# "How to Stay Married"



## jld

TIME magazine features this article on its cover for June 16, 2016. John Gottman is quoted about the importance of men in heterosexual relationships. Esther Perel is also quoted in the article.

I only read a bit of it at the dentist's, and am unable to link it. Seems good, though. Just FYI.


----------



## jld

Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.

_"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


----------



## KJ_Simmons

I disagree with the above premise.


----------



## Married but Happy

I disagree with the premise as well. _Perhaps_ men's behavior _more often _ will "make or break heterosexual relationships," but it's certainly not so one-sided!


----------



## EllisRedding

Married but Happy said:


> I disagree with the premise as well. _Perhaps_ men's behavior _more often _ will "make or break heterosexual relationships," but it's certainly not so one-sided!



Hey, the data does not lie ...


----------



## CharlieParker

It's behind a paywall, but I have it on the Texture app. Just skimming it. It's all over the place (not saying that is bad). A few random things I pulled out.



"Aligning premarriage values about kids, money and sex is key, say one expert." Sounds good, but not very helpful if you are already married. 

And "sex once a week was the optimum for maximizing marital happiness." 

More sex, once a week vs once a month, made a bigger difference in happiness than more money $50-$75K vs $15-$25K.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships."_


Epic lolz 😂😂😂


----------



## Almost-Done

jld said:


> Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.
> 
> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


Not true nor fair. Every relationship is different. It can be the fault of the man, woman or both. It's never entirely one person's fault. It takes two to tango. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction in everything.


----------



## Mommywhatohnothing

I don't know. I don't think it's always the fault of both parties. Where is the faithful spouse at fault when the marriage breaks down because the other spouse is a serial cheater? The only "fault" I see is perhaps not recognizing the red flags and marrying them to begin with. And that's not always an easy thing to do. If you marry young enough you might not have a clue as to what a "red flag" even is.

It's definitely not always the man's fault though! My husband's first marriage broke up because his wife turned out to be a sex addict. She was having multiple affairs with both men and women. After they broke up he found out she'd even slept with a total stranger they met at the hotel during their honeymoon! They were only married for a few years and he thinks she probably slept with at least 2 dozen other people during that time. In the 12 years he's been married to me she's been married 4 more times since their divorce.


----------



## JamesTKirk

Here's a link to the article.
It's behind a paywall, though.
Staying Married: Marriage Has Changed, But it Might Be Better Than Ever


----------



## Wolf1974

lol I can see why you would buy into his theories JLD seems you both have a limited view on real world relationships.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.
> 
> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


I can't say one way or another.. I mean.. if a good woman marries a man who mistreats her.. she would be wise to GET OUT [email protected]# so yeah.. the man's actions led to the ending of a marriage.. 

I think with these statements.. we are assuming the woman has very little faults...she is there to please and love her man no matter what.. 

This may be true for some women.. but we're not all that flawless.. we contribute our share of throwing monkey wrenches into the marital harmony..


----------



## john117

jld said:


> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


Epic lolz. 

Gottman's books are also read by women given the anti male sentiment that oozes from them.


----------



## Cletus

I've read the article. Nothing earth shattering in it.

It's a simple formula, really. 

1. Choose well
2. Work hard
3. Expect and accept imperfection 

At least that's my recipe.


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.
> 
> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


Gosh! Who'd a thunk it? It really is always the man's fault! :surprise:

And what of Homosexual marriages? Who makes or breaks them?


----------



## Cletus

MattMatt said:


> Gosh! Who'd a thunk it? It really is always the man's fault! :surprise:
> 
> And what of Homosexual marriages? Who makes or breaks them?


The man, of course, silly. Every. Damn. Time.


