

But - my guess is that a lot of folks are somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. 

Just a gentle observation here. If someone has a stable work history and a few long term friends who seem semi sane - you are going to have a tough time convincing me that their craziness at home is independent of their partners response pattern. 




Faithful Wife said:


> jld...with all due respect....PD's are very much real and are very much a problem in most relationships between a person with a PD and a person without one. It is unkind to doubt the reality of them because it is a severe mental illness. It is similar to stating that kids with autism are actually just stupid or goofing around and could act normal if the parents were different.
> 
> PD's are also on a spectrum, so there is actually such a thing as a light case of one, to where the sufferer is almost 100% as functional as a non-personality disordered person.
> 
> But by and large, the sufferer truly does suffer and it is not under their own control.
> 
> It is also usually caused by extreme childhood trauma and/or abuse, which is another reason to be sensitive about the topic.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Just a gentle observation here. If someone has a stable work history and a few long term friends who seem semi sane - you are going to have a tough time convincing me that their craziness at home is independent of their partners response pattern.



It can be impacted a bit / a lot depending on the specific PD and it's magnitude but not "cleansed" or "cured" by any stretch.

That's the BPD Family dot com mantra, validate etc. It does not work in many cases and only hides symptoms in most cases. IMHO...


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I did not say _most._ I said some. And I am sure it is an undertaking.
> 
> I have to believe there is hope, FW. If I did not think there were hope, I would give up. And I do not want to give up.


Give up hope on what or whom?


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> Just a gentle observation here. If someone has a stable work history and a few long term friends who seem semi sane - you are going to have a tough time convincing me that their craziness at home is independent of their partners response pattern.


It is a hallmark of many PD's that people outside of the sufferers inner circle typically do not realize the person has a PD at all. 

I'm not talking about my opinion of PD's. I'm talking about the reality of them, the medical understanding of them, and the millions of people who deal with them.

People who aren't up close and personal with one don't understand it.


----------



## Blonde

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> The problem is, of course, the hen pecked husband syndrome.


We aren't supposed to "nag" but if we ask for the heat, hot water, or dryer to be fixed, it is ignored.... so we ask again and again... the cold does not stop, the laundry does not stop

I tried both ways- asking once and nagging

NOTHING works!

If you don't want to be hen pecked, I suggest taking care of the things she asks you to take care of because they are disrupting her world daily.

Now, I come on here and tell women to hire it out. Tell him the issue, give him a deadline, and then if he continues to ignore your concern, write the check from joint checking for a contractor (new appliance, lawn maintenance company, or whatever H is ignoring...)

One time I got quotes from a half dozen car dealers on a new car because the one we had could not pass inspection. I have never seen a man get on Craig's list and find a used car so fast  
And nag free, Go figure :rofl:


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Give up hope on what or whom?


Give up hope on either the people with BPD or their spouses.


----------



## Marduk

Blonde said:


> We aren't supposed to "nag" but if we ask for the heat, hot water, or dryer to be fixed, it is ignored.... so we ask again and again... the cold does not stop, the laundry does not stop
> 
> I tried both ways- asking once and nagging
> 
> NOTHING works!
> 
> If you don't want to be hen pecked, I suggest taking care of the things she asks you to take care of because they are disrupting her world daily.


Whoa whoa whoa...

I never said you nagged. I said that gottman's work is inapplicable to guys that get nagged continually into submission.

Hell, I've been that guy. 

There comes a point where the problem isn't the laundry, or the floors, or whatever.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
Yes - and you and I draw the opposite conclusion from that fact.

It's ok - I have enough brain space to accommodate differing viewpoints. 





Faithful Wife said:


> It is a hallmark of many PD's that people outside of the sufferers inner circle typically do not realize the person has a PD at all.
> 
> I'm not talking about my opinion of PD's. I'm talking about the reality of them, the medical understanding of them, and the millions of people who deal with them.
> 
> People who aren't up close and personal with one don't understand it.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Give up hope on either the people with BPD or their spouses.


My step daughter is going through an extremely difficult time right now in dealing with her brother. He has, and continues to make horrific life choices, is messed up in drugs, in trouble with the law, treats her like crap, yet still reaches out to her when he needs money, a place to stay, things like that.

It is absolutely tearing her up inside because she wants to fix him, and all of his trouble. She wants to get him on the right path, to set him up with a decent life. She keeps trying and trying, and he keeps screwing up. He keeps abusing her.

We have had several late night long heart to hearts about it, and it keeps coming back to the fact that she can not make him do anything, she can not control his choices. They are his responsibility, and his alone.

The best thing she can do right now to help him is to distance herself, to focus on herself. Become strong, stable...so that if he ever decides to start making the right decisions, to actually be willing to help himself, that she is in the best position possible to help him when it may actually do some good. So that she actually has something to help him with.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...
> 
> I never said you nagged. I said that gottman's work is inapplicable to guys that get nagged continually into submission.
> 
> Hell, I've been that guy.
> 
> There comes a point where the problem isn't the laundry, or the floors, or whatever.


Nagged into submission? 

Remember GI's talk on agency?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> We aren't supposed to "nag" but if we ask for the heat, hot water, or dryer to be fixed, it is ignored.... so we ask again and again... the cold does not stop, the laundry does not stop
> 
> I tried both ways- asking once and nagging
> 
> NOTHING works!


Back in our bad old days, that same hen pecked husband was sniffing around, wagging his tail saying when are we gonna have sex? Huh? Huh? When are we gonna have sex. Holy resentment, batman.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
The first questions I ask myself when assessing another poster are:
- How do they describe their marriage (happy, unhappy)
- How much ownership do they take? (Half, most, none)
- How heavily do they project their spouses flaws onto their spouses gender

Folks from unhappy marriages that weren't at all their fault - tend to have serious issues with their spouses gender. 

Some eventually let go of that anger, others don't. 




marduk said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...
> 
> I never said you nagged. I said that gottman's work is inapplicable to guys that get nagged continually into submission.
> 
> Hell, I've been that guy.
> 
> There comes a point where the problem isn't the laundry, or the floors, or whatever.


----------



## MEM2020

Somebody,
Some days I can't tell whether you are totally in love with your H, or resentful towards him. 





NobodySpecial said:


> Back in our bad old days, that same hen pecked husband was sniffing around, wagging his tail saying when are we gonna have sex? Huh? Huh? When are we gonna have sex. Holy resentment, batman.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Nagged into submission?
> 
> Remember GI's talk on agency?


I agree.

What I'm saying is that Gottman doesn't say that.


----------



## norajane

When I think of accepting a partner's influence, I usually think of it as something that is vital when making bigger decisions such as:

where to live
where and what kind of house to live in
job choices, SAHParenting choices
if or when to have children and how many
how to raise children
how to spend money, how to save money, how to invest money
planning for the future - what kind of future and what will it take to get there

If people aren't open to each other's influence on those matters, one or both will end up miserable. Marriage is a two-way street, and one person should not ignore, belittle, or discount the other's views unless they want to end up divorced. 

Accepting influence is a part of valuing the other person. Saying that accepting a wife's influence is being hen-pecked seems like the husband is de-valuing the wife's views. Being unable to listen and consider and discuss the other person's perspective is a disaster waiting to happen - that kind of "leader" ends up being the leader of his divorced life.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I agree.
> 
> What I'm saying is that Gottman doesn't say that.


Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think Gottman is all about male empowerment in marriage. He is trying to show men the influence they have over their wives when they take the time to approach her with empathy and kindness. He even says that her negativity is not powerful, but his is. That is influence.

_"The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. "_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think Gottman is all about male empowerment in marriage. He is trying to show men the influence they have over their wives when they take the time to approach her with empathy and kindness. He even says that her negativity is not powerful, but his is. That is influence.
> 
> _"The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. "_


Give Gottman to a 'nice guy' and I think all you'd get is an even 'nicer guy.'

And I mean that in a bad way.

Sometimes dudes gotta let the bad boy run wild, you know? For their wives as much as for themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> Somebody,
> Some days I can't tell whether you are totally in love with your H, or resentful towards him.


"Back in our bad old days" ... I have over 20 years of marital experience. We went through some of the things that other people did. That is why I said back in the bad old days. That was a long time ago. We have learned a lot since then.

I love him madly. I am glad we figured out our **** because otherwise we'd be long divorced. And that would be sad.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> Give up hope on either the people with BPD or their spouses.


We should not give up hope on them, but we have to realize that the standard advice doesn't work for their situation the same way.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think Gottman is all about male empowerment in marriage. He is trying to show men the influence they have over their wives when they take the time to approach her with empathy and kindness. He even says that her negativity is not powerful, but his is. That is influence.
> 
> _"*The research bears out that she can, in anger, escalate into negativity and it won't harm the marriage* but if the husband does it (through stonewalling or bullying) it does harm their marriage. "_


I'm not sure this is a good thing. What it seems to do is describe what many women say is a frustration to them...nothing gets through to their husbands. Perhaps if there were more harm done to the marriage by a wife's negativity and behavior, if more men were shaken by it, rather than blowing it off, there would be a more equal power and influence dynamic.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I'm not sure this is a good thing. What it seems to do is describe what many women say is a frustration to them...nothing gets through to their husbands. Perhaps if there were more harm done to the marriage by a wife's negativity and behavior, if more men were shaken by it, rather than blowing it off, there would be a more equal power and influence dynamic.


I think he is trying to say that a woman's anger is a warning sign to a man. It means, "Pay attention! This is important!"

And by responding as Gottman suggests, with kindness and empathy, her anger will be defused.

_"Soften your start up approach (women are usually responsible for harsh start-up but husband can make sure she is feeling known, respected, and loved and that he accepts her influence and her stance will soften)"_


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...
> 
> I never said you nagged. I said that gottman's work is inapplicable to guys that get nagged continually into submission.
> 
> Hell, I've been that guy.
> 
> There comes a point where the problem isn't the laundry, or the floors, or whatever.


There is no universal one answer to anything. BUT one of the problems of the hen pecked is the reason that they submit. It has nothing to do with hearing or influence but the dreaded covert contract. It is to GET something which is just one more nasty bit to add to the nagging. The thing about the laundry is about the LAUNDRY, not about getting sex. 

That said some people just marry *****es, male or female. We tend to skip that part, as if there is SOMETHING that can be done despite the fact that the other person is just an ass. My advice generally is don't marry those. But sometimes you don't know until it is too late.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I think he is trying to say that a woman's anger is a warning sign to a man. It means, "Pay attention! This is important!"




Meh. I guess I am glad that my husband generally listens the first time. Neither one of us likes anger that much.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no universal one answer to anything. BUT one of the problems of the hen pecked is the reason that they submit. It has nothing to do with hearing or influence but the dreaded covert contract. It is to GET something which is just one more nasty bit to add to the nagging. The thing about the laundry is about the LAUNDRY, not about getting sex.
> 
> That said some people just marry *****es, male or female. We tend to skip that part, as if there is SOMETHING that can be done despite the fact that the other person is just an ass. My advice generally is don't marry those. But sometimes you don't know until it is too late.


My point is that 'letting your wife influence you' could easily fall on nice guy ears as 'submit more and she'll love you more.'

Which is the opposite of what works in my experience.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Meh. I guess I am glad that my husband generally listens the first time. Neither one of us likes anger that much.


And if everyone's husband did that, I think there would be fewer angry wives.


----------



## MEM2020

Now THIS is consistent with my experience. 

One dynamic with this type of person is called: 
Come here
Go away

If you are unable to comfortably sustain yourself during the 'go away' cycle, you aren't compatible with someone like this. 

If you get into a good rhythm - the 'go away' phases are infrequent. That said - you cannot maintain a healthy balance with someone like this if you don't love them enough to leave them be - when they need space...


QUOTE=Faithful Wife;12487554]We should not give up hope on them, but we have to realize that the standard advice doesn't work for their situation the same way.[/QUOTE]


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And if everyone's husband did that, I think there would be fewer angry wives.


I imagine if everyone's wives did that too, there would be fewer angry husbands.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Now THIS is consistent with my experience.
> 
> One dynamic with this type of person is called:
> Come here
> Go away
> 
> If you are unable to comfortably sustain yourself during the 'go away' cycle, you aren't compatible with someone like this.
> 
> If you get into a good rhythm - the 'go away' phases are infrequent. That said - you cannot maintain a healthy balance with someone like this if you don't love them enough to leave them be - when they need space...


MEM, would you say that a needy person cannot be married to someone with a personality disorder?


----------



## Marduk

What's interesting in this whole debate is that I've read that people with BPD don't actually have a higher divorce rate than the average.

Although they seem to cheat a lot more.


----------



## NobodySpecial

You know, there is balance and reason to be struck everywhere. If you are married to Blonde's husband, the idea of power and influence is like Yah, Duh. 

I am going to get real here about MY influence when we were first married. I thought way more about right fighting than solving. As a result, I was really unreasonable about what I was asking from him. I not only asked him TO do things that *I* wanted him to do, things that I owned, I asked him to do things that I wanted HIM to own. Got mad that he did not own. Own what? What choices are left after I dictated to him? Then was never satisfied with the outcome of the work regardless of his opinion on the matter.