----------



## jld

Okay, I have the article in front of me. Here is the exact quote from Gottman:

_"What men do in a relationship is, by a large margin, the crucial factor that separates a great relationship from a failed one. This doesn't mean that a woman doesn't need to do her part, but the data proves that a man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails."_


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> Okay, I have the article in front of me. Here is the exact quote from Gottman:
> 
> _"What men do in a relationship is, by a large margin, the crucial factor that separates a great relationship from a failed one. This doesn't mean that a woman doesn't need to do her part, but the data proves that a man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails."_


I'm not going to be one of those knee-jerk responders on this idea who calls it crap just because they don't like it. It might be true, and I can at least hypothesize few reasons why. For instance, just today an article was posted discussing why women in high tech perform worse than men in a blind interview when their gender is disguised. It turns out the discrepancy disappears when you factor out both men and women who quit after an initial poor performance - which women do with greater frequency than do men. So conditioned from birth or genetically infused, the above statement might have more truth to it than we men are comfortable accepting.

Does he provide detailed accounts and interpretations of this unambiguous data?


----------



## jld

Festivus said:


> I'm not going to be one of those knee-jerk responders on this idea who calls it crap just because they don't like it. It might be true, and I can at least hypothesize few reasons why. For instance, just today an article was posted discussing why women in high tech perform worse than men in a blind interview when their gender is disguised. It turns out the discrepancy disappears when you factor out both men and women who quit after an initial poor performance - which women do with greater frequency than do men. So conditioned from birth or genetically infused, the above statement might have more truth to it than we men are comfortable accepting.
> 
> Does he provide detailed accounts and interpretations of this unambiguous data?


I have not read the book, which came out about six months ago. It is called _The Man's Guide to Women._

Gottman has been leading research on marriage for decades, and has been consistent in his recommendations. I think his research book is called _The Marriage Clinic._

I am not sure why men are defensive about what he said. I would think they would feel empowered by it. It seems they hold the keys to success in their hands.


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> I have not read the book, which came out about six months ago. It is called _The Man's Guide to Women._
> 
> Gottman has been leading research on marriage for decades, and has been consistent in his recommendations. I think his research book is called _The Marriage Clinic._
> 
> I am not sure why men are defensive about what he said. I would think they would feel empowered by it. It seems they hold the keys to success in their hands.


There are people who question his methodology:-

Seth's Blog » Blog Archive » Can John Gottman Predict Divorce With Great Accuracy?


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> There are people who question his methodology:-
> 
> Seth's Blog » Blog Archive » Can John Gottman Predict Divorce With Great Accuracy?


They may question the accuracy of his divorce predicting abilities, but I don't think they are questioning his general recommendations about how to improve one's marriage. 

And he is highly respected in his field. If he were a fraud, he would long since have been discredited.

Bottom line: some men just do not want to take one bit more responsibility than they absolutely have to. So instead of listening to and applying the message, they try to discredit the messenger.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I don't personally have any of Gottman's books.. but the articles I have read -like his laying out "The Four Horsemen" -being a sure death to any relationship (below)...and his writings on Conflict .... I find them very insightful, and true.. I've never heard that he may have a slant towards women.. blaming the man more so.. that's news to me..

I agree with you @jld.. he is highly respected in his field.



> *** *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


I've thought about this a number of times.. but it's hard to put into words.. 

Wouldn't our world of relationships be a whole lot better if the majority of men did put the welfare of women 1st... but also at the same time (and don't miss this please).... women have a similar mindset in wanting to put their MAN 1st... 

Let's say Gottman IS speaking to men to look to themselves 1st.. to get their act together..that a great responsibility is laid in their hands, to shape, influence his union .... is this so awful bad coming from *a man* himself [email protected]#.. Personally I feel that makes him a fine spokesperson for Men.. hopefully he is living that example.. 

But at the same time we need a spokesperson for women to look at ourselves too... the power we hold , our influences over our men....to be the BEST wife we can be..to also enhance our relationships.. 

It's just more unsettling when each gender is quick to point blame on the other (like MGTOW and radical feminist groups) .. I find that far more unsettling...and not good for any of us..


----------



## MattMatt

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't personally have any of Gottman's books.. but the articles I have read -like his laying out "The Four Horsemen" -being a sure death to any relationship (below)...and his writings on Conflict .... I find them very insightful, and true.. I've never heard that he may have a slant towards women.. blaming the man more so.. that's news to me..
> 
> I agree with you @jld.. he is highly respected in his field.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about this a number of times.. but it's hard to put into words..
> 
> Wouldn't our world of relationships be a whole lot better if the majority of men did put the welfare of women 1st... but also at the same time (and don't miss this please).... women have a similar mindset in wanting to put their MAN 1st...
> 
> Let's say Gottman IS speaking to men to look to themselves 1st.. to get their act together..that a great responsibility is laid in their hands.... is this so bad coming from *a man* himself.. Personally I feel that makes him a good spokesperson for being an example.. - and hopefully HE is..
> 
> But at the same time we need a spokesperson for women to look at ourselves too... the power we hold , our influences too....to be the BEST wife we can be..to also enhance our relationships..
> 
> It's just more unsettling when each gender is quick to point blame on the other (like MGTOW and radical feminist groups) .. I find that far more unsettling...and not good for any of us..


So respected that he has shills trashing articles on him on Facebook and replacing negatives points of view with fluff and guff from his own website.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MattMatt said:


> So respected that he has shills trashing articles on him on Facebook and replacing negatives points of view with fluff and guff from his own website.


What is a "Shills".. do you have any links you could share about this.. everyone has critics.. I would like to weigh what is going on with this. you got me very curious now !


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't personally have any of Gottman's books.. but the articles I have read -like his laying out "The Four Horsemen" -being a sure death to any relationship (below)...and his writings on Conflict .... I find them very insightful, and true.. I've never heard that he may have a slant towards women.. blaming the man more so.. that's news to me..
> 
> I agree with you @jld.. he is highly respected in his field.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about this a number of times.. but it's hard to put into words..
> 
> Wouldn't our world of relationships be a whole lot better if the majority of men did put the welfare of women 1st... but also at the same time (and don't miss this please).... women have a similar mindset in wanting to put their MAN 1st...
> 
> Let's say Gottman IS speaking to men to look to themselves 1st.. to get their act together..that a great responsibility is laid in their hands, to shape, influence his union .... is this so awful bad coming from *a man* himself [email protected]#.. Personally I feel that makes him a fine spokesperson for Men.. hopefully he is living that example..
> 
> But at the same time we need a spokesperson for women to look at ourselves too... the power we hold , our influences over our men....to be the BEST wife we can be..to also enhance our relationships..
> 
> It's just more unsettling when each gender is quick to point blame on the other (like MGTOW and radical feminist groups) .. I find that far more unsettling...and not good for any of us..


This is a summary of his research findings:

_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 thatn those who lower their expectations._


----------



## Blondilocks

Does it say how he gathered his data? His source(s)?


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
I think many men - especially sole bread winners - are fine with a model where they put wife first, she puts the kids first and the husband second. 

The marriages that struggle are those where the husband becomes a low priority. I would say that almost always equates to a lack wife loving husband. 

As for Gottman - his predictive model instantly resonated with me. 

He measured two things about couples over a weekend:
- Metabolism changes while disagreeing 
- The rate at which bids were accepted

A bid is an attempt to interact. 

When couples could disagree without spiking each other's blood pressure / pulse - good sign. 

And when the acceptance rates on bids were almost 90% - good sign.

I think there's a lot of casual rejection in unhappy marriages - for conversation - quality time - sex. It adds up. 

And a racing pulse is the best sign that conflict has become combat.





SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't personally have any of Gottman's books.. but the articles I have read -like his laying out "The Four Horsemen" -being a sure death to any relationship (below)...and his writings on Conflict .... I find them very insightful, and true.. I've never heard that he may have a slant towards women.. blaming the man more so.. that's news to me..
> 
> I agree with you @jld.. he is highly respected in his field.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about this a number of times.. but it's hard to put into words..
> 
> Wouldn't our world of relationships be a whole lot better if the majority of men did put the welfare of women 1st... but also at the same time (and don't miss this please).... women have a similar mindset in wanting to put their MAN 1st...
> 
> Let's say Gottman IS speaking to men to look to themselves 1st.. to get their act together..that a great responsibility is laid in their hands, to shape, influence his union .... is this so awful bad coming from *a man* himself [email protected]#.. Personally I feel that makes him a fine spokesperson for Men.. hopefully he is living that example..
> 
> But at the same time we need a spokesperson for women to look at ourselves too... the power we hold , our influences over our men....to be the BEST wife we can be..to also enhance our relationships..
> 
> It's just more unsettling when each gender is quick to point blame on the other (like MGTOW and radical feminist groups) .. I find that far more unsettling...and not good for any of us..