That is why when I hear general husband and wife should do this or that posts, I cringe a little. He DIDN'T listen to me. This is absolutely true. I did not make it easy for him to listen to me. Which can first? Whose "fault" is it? Who cares, let's fix it.

This is where captain stubing's comments come in. IF the situation in the marriage is uneven/broken because of a husband who has tried to keep peace in this way, then keeping more peace is not constructive.


----------



## jld

Gottman says that even when the wife approaches her husband sharply, he can still defuse her anger by making her feel loved, respected, and listened to. 

If this is true, and her negativity does not harm a marriage, but his does, then who has more opportunity to quickly get things on a healthier track?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Gottman says that even when the wife approaches her husband sharply, he can still defuse her anger by making her feel loved, respected, and listened to.
> 
> If this is true, and her negativity does not harm a marriage, but his does, then who has more opportunity to quickly get things on a healthier track?


Because it's two sides of the same coin.

Someone that doesn't respect himself can't offer it to someone else.

Someone that doesn't love himself can't offer it to someone else.

The problem is that people think these are different things, I think.


----------



## Blonde

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> The first questions I ask myself when assessing another poster are:
> - How do they describe their marriage (happy, unhappy)
> - How much ownership do they take? (Half, most, none)
> - How heavily do they project their spouses flaws onto their spouses gender
> 
> Folks from unhappy marriages that weren't at all their fault - tend to have serious issues with their spouses gender.
> 
> Some eventually let go of that anger, others don't.




I have three sons age 28, 15, and 12 and two grandsons age 2 and 1

and I have no problem with their gender 

and I don't appreciate your constantly discounting my posts

REALLY, DON'T. APPRECIATE. IT!


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Gottman says that even when the wife approaches her husband sharply, he can still defuse her anger by making her feel loved, respected, and listened to.


Ugh. If my husband did that, I would barf on him. Right after I asked myself, what kind of self respect does he have?? Anwya that is not a relationship that I would choose.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> The problem is, of course, the hen pecked husband syndrome.
> 
> Plenty of dudes listen to their wives. So much so, that they lose all self-determination.
> 
> The point is to assume leadership.


You seem to be forgetting that this whole "accept the wife's influence" is the only one lonely plank in Gottman's approach. Note that he also advocates for healthy arguments and conflict resolution. Indeed, the majority of the points in the OP are about marital conflict and how to resolve it in a healthy, bond-building way.

He is *not* saying that men should just roll over and be hen-pecked.

And the solution to losing one's self determination is not to be a "bad boy run wild" or taking over leadership. It's acting like an autonomous human being, capable of independent thought and judgment.


----------



## Blonde

Some men with unresolved mommy issues work out their unresolved mommy issues with older women on forums.

they seem to be able to be civil with everyone else

but that ONE poster they have selected to filter through their unresolved baggage


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Ugh. If my husband did that, I would barf on him. Right after I asked myself, what kind of self respect does he have?? Anwya that is not a relationship that I would choose.


This is not in the context of a groveling man. This is in the context of a man who realizes he has been neglecting his wife.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> You seem to be forgetting that this whole "accept the wife's influence" is the only one lonely plank in Gottman's approach. Note that he also advocates for healthy arguments and conflict resolution.
> 
> He is *not* saying that men should just roll over and be hen-pecked.
> 
> And the solution to losing one's self determination is not to be a "bad boy run wild" or taking over leadership. It's acting like an autonomous human being, capable of independent thought and judgment.


You forget, I'm a reformed 'nice guy.'

healthy arguments? To a nice guy that means understanding her side, and not pushing yours too hard.

Conflict resolution? Means letting her get her way.

He just doesn't tackle it head on.

And he entirely misses that the vast majority of human communication is non-verbal. Pure dialectic.

Except the basics -- facing together or apart, eye rolling, etc.

On a good day, I can go all day and not say a word to my wife. And we're both happy with that, and communicating volumes.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> And if everyone's husband did that, I think there would be fewer angry wives.


So the advice to couples is rather than figuring out how to communicate, we codify what anger is destructive and what isn't based on the paraphernalia between our legs? Honestly, that makes no sense.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
They can be married. And many are. 

They do however end up struggling with this core incompatibility. 

Consider: I KNOW M2 loves me. Her being angry at me doesn't change that. 

There are two types of situations: My fault and not my fault. In the former I let her know I'm sorry and am ready to talk when she is. I don't rush her. 

In the latter, it's typically a situation she's angry that I'm not 'all powerful' enough to fix it. 

I don't apologize for that. Just say: I wish I could make this the way you want it. If I could, I would. 






jld said:


> MEM, would you say that a needy person cannot be married to someone with a personality disorder?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> You forget, I'm a reformed 'nice guy.'
> 
> healthy arguments? To a nice guy that means understanding her side, and not pushing yours too hard.
> 
> Conflict resolution? Means letting her get her way.
> 
> He just doesn't tackle it head on.
> 
> And he entirely misses that the vast majority of human communication is non-verbal. Pure dialectic.
> 
> Except the basics -- facing together or apart, eye rolling, etc.
> 
> On a good day, I can go all day and not say a word to my wife. And we're both happy with that, and communicating volumes.


Well, yes, another one of Gottman's points was that men tend to avoid sticky marital issues and leave it all up to their wives to bring up issues and figure everything out. 

Again, it's not about being a bad boy or taking lead; it's about owning your own crap and vesting in the relationship. Same goes for women.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> You seem to be forgetting that this whole "accept the wife's influence" is the only one lonely plank in Gottman's approach. Note that he also advocates for healthy arguments and conflict resolution.
> 
> He is *not* saying that men should just roll over and be hen-pecked.
> 
> And the solution to losing one's self determination is not to be a "bad boy run wild" or taking over leadership. It's acting like an autonomous human being, capable of independent thought and judgment.


I must have missed the "hen-pecked" post.

I doubt Gottman ever meant husbands should let their wives influence them to start smoking, overspend on credit cards, or any other unhealthy activity. I am sure he meant to allow positive, constructive influence.

Am I the only woman here besides Blonde who does not have Nice Guy fears? I guess she and I have not had many dealings with that kind of man IRL.

To me, this is about male leadership. It is about using his influence to listen to his wife and treat her with respect and kindness. He should seek to understand her pov. He should not neglect her, just because he can.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I guess I really don't see the point to men generally do this and women generally do that. Is there one? A point I mean?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Well, yes, another one of Gottman's points was that men tend to avoid sticky marital issues and leave it all up to their wives to bring up issues and figure everything out.
> 
> Again, it's not about being a bad boy or taking lead; it's about owning your own crap and vesting in the relationship. Same goes for women.


I just wish he'd say that, is all.

Well, not all, but on this point.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> To me, this is about male leadership. It is about using his influence to listen to his wife and treat her with respect and kindness. He should seek to understand her pov. He should not neglect her, just because *he can*.


Here is where you and I differ. Why the hell can he?


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> You know, there is balance and reason to be struck everywhere. If you are married to Blonde's husband, the idea of power and influence is like Yah, Duh.
> 
> I am going to get real here about MY influence when we were first married. I thought way more about right fighting than solving. As a result, I was really unreasonable about what I was asking from him. I not only asked him TO do things that *I* wanted him to do, things that I owned, I asked him to do things that I wanted HIM to own. Got mad that he did not own. Own what? What choices are left after I dictated to him? Then was never satisfied with the outcome of the work regardless of his opinion on the matter.
> 
> That is why when I hear general husband and wife should do this or that posts, I cringe a little. He DIDN'T listen to me. This is absolutely true. I did not make it easy for him to listen to me. _*Which can first? Whose "fault" is it? Who cares, let's fix it*._
> 
> This is where captain stubing's comments come in. IF the situation in the marriage is uneven/broken because of a husband who has tried to keep peace in this way, then keeping more peace is not constructive.


I feel the same way. Many situations have two sides and both sides often feel wronged. So then it comes down to who was wronged first, chicken and the egg scenario, vs hey we BOTH have a part in this and we BOTH have to take an active role in fixing it. 

Shame more here aren't willing to hear this. I would bet that a cornerstone of successful marriages aren't ones that have constant power plays but instead have two people who conflict resolve and not right fight.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> I feel the same way. Many situations have two sides and both sides often feel wronged. So then it comes down to who was wronged first, chicken and the egg scenario, vs hey we BOTH have a part in this and we BOTH have to take an active role in fixing it.
> 
> Shame more here aren't willing to hear this. I would bet that a cornerstone of successful marriages aren't ones that have constant power plays but instead have two people who conflict resolve and not right fight.


You have No Idea what it took to get through to me on this point all those years ago. I get why people fight it. I really do. I did it too. I am RIGHT, g-damn it. And he should.... Should? What police force is going to enforce that?


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> So the advice to couples is rather than figuring out how to communicate, we codify what anger is destructive and what isn't based on the paraphernalia between our legs? Honestly, that makes no sense.


I would be interested in an explanation of WHY women's negativity is not destructive, yet men's is...

It begs the question...are the stereotypes accurate, at least in part that women hold onto grudges, are more emotionally fragile, and men just blow it off, fold and give in to keep the peace, placate?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I must have missed the "hen-pecked" post.
> 
> I doubt Gottman ever meant husbands should let their wives influence them to start smoking, overspend on credit cards, or any other unhealthy activity. I am sure he meant to allow positive, constructive influence.


You forget the social contract.

The current social contract, as understood by certain men, is "Happy wife, happy life."

So... happy wife? Get the dishes done. Get the laundry done. Watch the kids while she goes out with her friends. Buy her shiny things to make her happy for a minute.

I'm speaking about me, of course.

All of which just led us down a dead end path of suck.


> Am I the only woman here besides Blonde who does not have Nice Guy fears? I guess she and I have not had many dealings with that kind of man IRL.


I can only speak for myself. I caused much of the problem of course.

Single/dating -- I'm the stereotypical *********. Fighting, ****ing, party animal, pumped up on his own ego. Willing to jump in at the drop of a hat. Will hit on any woman that moves, especially if she thought I was a jerk.

But... LTR... I become a nice guy. Because I thought that was what you were supposed to do.

Must be disconcerting.


> To me, this is about male leadership. It is about using his influence to listen to his wife and treat her with respect and kindness. He should seek to understand her pov. He should not neglect her, just because he can.


Sure.

Just with an edge, is all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I would be interested in an explanation of WHY women's negativity is not destructive, yet men's is...
> 
> It begs the question...are the stereotypes accurate, at least in part that women hold onto grudges, are more emotionally fragile, and men just blow it off, fold and give in to keep the peace, placate?


Not in my marriage.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is where you and I differ. Why the hell can he?


Gottman said that women commonly accept the influence of men, but the reverse was not true.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> So the advice to couples is rather than figuring out how to communicate, we codify what anger is destructive and what isn't based on the paraphernalia between our legs? Honestly, that makes no sense.


If you scroll forward and read the last paragraph of page 134, there is a distinction by gender of which behaviors are destructive/not. https://books.google.com/books?id=z...v=onepage&q=gottman embrace her anger&f=false

This research Gottman cites here is from the late 80's 90's but I sure see my marriage in that paragraph! Maybe that is somewhat age/generation dependent, however? Not sure.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> I would be interested in an explanation of WHY women's negativity is not destructive, yet men's is...
> 
> It begs the question...are the stereotypes accurate, at least in part that women hold onto grudges, are more emotionally fragile, and men just blow it off, fold and give in to keep the peace, placate?


According to Gottman, it is destructive, just not as much as the man's.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I would be interested in an explanation of WHY women's negativity is not destructive, yet men's is...
> 
> It begs the question...are the stereotypes accurate, at least in part that women hold onto grudges, are more emotionally fragile, and men just blow it off, fold and give in to keep the peace, placate?


Blonde linked to his professional book back in the early pages of the thread. There is also a lighter version, called _7 Principles for Making Marriage Work._ Not sure how in depth it goes into his research.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> According to Gottman, it is destructive, just not as much as the man's.


Is that in the 7 Principles book?


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> If you scroll forward and read the last paragraph of page 134, there is a distinction by gender of which behaviors are destructive/not. https://books.google.com/books?id=z...v=onepage&q=gottman embrace her anger&f=false
> 
> This research Gottman cites here is from the late 80's 90's but I sure see my marriage in that paragraph! Maybe that is somewhat age/generation dependent, however? Not sure.


Sure seems right to me. Interesting that he says a compliant wife holds back the improvement of the marriage, while a wife's anger can help it.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> It begs the question...are the stereotypes accurate, at least in part that women hold onto grudges, are more emotionally fragile, and men just blow it off, fold and give in to keep the peace, placate?


Agree: this is the question I have too. I'm thinking that much of the work and research is rapidly becoming out of date because of shifts in stereotypes and gender roles.

It wasn't that long ago when no one would even blink if you said that men are the natural leaders in a relationship, and should be the one "wearing the pants", that they have all the financial power, etc.

But now? Men are still often made fun of when the woman "wears the pants", but more and more, these roles are changing.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is where you and I differ. Why the hell can he?


He can because she allows it.

In Gottman speak, she is "compliant" (see that paragraph I cited above)
In evangelical-speak she is "submissive"
In Dr Phil speak she "has taught him how to treat her"

Here is where her agency enters in. She has power, if not to influence, she has power to walk away


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> He can because she allows it.
> 
> In Gottman speak, she is "compliant" (see that paragraph I cited above)
> In evangelical-speak she is "submissive"
> In Dr Phil speak she "has taught him how to treat her"
> 
> Here is where her agency enters in. She has power, if not to influence, she has power to walk away


We can just not say what it is in NobodySpecial speak.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Is that in the 7 Principles book?


Pretty sure.

I've read a bunch on line now, and may be mixing it up.

To be clear, I liked that book tho.


----------



## MEM2020

Blonde,

Your signature line shows how you feel about men. 

They are 'all about sex' and need to 'get a clue'. 

If my tone with M2 was she needed to: 
'Get a clue'

We wouldn't be happily married. Likely not married at all. 

I do believe you are better off divorced. And FWIW I believe you are the better person than your H. 

I've also seen you kick a lot of male posters on TAM when they are down. 

So yes - you sound very angry - and often lash out at men in general and specific male posters. 

Separate from that, you're smart and you have good values. Seems like from the results you've gotten that you were/are a terrific mother. 

I don't dislike you. I do dislike some of what you do. 

As a mod - I have to follow a different standard of conduct. Needling you as I did - is inconsistent with that standard. 

So - pick the mod you most respect and I will ask them to review this set of posts. And I will accept their judgement, whatever it is. 






Blonde said:


> I have three sons age 28, 15, and 12 and two grandsons age 2 and 1
> 
> and I have no problem with their gender
> 
> and I don't appreciate your constantly discounting my posts
> 
> REALLY, DON'T. APPRECIATE. IT!


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Am I the only woman here besides Blonde who does not have Nice Guy fears? I guess she and I have not had many dealings with that kind of man IRL.
> 
> To me, this is about male leadership. It is about using his influence to listen to his wife and treat her with respect and kindness. He should seek to understand her pov. He should not neglect her, just because he can.


Three to four years ago, the bulk of men that found their way to this forum were classic 'Nice Guys'. Not the Nice Guys that everyone has warped and morphed into something evil and selfish as it reads today.

At that time they were men that found their way here and knew that something was 'off' in their marriage despite their best efforts to be good husbands and good fathers. Their wives treated them with disdain, disrespect and indifference. And do you know what most of the advice they were given by women here who had lousy marriages? 

Be nicer. Try harder. Be more ... 
More loving, compassionate, understanding, patient, tolerant.

And as ANY NG or reformed NG can tell you, doing THAT is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

The thought of 'leadership' doesn't even enter into a NG's vocabulary, because he presumes it is inappropriate and disrespectful to his wife.

You have always stated that how you wanted your marriage to be was simply the way you always thought how a marriage should be.

A Nice Guy operates under exactly the same premise. If I'm not a selfish, egocentric, dictator and instead conduct myself with caring, compassion, and deference, then she will feel loved, and will love me in return.
That is their 'truth'.

What such a man is utterly unprepared for, is what he thinks is the patent truth, is very far from it.

All I'm trying to outline, is what Marduk has been saying all along;

We were already doing the things that you outline, that Gottman outlines, listening, respect, contributing, loving, participating, and it did not lead to a healthy, balanced marriage. It led to an ever more disenfranchised, intolerant and entitled spouse.

This is where we now have the fail-safe of the men couldn't have been doing it correctly; which I recognize fits your paradigm.

I have no problem with that. 

I think what people may have questions about, or take issue with is your ability to acknowledge that their are other paradigms ... or that people may not want the same results you do.

It actually resembles, the same flawed thinking of a Nice Guy.


----------



## Blonde

MEM11363 said:


> Blonde,
> 
> Your signature line shows how you feel about men.
> 
> They are 'all about sex' and need to 'get a clue'.
> 
> If my tone with M2 was she needed to:
> 'Get a clue'
> 
> We wouldn't be happily married. Likely not married at all.
> 
> I do believe you are better off divorced. And FWIW I believe you are the better person than your H.
> 
> I've also seen you kick a lot of male posters on TAM when they are down.
> 
> So yes - you sound very angry - and often lash out at men in general and specific male posters.
> 
> Separate from that, you're smart and you have good values. Seems like from the results you've gotten that you were/are a terrific mother.
> 
> I don't dislike you. I do dislike some of what you do.
> 
> As a mod - I have to follow a different standard of conduct. Needling you as I did - is inconsistent with that standard.
> 
> So - pick the mod you most respect and I will ask them to review this set of posts. And I will accept their judgement, whatever it is.


My signature line are quotes from two MALE Tam members, so that was their opinion MEM

My H would agree totally with LongWalk. My H is STILL trying to get me to reconcile. STILL.

After all, the sex was good, and there was plenty of it.

And I really do NOT think my husband is the only one who guages the M based on the sex life. Just read TAM for 5 minutes.

In some ways you seem insightful to me in your relationship with your W. Sometimes it comes across arrogant. But nearly always, when you reply to me... it is filled with twisting my words and disrespectful judgement of 

so I think YOU have more work to do!

As for me, I'm always working on personal growth. Always.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I don't feed Nice Guy loops--so they leave / I leave. No fear, just...nothing.


I've been here for over 2 years now, and I still haven't got a clue what a nice guy is.

I used to think it was all very simple: a guy, who was nice. What could be wrong with that?

But some people seem to think it is some kind of doormat who needs to learn how to be more of an a$$hole because for some reason he isn't capable of doing anything but slavishly serving women. 

Other people seem to think it is a guy who wears the veneer of niceness, but actually is an a$$hole with a ton of covert contracts and mind-games.

So, honestly, even if "nice guy" is a problem, it strikes me that the concerns and solutions would have to be different, depending on what sort of "nice guy" he is.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Gottman says that even when the wife approaches her husband sharply, he can still defuse her anger by making her feel loved, respected, and listened to.



:rofl:

Way too simplistic. If that was the case....


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> T
> 
> A Nice Guy operates under exactly the same premise. *If I'm not a selfish, egocentric, dictator and instead conduct myself with caring, compassion, and deference, then she will feel loved, and will love me in return.*
> That is their 'truth'.
> 
> What such a man is utterly unprepared for, is what he thinks is the patent truth, is very far from it.


Oh dear, you really think that the bolded is very far from the truth? 

No wonder we can never agree on anything!

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who is a really, really, nice guy who treats his partners with caring and compassion, and has found that they do not treat him well at all. Why is that? Well, the truth from the peanut gallery is that he has an unfailing ability to pick narcissistic, selfish, and nasty women to be his partner.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I've been here for over 2 years now, and I still haven't got a clue what a nice guy is.
> 
> I used to think it was all very simple: a guy, who was nice. What could be wrong with that?
> 
> But some people seem to think it is some kind of doormat who needs to learn how to be more of an a$$hole because for some reason he isn't capable of doing anything but slavishly serving women.
> 
> Other people seem to think it is a guy who wears the veneer of niceness, but actually is an a$$hole with a ton of covert contracts and mind-games.
> 
> So, honestly, even if "nice guy" is a problem, it strikes me that the concerns and solutions would have to be different, depending on what sort of "nice guy" he is.


OK, I'll make it simple.

When I got married, I bought into the story that if you just listen to your wife, do what she wants, give her what she wants, she will be happy. And by making her happy, she will also make me happy.

That is the central, flawed, covert contract. And it isn't being an *******.

But when it doesn't work, it breaks down into more passive-aggressive stuff on both sides.

The nice guy is being a nice guy, and expecting a nice girl in return.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Oh dear, you really think that the bolded is very far from the truth?
> 
> No wonder we can never agree on anything!
> 
> I'm reminded of a friend of mine who is a really, really, nice guy who treats his partners with caring and compassion, and has found that they do not treat him well at all. Why is that? Well, the truth from the peanut gallery is that he has an unfailing ability to pick narcissistic, selfish, and nasty women to be his partner.


Or he helps bring them forth.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Oh dear, you really think that the bolded is very far from the truth?


It is not wrong. It is just not enough. It is not enough if you leave out setting personal limits to teach her how you are willing to be treated. It is not enough if you are using these traits as part of a covert sexual contract. It is not enough if you are no longer the fun, funny, attractive guy she fell in love with. And/or if your degree of appeasement has lowered her respect for you.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Or he helps bring them forth.


Holy, moly, it's really quite unbelievable how stuck some people are on this whole nice guy shtick.

Blows my mind.

No, actually, he has an unfailing ability to pick narcissistic, selfish, and nasty women. One of his exes, eg., actually physically hit him. After they broke up, she cheated with her bffs boyfriend. And would use and discard her friends in the rudest possible way on a fairly continual basis. 

So unless you wish to accuse me, other friends, my SO, and all sorts of other people of "bringing out the selfish and crazy" in these women, you're gonna have to admit that maybe it isn't always the "nice guy's" fault.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh dear, you really think that the bolded is very far from the truth?
> 
> No wonder we can never agree on anything!
> 
> I'm reminded of a friend of mine who is a really, really, nice guy who treats his partners with caring and compassion, and has found that they do not treat him well at all. Why is that? Well, the truth from the peanut gallery is that he has an unfailing ability to pick narcissistic, selfish, and nasty women to be his partner.


In which case, Gottman isn't going to work either. Same result. So ... still blaming the men then?

If she's unhappy, it's his fault.

If he's unhappy it's his fault.

I know most people here, particularly you, can't possibly believe this. So why do we keep painting that picture?

Having a very weird sense of deja vu.

For a bunch of people that want happiness and harmony in our relationships, we kind of suck at it a little bit.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> OK, I'll make it simple.
> 
> When I got married, I bought into the story that if you just listen to your wife, do what she wants, give her what she wants, she will be happy. And by making her happy, she will also make me happy.
> 
> That is the central, flawed, covert contract. And it isn't being an *******.
> 
> But when it doesn't work, it breaks down into more passive-aggressive stuff on both sides.
> 
> *The nice guy is being a nice guy, and expecting a nice girl in return*.


Because a lot of people buy into the lie that people will treat you the way you treat them, which in my own experience, only goes so far. All too often, I have seen people revert to selfishness, entitlement when they aren't called out on bad behavior.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> In which case, Gottman isn't going to work either. Same result. So ... still blaming the men then?
> 
> If she's unhappy, it's his fault.
> 
> If he's unhappy it's his fault.
> 
> I know most people here, particularly you, can't possibly believe this. So why do we keep painting that picture?
> 
> Having a very weird sense of deja vu.
> 
> For a bunch of people that want happiness and harmony in our relationships, we kind of suck at it a little bit.


I am surprised at you, of all people, fixating on fault.


----------



## MEM2020

Blonde,

If you want to experience some personal growth, go read Boston's entire thread. 

Don't 'skim' it. 'Read' it. And then focus on your comments to him. 

If you're comfortable with that version of you - I'll leave you be. If however you read that post carefully, I'm hopeful that you'll understand what I'm telling you. 

Either way - I wish you well. 





Blonde said:


> My signature line are quotes from two MALE Tam members, so that was their opinion MEM
> 
> My H would agree totally with LongWalk. My H is STILL trying to get me to reconcile. STILL.
> 
> After all, the sex was good, and there was plenty of it.
> 
> And I really do NOT think my husband is the only one who guages the M based on the sex life. Just read TAM for 5 minutes.
> 
> In some ways you seem insightful to me in your relationship with your W. Sometimes it comes across arrogant. But nearly always, when you reply to me... it is filled with twisting my words and disrespectful judgement of
> 
> so I think YOU have more work to do!
> 
> As for me, I'm always working on personal growth. Always.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Holy, moly, it's really quite unbelievable how stuck some people are on this whole nice guy shtick.
> 
> Blows my mind.
> 
> No, actually, he has an unfailing ability to pick narcissistic, selfish, and nasty women. One of his exes, eg., actually physically hit him. After they broke up, she cheated with her bffs boyfriend. And would use and discard her friends in the rudest possible way on a fairly continual basis.
> 
> So unless you wish to accuse me, other friends, my SO, and all sorts of other people of "bringing out the selfish and crazy" in these women, you're gonna have to admit that maybe it isn't always the "nice guy's" fault.


Of course it isn't! There are terrible people in this world.

My point is simply this.

With some women, I'm more of an ******* than others. It might be because I think I can be, or because she's mean-spirited, or whatever.

The older I get the more I'm aware of the facets in my own personality that other people help bring out, or repress. Especially my wife. 

And what I bring out in her.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> He's a green with a broken picker. A green without a broken picker picks an SA to go out with.


You know what?

You might not want to hear this.

But those kind of girls can be a hell of a time, for a short time.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I am surprised at you, of all people, fixating on fault.


I'm being hyperbolic.

I kind of knew I was putting my foot in the doo-doo pile with that post.

My point is ... we are better than arguing who is to blame.

Relationship truths, are variable depending upon who is looking through the lens of the relationship.

One of the biggest refrains I have seen posted over the years, is 'that we only get one side of the story'.

Except on rare occasions, that's the best we are ever going to do. We can only deal with what we are presented.


----------



## notmyrealname4

intheory said:


> . . . . He either doesn't listen [the worst is when he turns up the volume on the TV with the remote when I'm talking]; or I trust that he is listening --- but then later I realize he wasn't [by his total lack of recall of that conversation].
> 
> . . . .