----------



## MattMatt

SimplyAmorous said:


> What is a "Shills".. do you have any links you could share about this.. everyone has critics.. I would like to weigh what is going on with this. you got me very curious now !


It is mentioned in the article I cited. 

Someone from his office trashed the Wikipedia page and replaced it with something fluffy and friendly.


----------



## MEM2020

Matt

Some of his marketing is dishonest. His message is actually quite good.







MattMatt said:


> So respected that he has shills trashing articles on him on Facebook and replacing negatives points of view with fluff and guff from his own website.


----------



## MattMatt

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I think many men - especially sole bread winners - are fine with a model where they put wife first, she puts the kids first and the husband second.
> 
> The marriages that struggle are those where the husband becomes a low priority. I would say that almost always equates to a lack wife loving husband.
> 
> As for Gottman - his predictive model instantly resonated with me.
> 
> He measured two things about couples over a weekend:
> - Metabolism changes while disagreeing
> - The rate at which bids were accepted
> 
> A bid is an attempt to interact.
> 
> When couples could disagree without spiking each other's blood pressure / pulse - good sign.
> 
> And when the acceptance rates on bids were almost 90% - good sign.
> 
> I think there's a lot of casual rejection in unhappy marriages - for conversation - quality time - sex. It adds up.
> 
> And a racing pulse is the best sign that conflict has become combat.


But the link I cited shows that his predictive model is not, after all, predictive in any meaningful sense of the word.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> Does it say how he gathered his data? His source(s)?


I believe his research book is called _The Marriage Clinic._ It should explain his methodology.


----------



## MEM2020

Blond,

I can tell you this from observation. 

You take two groups of humans: one whose testosterone levels are ten times that of the other - and you will find the high testosterone group tends to shy away from verbal conflict. 

Conflict is physiologically harder on them. I'll try and find the study. It takes a LOT more practice for a man to get good at peaceful conflict. Peaceful - meaning - it isn't spiking his vitals. 




Blondilocks said:


> Does it say how he gathered his data? His source(s)?


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Okay, I have the article in front of me. Here is the exact quote from Gottman:
> 
> _"What men do in a relationship is, by a large margin, the crucial factor that separates a great relationship from a failed one. This doesn't mean that a woman doesn't need to do her part, but the data proves that a man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails."_


I am considering mailing my wife to Dr. Gottman for evaluation... I'm having a hard time finding a box that fits her at the UPS Store...

Come on, JLD, this is not true by a mile. What did people like me, Copper Top, Anon, and many more here in TAM compared to our wives? Speaking personally the only thing I could do to help my marriage is to drop dead at work. J2 and the kids get a ton of money from my insurance company, plus another sum if I die at work, and she's a happy camper.


----------



## Blondilocks

Wow, did not know that. Very interesting, MEM.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I am considering mailing my wife to Dr. Gottman for evaluation... I'm having a hard time finding a box that fits her at the UPS Store...
> 
> Come on, JLD, this is not true by a mile. What did people like me, Copper Top, Anon, and many more here in TAM compared to our wives? Speaking personally the only thing I could do to help my marriage is to drop dead at work. J2 and the kids get a ton of money from my insurance company, plus another sum if I die at work, and she's a happy camper.


John, are you familiar with Gottman's four horsemen? SA described them in her post. You are likely doing them.

You always talk about how you know your wife so well, John. But I think in some ways you are clueless about her. And someone like Blonde could help you. But you just get defensive and refuse to listen.

You are smart, no doubt. Your posts are funny. But you are so stubborn about your marriage. I just don't get it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MattMatt said:


> It is mentioned in the article I cited.
> 
> Someone from his office trashed the Wikipedia page and replaced it with something fluffy and friendly.