Blonde said:


> . . . .
> Scary and triggering for me. Long story you can read here about STBXH lack of listening *escalating into DV toward then 17yod*.
> 
> intheory, nowadays when I read of marriages that sound like mine was, I soooo want to advise "RUN!!!"



Blonde,

Thank-you for your concern about my physical welfare. I do appreciate you going out of your way to warn me.

I feel that I should assure you that that is not a concern. We have been married 26 years, together 30. Never even a hint of physical violence of any sort.

I can't reveal the reasons online why my husband has such an aversion to physical violence _especially_ violence against women; but they are very profound reasons.

Can he be infuriatingly rude and dismissive? Yes.

Violent? No.

Congratulations on getting your RN while raising such a huge family; that is an accomplishment to be proud of.:smthumbup:


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> If she's unhappy, it's his fault.
> 
> If he's unhappy it's his fault.
> 
> I know most people here, particularly you, can't possibly believe this. So why do we keep painting that picture?


I hope you don't think I'm painting this picture? Because I'm pretty sure my last points were all about how it *wasn't* the nice guy's fault (other than some pretty bad picking).

The way I read it, everyone is all over this idea that men have more power in the relationship, and should accept influence from the woman, and absolutely ignoring everything else that Gottman has to offer.

All of which has to do with mutual bond-building and healthy conflict resolution.

But somehow these are terrible things because they put too much blame on men? Or can't possibly help "nice guys", because not only do nice guys have trouble standing up for themselves, they are also apparently incapable of understanding that mutual actually means "mutual"?


----------



## jld

Deejo, I am not really sure how to respond to your post. To me, Gottman's list seems quite accurate. I also agree with aa that some people have a broken picker. 

Because I agree with Gottman that women commonly accept the influence of men, but the reverse has not been shown to be true, I do think men are the key factor in marriage.

Gottman is a well-respected figure. Surely if there were flaws in his research, they would have been exposed by now. Not sure if he has ever commented on the NG phenomenon.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Of course it isn't! There are terrible people in this world.
> 
> My point is simply this.
> 
> With some women, I'm more of an ******* than others. It might be because I think I can be, or because she's mean-spirited, or whatever.
> 
> The older I get the more I'm aware of the facets in my own personality that other people help bring out, or repress. Especially my wife.
> 
> And what I bring out in her.


Well, and this is good insight. Just as your insights into what will make *your wife* more attracted to you are.

It's the assumption that this then applies across the board in every situation because that's the way it is that seems off to me.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> I hope you don't think I'm painting this picture? Because I'm pretty sure my last points were all about how it *wasn't* the nice guy's fault (other than some pretty bad picking).
> 
> The way I read it, everyone is all over* this idea that men have more power in the relationship*, and should accept influence from the woman, and absolutely ignoring everything else that Gottman has to offer.
> 
> All of which has to do with mutual bond-building and healthy conflict resolution.
> 
> But somehow these are terrible things because they put too much blame on men? Or can't possibly help "nice guys", because not only do nice guys have trouble standing up for themselves, they are also apparently incapable of understanding that mutual actually means "mutual"?


As I stated before, I have a problem with this assumption...an assumption that other conclusions are based on. If the initial premise is flawed, then any conclusions are suspect.

If the mutual bonding and healthy conflict resolution are coming from a place where one is assumed to have voluntarily released some of their power over the other, it is still not a situation of equals. It's not mutual.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Well, and this is good insight. Just as your insights into what will make *your wife* more attracted to you are.
> 
> *It's the assumption that this then applies across the board in every situation* because that's the way it is that seems off to me.


Bingo! And continuing on from this...the way to achieve the things listed in the initial list will look different, sometimes very different from couple to couple. Each couple has to find their own way, what works for them. They also need to have the insight and wisdom to understand how to apply these principle to their own relationship in a way that is beneficial.


----------



## Deejo

I think this is what we can agree on;

"...everyone is all over ..."

We can't agree even when we agree.



always_alone said:


> I hope you don't think I'm painting this picture? Because I'm pretty sure my last points were all about how it *wasn't* the nice guy's fault (other than some pretty bad picking).
> 
> The way I read it, everyone is all over this idea that men have more power in the relationship, and should accept influence from the woman, and absolutely ignoring everything else that Gottman has to offer.
> 
> All of which has to do with mutual bond-building and healthy conflict resolution.
> 
> But somehow these are terrible things because they put too much blame on men? Or can't possibly help "nice guys", because not only do nice guys have trouble standing up for themselves, they are also apparently incapable of understanding that mutual actually means "mutual"?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> As I stated before, I have a problem with this assumption...an assumption that other conclusions are based on. If the initial premise is flawed, then any conclusions are suspect.
> 
> If the mutual bonding and healthy conflict resolution are coming from a place where one is assumed to have voluntarily released some of their power over the other, it is still not a situation of equals. It's not mutual.


But this is not the initial premise from which all other things are deduced. It is but one plank in the picture, and simply based in the observation that men (statistically) tend to refuse to accept influence from women.

And there is no doubt at all that this is quite true, at least within the context of particular cultures and timeframes, is there?

I mean, I agree with you (and said it once before) that some of the stereotypes may be outdated with all the changes happening in gender roles, expectations from relationships, and so on. 

But then, don't we just simply update, and say that yes, men should accept their wives' influence, and women should accept their husbands' influence.

Once that's done and delivered, what else would need to change?

ETA: I just re-read your post again, and it occurs to me that you seem to think that Gottman is saying that *only* men need to accept influence. This isn't the case at all. The only reason there isn't an injunction for women as well is because his research shows that they *already* accept influence.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Deejo, I am not really sure how to respond to your post. To me, Gottman's list seems quite accurate. I also agree with aa that some people have a broken picker.
> 
> Because I agree with Gottman that women commonly accept the influence of men, but the reverse has not been shown to be true, I do think men are the key factor in marriage.
> 
> Gottman is a well-respected figure. Surely if there were flaws in his research, they would have been exposed by now. Not sure if he has ever commented on the NG phenomenon.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think his list is inaccurate.

It's just not a complete list.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> I don't think his list is inaccurate.
> 
> It's just not a complete list.


What specifically do you think is missing?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

That's also why I focus on. Is it true. For me? And in general.

It's definitely true for me. 

As far as fair/unfair. Couldn't care less. It produces a good result. Sets a good example for the kids. 

As far as influence goes - that's often a very difficult aspect of a marriage. 

For a long time, any failed attempts to influence each other would cause intense conflict. 

That's no longer true. Influence is just that. It's not control. 







jld said:


> Deejo, I am not really sure how to respond to your post. To me, Gottman's list seems quite accurate. I also agree with aa that some people have a broken picker.
> 
> Because I agree with Gottman that women commonly accept the influence of men, but the reverse has not been shown to be true, I do think men are the key factor in marriage.
> 
> Gottman is a well-respected figure. Surely if there were flaws in his research, they would have been exposed by now. Not sure if he has ever commented on the NG phenomenon.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Re: Gottman
> 
> That's also why I focus on. Is it true. For me? And in general.
> 
> It's definitely true for me.
> 
> As far as fair/unfair. Couldn't care less. It produces a good result. Sets a good example for the kids.
> 
> As far as influence goes - that's often a very difficult aspect of a marriage.
> 
> For a long time, any failed attempts to influence each other would cause intense conflict.
> 
> That's no longer true. Influence is just that. It's not control.


----------



## Blonde

Unsubscribing. (Lots of counseling under my belt to learn when to WALK AWAY intact)

Good thread, JLD. Keep up the good work! :smthumbup:

I apologize to LongWalk and FormerSelf for the mud splatter onto you. Please let me know if you want me to remove your insightful words from my signature line. Happy to do so. 

Meanwhile, they are wise words and I am proud to display them as my signature. :smthumbup:


----------



## norajane

always_alone said:


> ETA: I just re-read your post again, and it occurs to me that you seem to think that Gottman is saying that *only* men need to accept influence. This isn't the case at all. The only reason there isn't an injunction for women as well is because his research shows that they *already* accept influence.


:iagree:


I did not read #7 as an assumption that all or most men hold more power in all or most relationships. 

I read it as relationships founder when men do not accept their wives' influence, and that would apply if women didn't accept their husbands' influence bu this research shows that wives tend to already accept their husbands' influence. 

Some men absolutely DO accept their wives' influence, so this is not speaking to them! It is not sending men into doormat status if they are already listening and considering their wives views. It's highlighting that they are on track with that pillar, and should look at the others if they are having problems.

So the guidance is to consider whether it applies in your own relationship.

I did not think this was such a radical concept to generate so much pushback. But that it does generate so much pushback to me is reinforcing the results of Gottman's research that men are more likely to be resistant to listening and hearing and taking into consideration what their wives think.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> One dynamic with this type of person is called:
> 
> Come here
> 
> Go away
> 
> 
> 
> If you are unable to comfortably sustain yourself during the 'go away' cycle, you aren't compatible with someone like this.



And if you are able BPD's are pretty good in upping the ante to escalate the magnitude of push and pull...


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> That's also why I focus on. Is it true. For me? And in general.
> 
> It's definitely true for me.
> 
> As far as fair/unfair. Couldn't care less. It produces a good result. Sets a good example for the kids.
> 
> As far as influence goes - that's often a very difficult aspect of a marriage.
> 
> For a long time, any failed attempts to influence each other would cause intense conflict.
> 
> That's no longer true. Influence is just that. It's not control.



I think what scares some men, MEM, is the idea of out and out owning the state of their marriage. They want to blame their wife, or say that it was the fault of both of them. Very few men seem to say, "If there is a problem here, I caused it. And if I caused it, I can fix it."

And yet owning the issues and pursuing healthy ways of resolving conflict can be a fast track to improving the marriage. The man can fully apply himself to using his influence to repair the marriage. Just blaming her or insisting she own half of it slows men down and dilutes their energy, imo.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> Unsubscribing. (Lots of counseling under my belt to learn when to WALK AWAY intact)
> 
> Good thread, JLD. Keep up the good work! :smthumbup:
> 
> I apologize to LongWalk and FormerSelf for the mud splatter onto you. Please let me know if you want me to remove your insightful words from my signature line. Happy to do so.
> 
> Meanwhile, they are wise words and I am proud to display them as my signature. :smthumbup:


I am going to miss you, Blonde. I always learn from your posts. I hope you will change your mind and come back!


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think what scares some men, MEM, is the idea of out and out owning the state of their marriage. They want to blame their wife, or say that it was the fault of both of them. Very few men seem to say, "If there is a problem here, I caused it. And if I caused it, I can fix it."
> 
> And yet owning the issues and pursuing healthy ways of resolving conflict can be a fast track to improving the marriage. The man can fully apply himself to using his influence to repair the marriage. Just blaming her or insisting she own half of it slows men down and dilutes their energy, imo.


Very rarely are the problems in a relationship one persons responsibility, and I think it is imperative for each to take ownership of their part and work to fix it. I think it is inherently unfair for one partner to take responsibility for the shortcomings of the other, and in doing so, it is detrimental to the health of the relationship.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Picture a woman on a swing set. The the amplitude her swings equals the intensity of her anger/agitation. 

I'm not arguing with your statement - I've experienced it.

One day, in the course of 5 hours we went from:
- Me declining a small act of service 
To
- M2 saying that we weren't compatible together

So - yes - get it. But I also know that it isn't that hard to de-escalate if that's your priority. And de escalating without conceding on the initial point of conflict. 







john117 said:


> And if you are able BPD's are pretty good in upping the ante to escalate the magnitude of push and pull...


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> They can be married. And many are.
> 
> 
> 
> They do however end up struggling with this core incompatibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider: I KNOW M2 loves me. Her being angry at me doesn't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are two types of situations: My fault and not my fault. In the former I let her know I'm sorry and am ready to talk when she is. I don't rush her.
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter, it's typically a situation she's angry that I'm not 'all powerful' enough to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't apologize for that. Just say: I wish I could make this the way you want it. If I could, I would.



The above does not tickle the BPD meter very much, if at all...


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Very rarely are the problems in a relationship one persons responsibility, and I think it is imperative for each to take ownership of their part and work to fix it. I think it is inherently unfair for one partner to take responsibility for the shortcomings of the other, and in doing so, it is detrimental to the health of the relationship.


And I think unilateral action can turn a marriage around.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And I think unilateral action can turn a marriage around.


Which goes completely against the premise of this thread.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Picture a woman on a swing set. The the amplitude her swings equals the intensity of her anger/agitation.
> 
> I'm not arguing with your statement - I've experienced it.
> 
> One day, in the course of 5 hours we went from:
> - Me declining a small act of service
> To
> - M2 saying that we weren't compatible together
> 
> So - yes - get it. But I also know that it isn't that hard to de-escalate if that's your priority. And de escalating without conceding on the initial point of conflict.


5 hours?

That's 5 minutes in our house!

But I see your point.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Which goes completely against the premise of this thread.


I think it is exactly the premise of this thread.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> So... happy wife? Get the dishes done. Get the laundry done. Watch the kids while she goes out with her friends. Buy her shiny things to make her happy for a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking about me, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> All of which just led us down a dead end path of suck.



Most of my neighbors are like this. And I doubt they all starve in the sex department. 

I was like this for quite a while. Never hurt me in that way as well. 

Judging from my immediate circle of friends and neighbors the "non nice guys" are much more likely to get it on the side.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> 5 hours?
> 
> 
> 
> That's 5 minutes in our house!
> 
> 
> 
> But I see your point.



Lack of emotional stability by itself is not BPD... It's the lack of ability to regulate emotions that I find alarming.

I sometimes put on a show at work to make my point. Or with my kids. It's a pretty carefully crafted ploy. My older girl is an emotional firecracker. But she can self regulate.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think it is exactly the premise of this thread.


Unilateral is the antithesis of power and influence sharing, and a partnership of equals.


----------



## samyeagar

One thing I have not seen addressed is if the responsibility of men is to allow themselves to be influenced by their wives, it follows that wives have a responsibility to provide opportunity for their husbands to be influenced by them.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Unilateral is the antithesis of power, and influence sharing and a partnership of equals.


Lol, Sam. To me, Gottman's work is distinguished by what he indicates the man in particular needs to do for the marriage to be successful.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> One thing I have not seen addressed is if the responsibility of men is to allow themselves to be influenced by their wives, it follows that wives have a responsibility to provide opportunity for their husbands to be influenced by them.


Why not read the book and then tell us your review of it?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Lol, Sam. To me, Gottman's work is distinguished by what he indicates the man in particular needs to do for the marriage to be successful.


Which most certainly does not abdicate the woman's responsibility. The more responsibility one has, the more power and influence they have. You know the old adage...with great power comes great responsibility... I think that the more responsibility one partner is expected to carry, the more unreasonable it is to expect that power and influence be shared.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> One thing I have not seen addressed is if the responsibility of men is to allow themselves to be influenced by their wives, it follows that wives have a responsibility to provide opportunity for their husbands to be influenced by them.


Does not seem to be an issue:

_9. More than 80% of the time, it is the wife who brings up sticky marital issues, while the husband tries to avoid discussing them._


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Which most certainly does not abdicate the woman's responsibility. The more responsibility one has, the more power and influence they have. You know the old adage...with great power comes great responsibility... I think that the more responsibility one partner is expected to carry, the more unreasonable it is to expect that power and influence be shared.


If you want the wisest decisions taken, it is better to have two in genuine agreement, I think.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The book brings up LOTS of scenarios where the wife is being a huge idiot....and Gottman points out exactly how and where she is going wrong. The book does not focus on that one part that you are getting hung up on, sam.

I do wish you'd read it to see this.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> If you want the wisest decisions taken, it is better to have two in genuine agreement, I think.


Which precludes unilateral action.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> The book brings up LOTS of scenarios where the wife is being a huge idiot....and Gottman points out exactly how and where she is going wrong. The book does not focus on that one part that you are getting hung up on, sam.
> 
> I do wish you'd read it to see this.


Do you remember some examples? From the research one, or the mass market one?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Which precludes unilateral action.


By unilateral action, I mean his putting down his newspaper or turning off the computer and really listening to her. And then deciding that every day, he is going to do the same.

I do not mean his deciding to spend the family vacation money on a new motorcycle.


----------



## MEM2020

Someone has to LEAD. 

If you elect NOT to lead, you can't expect to have a good outcome. 

LEAD - doesn't mean control. In fact good leadership is 95% inspiration and 5% perspiration. 

With a bit of effort on my part - M2 and I end up spending a lot less time watching tv a lot more time playing games, sports and walking. 




QUOTE=samyeagar;12490234]Very rarely are the problems in a relationship one persons responsibility, and I think it is imperative for each to take ownership of their part and work to fix it. I think it is inherently unfair for one partner to take responsibility for the shortcomings of the other, and in doing so, it is detrimental to the health of the relationship.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

Tried the walks and activities. We used to walk an hour a day with j2 b!tching about her family, coworkers, or kids. Pardon the French but fvck that.

Tried cycling. Likewise silent. 

Tried watching movies. If it's a movie she wants we can watch. If something I want she's asleep in 15 min. 

.


----------



## norajane

MEM11363 said:


> Someone has to LEAD.
> 
> If you elect NOT to lead, you can't expect to have a good outcome.
> 
> LEAD - doesn't mean control. In fact good leadership is 95% inspiration and 5% perspiration.


I don't understand this concept. Is this a religious concept or something?

Why must one person lead? 

Why is there this assumption that the same person must lead all the time? 

Why can't each lead in areas of expertise or experience, if any leading is actually necessary? 

Why can't people share and discuss and collaborate and compromise rather than one person supposedly being the "leader"?

Why can't couples be *partners *instead of one leading the other like a child or subordinate at the office?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't believe one person has to lead, either.


----------



## always_alone

Ditto. I fail to see the need for leadership in the context of a love relationship. I mean, the whole point is partnership, isn't it?


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> I feel the same way. Many situations have two sides and both sides often feel wronged. So then it comes down to who was wronged first, chicken and the egg scenario, vs hey we BOTH have a part in this and we BOTH have to take an active role in fixing it.
> 
> Shame more here aren't willing to hear this. I would bet that a cornerstone of successful marriages aren't ones that have constant power plays but instead have two people who conflict resolve and not right fight.


I agree with this.

One of the ways to ensure that a marriage cannot recover from problems is to set about arguing who was at fault for what.

Instead, just figure out the things that need to be fixed and work to fix them.. both parties. Placing blame has never healed/fixed anything.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

I'm not questioning your sincerity. And have no doubt that J2 is difficult. 

The only thing I know for sure is that everything is different now.

Last night - M2 started to gaslight me. The old me would have been angry and aggressive. 

I just looked at her and asked: Babe, why are you gas lighting me? I don't like it. 

That's it. Soft voice - my tone was a little puzzled. 

She denied it for a moment, and I repeated my initial statement - at which point M2 acknowledged the gas lighting, stopped doing it and began to say what was actually true.

The old approach - me being angry, aggressive and even a bit self righteous - never produced that result. Instead it produced combat. Not conflict - combat. 





john117 said:


> Tried the walks and activities. We used to walk an hour a day with j2 b!tching about her family, coworkers, or kids. Pardon the French but fvck that.
> 
> Tried cycling. Likewise silent.
> 
> Tried watching movies. If it's a movie she wants we can watch. If something I want she's asleep in 15 min.
> 
> .


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> One of the ways to ensure that a marriage cannot recover from problems is to set about arguing who was at fault for what.
> 
> Instead, just figure out the things that need to be fixed and work to fix them.. both parties. *Placing blame has never healed/fixed anything*.


Nor has placing a disproportionate share of responsibility.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I'm not questioning your sincerity. And have no doubt that J2 is difficult.
> 
> The only thing I know for sure is that everything is different now.
> 
> Last night - M2 started to gaslight me. The old me would have been angry and aggressive.
> 
> *I just looked at her and asked: Babe, why are you gas lighting me? I don't like it.
> 
> That's it. Soft voice - my tone was a little puzzled.*
> 
> She denied it for a moment, and I repeated my initial statement - at which point M2 acknowledged the gas lighting, stopped doing it and began to say what was actually true.
> 
> The old approach - me being angry, aggressive and even a bit self righteous - never produced that result. Instead it produced combat. Not conflict - combat.


This is my natural, intuitive demeanor, and it has served me well. In situations where my wife has misdirected her anger towards me, I don't take responsibility for it, nor do I get defensive. I do help her focus it where it belongs.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning your sincerity. And have no doubt that J2 is difficult.



I'm only questioning your assessment of M2 

There are tons of people here in TAM who would think she is as typical as they come.


----------



## john117

samyeagar said:


> This is my natural, intuitive demeanor, and it has served me well. In situations where my wife has misdirected her anger towards me, I don't take responsibility for it, nor do I get defensive. I do help her focus it where it belongs.



That's NormalPeople (tm) speak for y'all.

NonNormalPeople (tm) don't operate in remotely the same way.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think what scares some men, MEM, is the idea of out and out owning the state of their marriage. They want to blame their wife, or say that it was the fault of both of them. Very few men seem to say, "If there is a problem here, I caused it. And if I caused it, I can fix it."
> 
> And yet owning the issues and pursuing healthy ways of resolving conflict can be a fast track to improving the marriage. The man can fully apply himself to using his influence to repair the marriage. Just blaming her or insisting she own half of it slows men down and dilutes their energy, imo.


You can only actually own issues when you are at fault for them. Surely you wouldn't think I could own my x wifes issue with men because of what her dad did. I wasn't even in the same state when any of that happened. I can only be responsible for what I am actually responsible for


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> What specifically do you think is missing?


I'm just not articulating myself well on this thread at all.

I'm on a flight now ... and certainly more relaxed. I reread my posts. They read as disagreeable, and that's really not what I was going for.

I feel like we often get caught in debates over a panacea.

And I think we all can agree ... hopefully ... that there isn't one.

I do believe that men need to be willing to look at, evaluate, own, and adjust their behavior if the relationship dynamics they are currently experiencing with their wives is not a dynamic that fosters benefits and harmony for both individuals.

Men should absolutely take responsibility for their marriage.

Nor do I have an issue with being influenced by my partner. None whatsoever, which makes me wonder why I posted to this thread at all. :scratchhead:

Two nights ago I asked my partner what her thoughts on my simply selling, or trying to rent and keep my house were.

She gave great, and considerate input.

We cook together, something ex and I never did.

We went for a walk on Sunday.

We talked in depth about my sexual issues, and hers ... then had great sex.

So despite my seeming somewhat defensive on this particular topic, I'm really and truly not.

I do think there is more than one road to marital bliss and harmony.

I also think that people's idea of marital bliss and harmony vary widely.

I also need to clarify that at this point, I'm only interested in the bliss and harmony. Matrimony isn't remotely on my radar.

In summary, I expect that most people WANT the outcome we describe, happiness, fulfillment, intimacy, interdependence upon one another.

Where we seem to get stuck is whose prescription we're recommending or following.


----------



## jld

You did seem upset earlier, Deejo, and I couldn't figure out why. Glad you are feeling better. 

I just started _7 Principles for Making Marriage Work_. I am already seeing things that have surprised me. He says that men are more easily overwhelmed by marital conflict, and are more likely than women to become self-righteous, contemptuous, and self-pitying. 

I was surprised because Dug is not like that. He almost always remains calm and never takes my words personally. He reaches out to soothe me, instead. This is what Gottman suggests, but we did not know that approach was backed up by research. We just knew it worked.

To me, that is a man showing leadership and taking responsibility for the marriage. It is what works for us, anyway.


----------



## john117

It could be that in his head Dug has done the what if and knows he can wait you out and that in the grand scheme of things an emotional outburst (over a likely trivial thing) here or there is par for the course.

If you haven't experienced real interpersonal conflict your arguments to us battle hardened marrieds are a lot easier to handle than what we are dealing with. 

So it's commendable that both of you handle it so well but take my word for it, there's a lot more to married life conflict than that. Count your blessings


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> You can only actually own issues when you are at fault for them. Surely you wouldn't think I could own my x wifes issue with men because of what her dad did. I wasn't even in the same state when any of that happened. I can only be responsible for what I am actually responsible for


By owning, I mean you could say, Okay, I need to help her. Then you take initiative to seek to understand her, see what needs have gone unmet, and seek to fill them. It is not looking just at her; it is looking at the marriage, and what you can do to fix it.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It could be that in his head Dug has done the what if and knows he can wait you out and that in the grand scheme of things an emotional outburst (over a likely trivial thing) here or there is par for the course.
> 
> If you haven't experienced real interpersonal conflict your arguments to us battle hardened marrieds are a lot easier to handle than what we are dealing with.
> 
> So it's commendable that both of you handle it so well but take my word for it, there's a lot more to married life conflict than that. Count your blessings


I do. From what I am reading, a husband who truly does not take his wife's words or actions personally is somewhat rare. And, it seems, a real shortcut to making marriage easier.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I do. From what I am reading, a husband who truly does not take his wife's words or actions personally is somewhat rare. And, it seems, a real shortcut to making marriage easier.



Aaaah. I should have gone into clinical psych  play along here.

Few husbands are threatened by words. But actions tend to follow words so.... In the process of marital conflict as long as the conflict is verbal I can live with it. But start acting against my interests to score brownie points and things WILL deteriorate in a hurry...


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> By owning, I mean you could say, Okay, I need to help her. Then you take initiative to seek to understand her, see what needs have gone unmet, and seek to fill them. It is not looking just at her; it is looking at the marriage, and what you can do to fix it.


And so then we are back to square one with my statement about how I haven't ever seen my influence of a husband affect a spouse. 

In the beginning I knew she needed to feel safe and secure..I did that and it made no difference

I loved her and Gave into her wants over mine to show her that she could come first and I would make her feel important that made no difference

Finally I realized that nothing I could do would help her with her childhood issues. She needed therapy so I encouraged that for years, volunteered to research good ones to go To, offered to go with her, do whatever it took....that made no difference

I maintained by marriage for years. In my personal case my marriage wasn't the issues her past was. I can't fix her past.. For over a decade I tried. I had zero influence to get her help she needed. I think now she realizes she needs help but it's way to late for that.

So a highly individual example for sure but sometimes no matter what you do things can't be fixed. When one person is a cancer to a relationship it will decay over time no matter what the other person does. When you pick crap spouses you tend to get crap results. I wouldn't take fault for things I had no control over


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> Aaaah. I should have gone into clinical psych  play along here.
> 
> Few husbands are threatened by words. But actions tend to follow words so.... In the process of marital conflict as long as the conflict is verbal I can live with it. But start acting against my interests to score brownie points and things WILL deteriorate in a hurry...


John, this is not what I read on TAM. I keep hearing about respect. Many men seem stuck on their wife's words. They get "emasculated" by words.

They should not be threatened, but they are.


----------



## jld

Sounds like you two are happier apart, Wolf.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Sounds like you two are happier apart, Wolf.


I am better off, happier is a strong word.

She won't ever be happy till she fixes herself, forgives her father, desides to take accountability for her own actions. I kinda doubt any of that will occur for her.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> John, this is not what I read on TAM. I keep hearing about respect. Many men seem stuck on their wife's words. They get "emasculated" by words.
> 
> They should not be threatened, but they are.



Words are meaningless - actions are not. Most people will take action if words alone don't have the desired effect.

Action - or lack thereof - is what causes conflict. Words may hurt feelings but hurt feelings are a dime a dozen. It's actions that count.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Words are meaningless - actions are not. Most people will take action if words alone don't have the desired effect.
> 
> Action - or lack thereof - is what causes conflict. Words may hurt feelings but hurt feelings are a dime a dozen. It's actions that count.


I think that is why Gottman says that the way to respond to a wife's anger is to make her feel heard, respected, and loved, so she will soften . . .


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> You did seem upset earlier, Deejo, and I couldn't figure out why. Glad you are feeling better.
> 
> I just started _7 Principles for Making Marriage Work_. I am already seeing things that have surprised me. He says that men are more easily overwhelmed by marital conflict, and are more likely than women to become self-righteous, contemptuous, and self-pitying.
> 
> I was surprised because Dug is not like that. He almost always remains calm and never takes my words personally. He reaches out to soothe me, instead. This is what Gottman suggests, but we did not know that approach was backed up by research. We just knew it worked.
> 
> To me, that is a man showing leadership and taking responsibility for the marriage. It is what works for us, anyway.


Not upset, recognized that it looked that way. Just wasn't communicating well at all.


----------



## jld

We can all relate.


----------



## MEM2020

No Norajane it's not a religious thing. 

For couples happy where they ARE - they should keep doing what they are doing since it's working for them.

For folks who aren't where they want to be, in a perfect world they would both walk together towards their goal. 

The thing is - usually one person is LESS satisfied than the other. That person should be the one who leads the repair because it's more important to them. 

A good partner - will support your efforts to make things better. Then again they may need to see some sustained effort first. 

For us - the biggest change was me making an effort to be less harsh, less judgmental and less focused on being 'right'. 

After about 6 months of that - M2 started responding in a very positive manner. 

Did I 'lead' that change? Yes. 

Does that imply I'm superior and M2's subordinate to me - ROTFL. 

No. It just means that someone needed to break us out of our 'high conflict' pattern. 

From the get go, my goal was to change our pattern - which had been fairly consistent for 20+ years. Conflict often became combat. 

It IS true that at the start - if you'd injected me with truth serum I would have said: 
I totally love and respect M2. And that's due to: long list of great qualities 
AND 
M2 is a controlling, jealous person who, when she feels slighted is capable of intentionally mean spirited behavior. 

Now - injected with the exact same truth serum I'd instead say:
M2 is insecure and when she feels threatened, acts in an aggressive, sometimes destructive way. I've learned how to reassure her - that she's number 1 - and that aggressive, destructive behavior has all but disappeared. 

It's also true that in the past - when injured I'd explain why and expect an apology. There was no moving forward without one. That's no longer the case. Now I say how it seems to me - and that I don't like it and that's sufficient for me. If M2 wants to make amends - great. And if not - that's ok too. We're not always going to agree. 





norajane said:


> I don't understand this concept. Is this a religious concept or something?
> 
> Why must one person lead?
> 
> Why is there this assumption that the same person must lead all the time?
> 
> Why can't each lead in areas of expertise or experience, if any leading is actually necessary?
> 
> Why can't people share and discuss and collaborate and compromise rather than one person supposedly being the "leader"?
> 
> Why can't couples be *partners *instead of one leading the other like a child or subordinate at the office?


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM, what you described above is called leading each other out of conflict. Either spouse can do this. Some partnerships may find themselves in a bad spot more than once, and maybe one partner led them out of conflict once and the other partner did the other time.

Your other post implied leading in general, but this post describes only leading out of conflict. I do understand the implication of it being a long term conflict, but it is still just one particular kind of leading that is temporary.

Why not just say, to be happy in a relationship together, both partners need to be autonomous as well as open to influence by each other. That's called differentiated, and it is something you can do for yourself. You can't lead the other one to it, but they can go there if they want. 

In dancing there are some dances that are lead and follow but other dances that are choreographed and therefore, both partners are doing the steps because they are memorized and repeated. There are dances that are a combo of full lead and follow with some choreography (specific steps) or none (blues dancing or club dancing). When you are a good dancer, you run out of things to learn as a lead or a follow, so you begin learning to do the opposite...typically females learn to follow first, so they learn to lead later, and men learn to lead first and then follow later. When men learn to follow in dancing, it is a very wonderful treat for them...you can make a man swoon, did you know that? 

To be sure, the dynamic caused between lead and follow on the dance floor is an amazing, wonderful feeling. But the only reason men typically lead and women typically follow is because of old cultural ideas. In fact, if you go back far enough, many cultures didn't want men and women dancing together at all, so men danced with other men when doing the Argentine Tango, for instance.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> MEM, what you described above is called leading each other out of conflict. Either spouse can do this. Some partnerships may find themselves in a bad spot more than once, and maybe one partner led them out of conflict once and the other partner did the other time.
> 
> Your other post implied leading in general, but this post describes only leading out of conflict. I do understand the implication of it being a long term conflict, but it is still just one particular kind of leading that is temporary.
> 
> Why not just say, to be happy in a relationship together, both partners need to be autonomous as well as open to influence by each other. That's called differentiated, and it is something you can do for yourself. You can't lead the other one to it, but they can go there if they want.
> 
> In dancing there are some dances that are lead and follow but other dances that are choreographed and therefore, both partners are doing the steps because they are memorized and repeated. There are dances that are a combo of full lead and follow with some choreography (specific steps) or none (blues dancing or club dancing). When you are a good dancer, you run out of things to learn as a lead or a follow, so you begin learning to do the opposite...typically females learn to follow first, so they learn to lead later, and men learn to lead first and then follow later. When men learn to follow in dancing, it is a very wonderful treat for them...you can make a man swoon, did you know that?
> 
> To be sure, the dynamic caused between lead and follow on the dance floor is an amazing, wonderful feeling. But the only reason men typically lead and women typically follow is because of old cultural ideas. In fact, if you go back far enough, many cultures didn't want men and women dancing together at all, so men danced with other men when doing the Argentine Tango, for instance.


I'm going to a customer today.
I'm going to lead their training for the next 3 days.
I'm not going to train them for my selfish benefit.

I'm going to train them so they can be successful with what they want to do and accomplish with our software.

They will look to me for input and guidance about how to accomplish what THEY want. Not what I want. But I'm still the leader.

Next week I'll be leading a training for another customer. They may want or need something very different. 

Leading isn't static, nor necessarily authoritative or dictatorial.

It's a model whereby one party takes responsibility for guiding one or more other parties to beneficial outcomes for all involved.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Leading isn't static, nor necessarily authoritative or dictatorial.
> 
> It's a model whereby one party takes responsibility for guiding one or more other parties to beneficial outcomes for all involved.


Training workshops are a very different animal than love relationships. 

In MEM's story, for example, he saw a need for a change and made one. No doubt he had mutual benefit in mind, but he really couldn't know if she would "follow". She may have reacted quite differently. He was "leading" in the sense of going first.

And in that sense, I absolutely agree that to get out of a bad dynamic, someone has to start by breaking the old patterns.

We could also say he was "leading" in the sense of figuring out what the problem was and solving it. But this is exactly where the danger of leadership lies. MEM had the good sense to decide that the problem was the way *he* was behaving, and corrected that, rather than deciding the problem was her, and attempting to fix her. Imagine what sorts of disasters might have occurred if he'd arrived at a different conclusion.

In training, you use your expertise to give her customer what they want/need. Period. This may benefit you and your company, but the dynamic is solidified by the flow of cash.

In love, you run a huge risk when you unilaterally decide what is to mutual benefit without bothering to consult your partner. If you're smart and lucky, it will go swimmingly, but it could also be utter disaster.

(Sorry to pick on your example, MEM. I actually quite liked your story, but it was right there handy.)


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> MEM had the good sense to decide that the problem was the way *he* was behaving, and corrected that, rather than deciding the problem was her and attempting to fix her.


:iagree:

I see this a lot on TAM: men coming here telling us the problem in their marriage is (or was) their wife. If she would just change, everything would be better. These men often seem to get stuck in self-pity and victimhood.

Sometimes they think they have to "hold her accountable for her behavior." Again, looking at her to change the dynamic, to make him feel better.

Much more empowering (and diplomatic) for him to change his way of interacting with her, in order to lessen the chance of conflict in the first place. "If it is to be, it is up to me."


----------



## john117

Not quite so simple.

If you're dealing with a grizzly bear or other form of life that is not very eager to change it's behavior, you can change your behavior all you want and it will not help very much... Unless you provoke the bear 

In human terms if I'm dealing with an underperforming employee at work are you telling me the best way to get them to improve is to fix myself? In what planet?

I can look in how my behavior and attitude impact the employee behavior but changing is up to them. 

Step up to a dynamic involving real people outside family and you will see the fallacy of the premise.


----------



## jld

When I was teaching, the principal in one school handed out copies of "I am the decisive element in my classroom" to all the teachers. I will see if I can find it online . . .


----------



## jld

_Quotes from Teacher and Child

I have come to a frightening conclusion.

I am the decisive element in the classroom.
It is my personal approach that creates the climate.
It is my daily mood that makes the weather.
As a teacher I possess tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous.
I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration.
I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal.
In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis
will be escalated or de-escalated, and a child humanized or de-humanized_

-- Haim Ginott


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> _Quotes from Teacher and Child
> 
> I have come to a frightening conclusion.
> 
> I am the decisive element in the classroom.
> It is my personal approach that creates the climate.
> It is my daily mood that makes the weather.
> As a teacher I possess tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous.
> I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration.
> I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal.
> In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis
> will be escalated or de-escalated, and a child humanized or de-humanized_
> 
> -- Haim Ginott


And you really believe this? I have a friend that is a math teacher who also has gang members in her class room. She will be first to tell you that she doesn't control the tempo or mood of the room, they do. She is further diminished by the admin staff who care more about testing scores than safety or harmony in the school and because a couple of them are actually gifted at math and test well, when they show up, she is powerless to have them removed from the class even though they intimidate the other students. 

Again we are shifting personal responsibility from one to the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I'm going to a customer today.
> I'm going to lead their training for the next 3 days.
> I'm not going to train them for my selfish benefit.
> 
> I'm going to train them so they can be successful with what they want to do and accomplish with our software.
> 
> They will look to me for input and guidance about how to accomplish what THEY want. Not what I want. But I'm still the leader.
> 
> Next week I'll be leading a training for another customer. They may want or need something very different.
> 
> Leading isn't static, nor necessarily authoritative or dictatorial.
> 
> It's a model whereby one party takes responsibility for guiding one or more other parties to beneficial outcomes for all involved.


Are you thinking I don't know what leading means, Deejo, or what?

Leading as part of your job has nothing to do with leading in a relationship so....:scratchhead:

I lead teams of people as well. I also lead in dancing. I also lead people when I coach them. I also sometimes lead my husband, both in dancing and in our marriage, and vice versa. What was your point?


----------



## jld

I stopped teaching in 1995, shortly before the birth of my first child. Not sure how some of the reform movements have affected classroom life.

I can assure you, though, Wolf, that from my 3 years of experience, that piece is exactly correct.


----------



## john117

It is correct but the teacher student relationship is not the same as the husband wife...

(Unless you're my MS thesis advisor  who FWB'd grad students)


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I stopped teaching in 1995, shortly before the birth of my first child. Not sure how some of the reform movements have affected classroom life.
> 
> I can assure you, though, Wolf, that from my 3 years of experience, that piece is exactly correct.


Ok well unlike others here I won't tell you you're wrong if that's your opinion. I don't agree with it and never been my experience but we all experience life differently.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Not quite so simple.
> 
> If you're dealing with a grizzly bear or other form of life that is not very eager to change it's behavior, you can change your behavior all you want and it will not help very much... Unless you provoke the bear
> 
> In human terms if I'm dealing with an underperforming employee at work are you telling me the best way to get them to improve is to fix myself? In what planet?
> 
> I can look in how my behavior and attitude impact the employee behavior but changing is up to them.
> 
> Step up to a dynamic involving real people outside family and you will see the fallacy of the premise.


I was responding to this post. And I absolutely think the way to deal with an underperforming employee is to first look at how you interact with him, what your expectations are, etc.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Ok well unlike others here I won't tell you you're wrong if that's your opinion. I don't agree with it and never been my experience but we all experience life differently.


It was true in my classroom, and it is true with my own children, too.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> And you really believe this? I have a friend that is a math teacher who also has gang members in her class room. She will be first to tell you that she doesn't control the tempo or mood of the room, they do. She is further diminished by the admin staff who care more about testing scores than safety or harmony in the school and because a couple of them are actually gifted at math and test well, when they show up, she is powerless to have them removed from the class even though they intimidate the other students.
> 
> Again we are shifting personal responsibility from one to the other.


And yet some dedicated and talented teachers are able to reach their student and teach them. They do not expect what *should* walk in the door, they are prepared to deal with what *does* walk in the door.

While we don't want to turn this discussion into urban problem solving the basic premise is that good leadership finds a way to lead the reluctant. 

I've seen parents completed perplexed at a two year old's tantrum, a 12 year olds manipulation tactics, and a 16 year old's dedicated sullenness. Good parents are good leaders and they find a way to deal with whatever they are presented with.

A marriage can sometimes be leading the reluctant.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well unlike others here I won't tell you you're wrong if that's your opinion. I don't agree with it and never been my experience but we all experience life differently.
> 
> 
> 
> It was true in my classroom, and it is true with my own children, too.
Click to expand...

And it's not true in my friends classroom. So again different experience for different folks. Maybe you never taught inner city kids or gang members. No idea about your background. She has and although she feels powerless when she is unable to remove the distracting or intimidating element from the classroom she stays to try and reach and teach those who do want to be there. I honestly think her job is far tougher than mine because I always have the ability to remove toxic people and have. She has none but I applaud her tenacity to keep trying 

Think public school teachers have one of the harder jobs in the country


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I was responding to this post. And I absolutely think the way to deal with an underperforming employee is to first look at how you interact with him, what your expectations are, etc.



Agreed - but I'm not going to change my expectations by much unless there's a very good reason.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you really believe this? I have a friend that is a math teacher who also has gang members in her class room. She will be first to tell you that she doesn't control the tempo or mood of the room, they do. She is further diminished by the admin staff who care more about testing scores than safety or harmony in the school and because a couple of them are actually gifted at math and test well, when they show up, she is powerless to have them removed from the class even though they intimidate the other students.
> 
> Again we are shifting personal responsibility from one to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some dedicated and talented teachers are able to reach their student and teach them. They do not expect what *should* walk in the door, they are prepared to deal with what *does* walk in the door.
> 
> While we don't want to turn this discussion into urban problem solving the basic premise is that good leadership finds a way to lead the reluctant.
> 
> I've seen parents completed perplexed at a two year old's tantrum, a 12 year olds manipulation tactics, and a 16 year old's dedicated sullenness. Good parents are good leaders and they find a way to deal with whatever they are presented with.
> 
> A marriage can sometimes be leading the reluctant.
Click to expand...

That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And it's not true in my friends classroom. So again different experience for different folks. Maybe you never taught inner city kids or gang members. No idea about your background. She has and although she feels powerless when she is unable to remove the distracting or intimidating element from the classroom she stays to try and reach and teach those who do want to be there. I honestly think her job is far tougher than mine because I always have the ability to remove toxic people and have. She has none but I applaud her tenacity to keep trying
> 
> Think public school teachers have one of the harder jobs in the country


Public school, lower as well as upper end soci-economically, including gang members.

I did not say I succeeded with all of them, but I absolutely believe I was the decisive element . . . even if I was not always conscious of it, or did not want to embrace the responsibility.

I don't really want this thread to veer off to a discussion of teaching. I was just responding to John's question about how empowerment could be possible outside the home. Of course it is possible.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places


No ability to remove them? Wow. When I was teaching, there was always the option of sending a disruptive student to see the dean.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places


As JLD has requested we not thread Jack about teaching I just want to say I've observed, personally, level V instruction in a class room filled with aggressive angry urban youth. The teacher was a born leader who reached those kids. It was beyond amazing to witness.

It is about leadership in what stands before you, not leading those who make it easy to lead. If you are leading, you must be able to lead the reluctant. And even then, sometimes you can't reach them after everything you've tried they remain steadfast in their refusal.

In marriage, as FW pointed out,my here is a symbiosis of intent. We intend to be married to each other and we therefor act in ways to reinforce that commitment and sometimes the exact opposit. 

Each marriage has its own dance of willingly coming together and reluctantly coming together. If you've married a fire cracker, you better be prepared for bad fireworks as well as food fireworks, whether you're the husband or the wife.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places
> 
> 
> 
> No ability to remove them? Wow. When I was teaching, there was always the option of sending a disruptive student to see the dean.
Click to expand...

Yep
No ability to remove them. As I said not everyone's experience is the same. She had a gang member show one of her students a knife. That student told her, she called the vice principle as she was instructed. He asked her did you see it. She answered honestly no. He said to her then it's not an issue if he isn't threatening anyone with it. She texted me what happened and I contacted the SRO (school
Cop) to go to her room she did and arrested him. She wasn't allowed to contact the police directly so this around about way was how it had to be done

Sorry about responding to your posts about teaching. Just pointing out that like mArriage sometimes best laid plans can go sideways through no fault of your own. Everyone's experience is differnt


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places


One of my sisters was a high school teacher. She eventually quite because of this sort of thing. She said that after lunch about half the class was high as a kite. They were disruptive and impossible to deal with. When she tired to get the trouble makers removed from the classroom the administration would not support her for all sorts nonsense reasons.

She worked hard to read the kids who were mentally present and cared. But she eventually quit because she could not longer take it. 

It's a huge problem in this country.

My son dropped out of high school at the end of 10th grade because this sort of nonsense. He said that he was wasting his time because of the atmosphere in school. 

He then worked for a couple of years. Saved up money. Then entered college. He's graduated with a double BS in physics and applied mathematics. He's not working on an MS in physics. 

I trusted him when he told me that his high school (one of the best in this state) was a waste of his time. I'm glad I trusted him. He's an awesome young man.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places
> 
> 
> 
> As JLD has requested we not thread Jack about teaching I just want to say I've observed, personally, level V instruction in a class room filled with aggressive angry urban youth. The teacher was a born leader who reached those kids. It was beyond amazing to witness.
> 
> It is about leadership in what stands before you, not leading those who make it easy to lead. If you are leading, you must be able to lead the reluctant. And even then, sometimes you can't reach them after everything you've tried they remain steadfast in their refusal.
> 
> In marriage, as FW pointed out,my here is a symbiosis of intent. We intend to be married to each other and we therefor act in ways to reinforce that commitment and sometimes the exact opposit.
> 
> Each marriage has its own dance of willingly coming together and reluctantly coming together. If you've married a fire cracker, you better be prepared for bad fireworks as well as food fireworks, whether you're the husband or the wife.
Click to expand...

I agree with most in principle. At work I lead and motivate. I remove those who won't work who don't cooperate. In a marriage , in my marriage, I tried through my action and strength to make my wife feel secure, loved, protected. She rejected all this

So maybe it's just the way some
Of the posts come across here that somehow if you do the right thing then it will overcome all obstacles
And all problems. Just not true from
What I have seen. Two people willing to work on something and put that relationship first can and often do overcome great things. But when one person cares, and the other doesn't, nothing the person who cares can do to get the non caring person to care.

I'm
Not speaking only of what happens to me but in general. Sometimes a toxic person is going to derail a relationship.

We should all be accountable for our actions but at the same
Time can't be accountable for what others choose to do.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrific notion but when what walks into your classroom are 17 and 18 year old young men, armed with guns and knives, the dynamic is a bit different. And again these aren't the reluctant. They are excellent test takers and because they excel at taking the state tests that determine funding given to the school by the state the school admin want them there. The reluctant are the kids who want to learn but are afraid to come to the class where they sit In front of people who threaten them, bully them, and intimate them. Those are the students she want to feel safe to learn but again she has no option to remove those one of two bad elements. It's the dynamic of the public school system in some places
> 
> 
> 
> One of my sisters was a high school teacher. She eventually quite because of this sort of thing. She said that after lunch about half the class was high as a kite. They were disruptive and impossible to deal with. When she tired to get the trouble makers removed from the classroom the administration would not support her for all sorts nonsense reasons.
> 
> She worked hard to read the kids who were mentally present and cared. But she eventually quit because she could not longer take it.
> 
> It's a huge problem in this country.
> 
> My son dropped out of high school at the end of 10th grade because this sort of nonsense. He said that he was wasting his time because of the atmosphere in school.
> 
> He then worked for a couple of years. Saved up money. Then entered college. He's graduated with a double BS in physics and applied mathematics. He's not working on an MS in physics.
> 
> I trusted him when he told me that his high school (one of the best in this state) was a waste of his time. I'm glad I trusted him. He's an awesome young man.
Click to expand...

I am so happy to hear when people can rise above their circumstances. You must be one proud momma !!!


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you thinking I don't know what leading means, Deejo, or what?
> 
> Leading as part of your job has nothing to do with leading in a relationship so....:scratchhead:
> 
> I lead teams of people as well. I also lead in dancing. I also lead people when I coach them. I also sometimes lead my husband, both in dancing and in our marriage, and vice versa. What was your point?


My point is, you like to be contrary.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Soooo....you popped in to mansplain to me what leading means, trying to make a point that *I* like to be contrary?

Sorry that I have my own thoughts on things and am not going to just roll with what every mod says is gospel, if that makes me "contrary" then I'm happy about that.


----------



## Ynot

Numbers 4, 7 and 11 are what killed my marriage.
#4 Fondness and Admiration - my ex basically stopped having any fondness or admiration for me. At some point she did not feel the need any longer and just stopped.
#7 Togetherness - my ex basically stopped doing things with me unless there was no other choice. I tried to get her involved in my business but she wasn't interested and actually called it "stupid". She also said at one point that she "doesn't even think" of the one thing that all couples do together - have sex. 
#11 Acceptance - she continually told me that I needed to step out of my comfort zone. The truth is I was so far out of my comfort zone that I was unhappy. The reality is that she was never able to step outside of her comfort zone. Instead she simply sought to pull me into her with no reciprocal effort on her part. 
Oh well, my life continues and it is and will be her loss, not mine!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Soooo....you popped in to mansplain to me what leading means, trying to make a point that *I* like to be contrary?
> 
> Sorry that I have my own thoughts on things and am not going to just roll with what every mod says is gospel, if that makes me "contrary" then I'm happy about that.


I think the point is, like me, you're a bit of a contrarian.

Sometimes I'll contradict my own opinion just to stir the pot, and to explore the other side.

For me, it comes from being happy to argue, comfortable with conflict, and like to see both sides of a debate while pretending not to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And pointing that out to me is relevant to the post....how exactly? Deejo just wanted to slap me around a bit or....?

There are quite a few observations I could make about Deejo as well. Why would I jack a thread just to do that?

I made a perfectly relevant point with my post about dancing, and Deejo came back to mansplain to me what leading means, all just to point out that I'm contrary.

???


----------



## Wolf1974

Mansplain. Well there is a new word. I had to look that one up


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Soooo....you popped in to mansplain to me what leading means, trying to make a point that *I* like to be contrary?
> 
> Sorry that I have my own thoughts on things and am not going to just roll with what every mod says is gospel, if that makes me "contrary" then I'm happy about that.


That's contrary too. 

You indicated that the use of the word 'lead' was not accurate in MEM 's post.

My mansplaining was to point out the issue was the word choice, not the action.

You don't need to apologize to me for having an opinion. Hell I've got lots of them.


----------



## MEM2020

This is the part of the modern world that saddens me. 

Observe a simple linguistic exercise. 

Recently I read the following statement:
The phrase 'she wears the pants in the family' is losing the negative connotation it used to have. 

No one reacted to that. Probably because it's an accurate statement. I just find it to be kind of a howler. In the sense that true 50-50 - equally power balanced marriages - have ALWAYS been the minority. 

In every marriage it's typical for there to be an overall more dominant spouse. And it's been that way since cave men and women. And whatever the cave dwelling equivalent of pants - women often wore them. 

And the reason for that is pretty simple - literal democracy don't work with only two voters. That's just simple math. 

And before anyone's blood pressure spikes too much - one person being more dominant doesn't mean the other person is submissive. Just - less - dominant. 

Over the years I must have posted the statement below dozens of times on TAM, never once got a reaction to it. 
M2 is the more dominant spouse. 

Then I post the story in this thread - and get all kinds of analysis. Pictures of men dancing with each other. 

If I didn't know better I'd say it seems like a reaction with a component of fear to it. But that can't be right. You can't possibly fear me or men like me. 





always_alone said:


> Training workshops are a very different animal than love relationships.
> 
> In MEM's story, for example, he saw a need for a change and made one. No doubt he had mutual benefit in mind, but he really couldn't know if she would "follow". She may have reacted quite differently. He was "leading" in the sense of going first.
> 
> And in that sense, I absolutely agree that to get out of a bad dynamic, someone has to start by breaking the old patterns.
> 
> We could also say he was "leading" in the sense of figuring out what the problem was and solving it. But this is exactly where the danger of leadership lies. MEM had the good sense to decide that the problem was the way *he* was behaving, and corrected that, rather than deciding the problem was her, and attempting to fix her. Imagine what sorts of disasters might have occurred if he'd arrived at a different conclusion.
> 
> In training, you use your expertise to give her customer what they want/need. Period. This may benefit you and your company, but the dynamic is solidified by the flow of cash.
> 
> In love, you run a huge risk when you unilaterally decide what is to mutual benefit without bothering to consult your partner. If you're smart and lucky, it will go swimmingly, but it could also be utter disaster.
> 
> (Sorry to pick on your example, MEM. I actually quite liked your story, but it was right there handy.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

I still have no freakin' clue what you are getting at other than trying to call me out for something, Deejo. There was nothing wrong with my post.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> No one reacted to that. Probably because it's an accurate statement. I just find it to be kind of a howler. In the sense that true 50-50 - equally power balanced marriages - have ALWAYS been the minority.
> 
> In every marriage it's typical for there to be an overall more dominant spouse. And it's been that way since cave men and women. And whatever the cave dwelling equivalent of pants - women often wore them.


Let's be cautious here. Equally powered balanced marriages have "always" been in the minority because for a huge chunk of recorded history, women have been the property of men. 

That doesn't mean, however, that this is the way it has always been since cave man days, or the way it needs to be now. Different societies have very different structures and patterns for marriage.

As I see it, the pictures of dancing men were designed to illustrate that the "dominant" spouse need not always be dominant. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, on the expertise of the parties, who is "dominant" and who "follows" can easily shift back and forth. In the event of a tie in the marriage democracy, the spouse with the most expertise, or who is the most vested in the project, or who has the time (or whatever), will take the lead and the other will follow. 

In my household, for example, I am now the "leader" when it comes to finances, as my SO has admitted that he really isn't good at it, and trusts my judgment. But he is the "leader" in the kitchen because he is a fantastic chef. I just chop what he tells me to, how he tells me to do it. 

I dunno, it doesn't seem very hard to me ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> Then I post the story in this thread - and get all kinds of analysis. Pictures of men dancing with each other.
> 
> If I didn't know better I'd say it seems like a reaction with a component of fear to it. But that can't be right. You can't possibly fear me or men like me.


:lol::lol::lol:

oh....that's funny.....:rofl:

Yeah....a component of "fear" to it. Like I'm afraid of you? Afraid of men? Afraid of men dancing together? oh my lord... Sure you followed it with "you can't possibly fear me or men like me"....nice back tracking just to say what you wanted to say, without owning it.

Gimme a freaking break, Mem. I'll break it down for you, realllllllllly slowly so you won't misinterpret my meaning and think you are "scaring" me....

You said someone HAS to lead.

Others said well no, not really, no one HAS to lead.

Then you gave an example of leading your wife out of conflict, not of leading in general.

I then made the comment that your example was leading her out of conflict, not leading in general.

Then I made some comments about lead and follow in dancing, and ended it with the information that man leads-woman follows is simply a cultural and social convention and it can change with time and place...it doesn't actually mean anything about who is dominant or who "should" lead.

Do you have it now? I don't want you to worry that you SCARED me off. Bwah ha hahahahahah.....


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> oh....that's funny.....:rofl:
> 
> Yeah....a component of "fear" to it. Like I'm afraid of you? Afraid of men? Afraid of men dancing together? oh my lord... Sure you followed it with "you can't possibly fear me or men like me"....nice back tracking just to say what you wanted to say, without owning it.
> 
> Gimme a freaking break, Mem. I'll break it down for you, realllllllllly slowly so you won't misinterpret my meaning and think you are "scaring" me....
> 
> You said someone HAS to lead.
> 
> Others said well no, not really, no one HAS to lead.
> 
> Then you gave an example of leading your wife out of conflict, not of leading in general.
> 
> I then made the comment that your example was leading her out of conflict, not leading in general.
> 
> Then I made some comments about lead and follow in dancing, and ended it with the information that man leads-woman follows is simply a cultural and social convention and it can change with time and place...it doesn't actually mean anything about who is dominant or who "should" lead.
> 
> Do you have it now? I don't want you to worry that you SCARED me off. Bwah ha hahahahahah.....


No need for disrespect to MEM of all people, FW. Pointless.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I still have no freakin' clue what you are getting at other than trying to call me out for something, Deejo. There was nothing wrong with my post.


I think what he's trying to say is that what you are fighting for is mere word choice. That because what he (or others) mean by leadership is really about mutual benefit, facilitative, etc., there's no reason to be "contrary" about it because there is no disagreement.

The point that you were making that I think was missed, though, is that it isn't just about one person always taking the same role. That shifting between roles is actually beneficial for both parties in many different ways.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because he's focusing on ends and you were focusing on means. He doesn't care what you call it, as long as it works. Whereas, you do care what you call it because it isn't just what works, it's about discovering a real process to get there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> No need for disrespect to MEM of all people, FW. Pointless.


He's a big boy. Trying to make it seem like MY post about dancing and lead and follow was just nonsense was directly insulting to me....right next to Deejo calling me out for the same post. They can ban me if they don't like me biting back.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> He's a big boy. Trying to make it seem like MY post about dancing and lead and follow was just nonsense was directly insulting to me....right next to Deejo calling me out for the same post. They can ban me if they don't like me biting back.


Be mad all you want.

It doesn't make you right.

And it isn't going to make anyone listen to you.

Quite the contrary, in fact.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> The point that you were making that I think was missed, though, is that it isn't just about one person always taking the same role. That shifting between roles is actually beneficial for both parties in many different ways.


Of course the point *I* was making was missed. Deejo just had to slap my hand and show me I was being "contrary". Because it is important to make sure that the uppity chick gets put in her place and all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk...You are mistaken if you think I want or expect anyone to "listen" to me. I was talking to Mem and Deejo. They can listen or ignore me at their will.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course the point *I* was making was missed. Deejo just had to slap my hand and show me I was being "contrary". Because it is important to make sure that the uppity chick gets put in her place and all.


I think you're contrary, too.

And I say that as a contrarian.

Want to take that back to our thread in 'social?'


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I still have no freakin' clue what you are getting at other than trying to call me out for something, Deejo. There was nothing wrong with my post.


I was never calling you out. Perhaps that's the core issue.

My contrary post was in response to your presumption that I was correcting you.

PM me if you choose. I don't have an issue with your post. None.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM...In case you didn't see my last response to your post to me in social, here is what I said:

Mem, if you are going to straight up doubt my honest words, I don't know what to tell you. Why don't you go and check out all of the posts between me and john on that thread AFTER the post you are talking about?


----------



## Blondilocks

Wowsers, FW, you're on a tear today. Something is eating at you and it's hard to see what is provoking this 'fight' response. The male posters who have addressed you do not seem to be trying to make you feel invalidated - on the contrary. They seem to respect your ability to state your position and defend. I get the impression people are scratching their heads and wondering "WTH brought that on?".


----------



## WandaJ

jld said:


> Okay, just saw what you added here. Yes, I agree there is a range. I also think how the spouse treats the BPD spouse has a huge influence. And yes, I agree, they do need to be approached with a great deal of sensitivity.


Like in most of the physical and psychological illnesses there are lighter and heavier cases of BPD people. In some cases all the love and tender care won't make much difference. PBD destroys a lot of marriages, families and leaves the other spouse and often children wounded. 
I think it is patronizing to say that they just have to try harder.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And if I talk about what the heck brought it on, people don't believe my honest words, and insist it must be something else.

I'm so sorry if the red pill crap makes me angry, it is misogynistic and it harms both men and women. Then someone says "yeah it does and I agree, but why does that make you angry?" I don't understand why it should NOT make me angry. I know it makes a lot of people angry. Yet no one can understand why I'm angry about it, it must be some personal vendetta I have?

Right here at TAM, there are at least a dozen other women who are angry about the red pill crap. And I am one of many voices about that. I've already admitted, how many times now?, that I'm feisty by nature. Yet ... I'm still supposed to explain "why" it makes me so mad. Hateful literature that endorses rapey behavior makes me mad, but no one can understand this?

As for this thread....Deejo has done this to me before. I won't bother with the details on that. MEM has also done this to me before....but this time, he straight up called me a liar.

But I'm not supposed to be angry about that.

Really?

I could have gone back after marduk and pointed out all the ways he is feisty and argumentative, too....and several people would agree with me. But what's the point? I'm not actually out to try to frame anyone as one way or the other.


----------



## Deejo

Really.

Please cease and desist.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I could have gone back after marduk and pointed out all the ways he is feisty and argumentative, too....and several people would agree with me.


One of those people would be me!


----------



## Blondilocks

Oh, gotcha. Actually, just thought you would say you were pmsing. Just Kidding! 

You strike me as a bright, intelligent and passionate woman. Surely you know that the majority of the populace read about 2 pages of those books and toss them in the trash where they belong. And, if they don't, well, they're not anyone you or I would invite to dinner.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

There's nothing honest about calling folks angry and contemptuous and then being unwilling or unable to point to the posts that prompted that statement.

I believe that your reference to Johns posts was a joke. 

I'm still asking for the real answer. Either support your statement or retract it. 

And then I will gladly proceed to the next point of controversy in this thread. 

And FWIW - calling folks angry and contemptuous just because they disagree with you. Is dirty fighting. 

And in response to being called on it - you've engaged in misdirection and humor and just about everything other than a sincere response. 





Faithful Wife said:


> MEM...In case you didn't see my last response to your post to me in social, here is what I said:
> 
> Mem, if you are going to straight up doubt my honest words, I don't know what to tell you. Why don't you go and check out all of the posts between me and john on that thread AFTER the post you are talking about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

So Deejo tells me to stop, but MEM is telling me to back up my words. Which one is it?


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

Why is it you believe I'm responding differently to you than I would to a man? 

By the way - dead serious - if I am, I swear I'm not doing so deliberately. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Of course the point *I* was making was missed. Deejo just had to slap my hand and show me I was being "contrary". Because it is important to make sure that the uppity chick gets put in her place and all.


----------



## MEM2020

Deojo has seniority to me.

Can we roll to PM?




Faithful Wife said:


> So Deejo tells me to stop, but MEM is telling me to back up my words. Which one is it?


----------



## Deejo

Whichever will bring harmony to you, and the thread.

We've meandered more than a little bit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM, how about I pm you? I don't want to get in trouble. (sorry...I see your post saying the same above, before mine...)


----------



## Deejo

PM or a new thread, if the parties would prefer open discernment.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> PM or a new thread, if the parties would prefer open discernment.


We've gone down the latter path once before, I recommend the former.


----------



## Blondilocks

I would guess that one Mod would appreciate you not trying to hit yourself over the head with the hammer by repeatedly accusing them of something and another Mod would appreciate you clarifying some of your statements.

If I were you, I'd throw a Hail Mary if I wanted to retain my posting privileges.


----------



## MEM2020

Deej,

I'm partly to blame. Kind of cranky today. 






Deejo said:


> Really.
> 
> Please cease and desist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm not worried, if they deem me bannable, then I am so.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Deej,
> 
> I'm partly to blame. Kind of cranky today.


I think that is an example of a repair attempt. Gottman would approve.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not worried, if they deem me bannable, then I am so.


I would really miss you if you were banned. You are one of the most, as they said, insightful and intelligent posters on TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Don't worry jld....I wouldn't lose touch with you even if they boot me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> And if I talk about what the heck brought it on, people don't believe my honest words, and insist it must be something else.
> 
> I'm so sorry if the red pill crap makes me angry, it is misogynistic and it harms both men and women. Then someone says "yeah it does and I agree, but why does that make you angry?" I don't understand why it should NOT make me angry. I know it makes a lot of people angry. Yet no one can understand why I'm angry about it, it must be some personal vendetta I have?
> 
> Right here at TAM, there are at least a dozen other women who are angry about the red pill crap. And I am one of many voices about that. I've already admitted, how many times now?, that I'm feisty by nature. Yet ... I'm still supposed to explain "why" it makes me so mad. Hateful literature that endorses rapey behavior makes me mad, but no one can understand this?
> 
> As for this thread....Deejo has done this to me before. I won't bother with the details on that. MEM has also done this to me before....but this time, he straight up called me a liar.
> 
> But I'm not supposed to be angry about that.
> 
> Really?
> 
> I could have gone back after marduk and pointed out all the ways he is feisty and argumentative, too....and several people would agree with me. But what's the point? I'm not actually out to try to frame anyone as one way or the other.


You are very hard to talk to. You have a lot in your mind that you feel you are responding to that is not present in the context of this board. I get feisty. Only another ginger can call another ginger, ginger. But you lose cred' when you flip. As do we all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So it is ok for others to come in and bash me now? But I'm not allowed to post. Nice.


----------



## Marduk

What would help you right now FW?


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> One of those people would be me!



And me


----------



## john117

faithful wife said:


> so deejo tells me to stop, but mem is telling me to back up my words. Which one is it?


----------



## MEM2020

At this level of 'collective rile' sometimes a cool down period is best. Locking the thread. 

I am going to employ my mod super powers to get the last word(s) in. 

1. This was a great thread. Thank you JLD.
2. There have been several comments about banning. Bans are almost always preceded by warnings. No one on this thread has even been officially warned. 






marduk said:


> What would help you right now FW?


----------