Ok I clicked on the link.. read it... I agree. one shouldn't state something is with "90% accuracy".. first of all... many couples remain in MISERABLE marriages due to not wanting to uproot their children , or finances..so on that note...whomever wrote it like that.. ..it should be revised.. probably true that about 90% aren't in "fulfilling" marriages though .... 

But is that your biggest beef.. I'll have to agree with MEM on this one...despite that ....his message is actually quite GOOD ...

I don't know much about Wikipedia.. I have heard almost anyone can get on there & add stuff, put lies on there.. I don't know how this works...so I take it with a grain of salt or remind myself ... I should when I read something there..


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, are you familiar with Gottman's four horsemen? SA described them in her post. You are likely doing them.
> 
> You always talk about how you know your wife so well, John. But I think in some ways you are clueless about her. And someone like Blonde could help you. But you just get defensive and refuse to listen.
> 
> You are smart, no doubt. Your posts are funny. But you are so stubborn about your marriage. I just don't get it.


Blonde's case study is so different than mine it's not even funny, my friend. I mean, different. Yea, I respect her views and all that but really, now... look for the common threads. Not many. 

I'm not defensive by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply that nearly all the suggestions are given by people who are absolutely leagues away from my reality. I wish I could get some suggestions from people with more common ground. Ain't happening. 

The TAM hoi polloi consider me stubborn. Not quite. I'm hardened. I don't wish ill on the hoi polloi but really, now, try living with an unstable person for a month, let alone 10 years, and tell me again who's stubborn.

My software guys have a name for this - it's the happy path thru the software. It's when we give a nicely scripted demo to the customer. Most of the hoi polloi live in happy path marriages where the only transgressions are buying the wrong cat food or burning the pot roast. 

Life in the non happy path is far more complicated.


----------



## MattMatt

john117 said:


> Blonde's case study is so different than mine it's not even funny, my friend. I mean, different. Yea, I respect her views and all that but really, now... look for the common threads. Not many.
> 
> I'm not defensive by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply that nearly all the suggestions are given by people who are absolutely leagues away from my reality. I wish I could get some suggestions from people with more common ground. Ain't happening.
> 
> The TAM hoi polloi consider me stubborn. Not quite. I'm hardened. I don't wish ill on the hoi polloi but really, now, try living with an unstable person for a month, let alone 10 years, and tell me again who's stubborn.
> 
> My software guys have a name for this - it's the happy path thru the software. It's when we give a nicely scripted demo to the customer. Most of the hoi polloi live in happy path marriages where the only transgressions are buying the wrong cat food or burning the pot roast.
> 
> Life in the non happy-go-lucky path is far more complicated.


Or to put it THIS way: "Dangnabit! The man who sold me this marriage advice told me "one size fits all! He is full of @$&#!"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.
> 
> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


As sure as the sun comes up in the morning so is jid's posts. 

Never change my friend.


----------



## Mr The Other

SimplyAmorous said:


> I can't say one way or another.. I mean.. if a good woman marries a man who mistreats her.. she would be wise to GET OUT [email protected]# so yeah.. the man's actions led to the ending of a marriage..
> 
> I think with these statements.. we are assuming the woman has very little faults...she is there to please and love her man no matter what..
> 
> This may be true for some women.. but we're not all that flawless.. we contribute our share of throwing monkey wrenches into the marital harmony..


Well said. I think @jld is coming from the perspective of a woman being like the child, while the man is the adult. In a relationship between an adult and a child, the responsibility to make the relationship work is on the adult and they has to be able to be completely in charge and empathize. 

However, not many women want to be the child and it would not suit all men either.


----------



## Mr The Other

I was at the car repair shop today, due to a leaky vacuum seal. The lady in front of me was there as she had not filled her tank with gas and it ran dry.

If she were to start lecturing me on how the reason my car was having problems was that I had not filled my tank with gas, everyone would think her ridiculous.

Yet, too many people think they can project the idiotic mistakes of their relationships unto others and that they should be admired as gurus for doing so.


----------



## Mr The Other

john117 said:


> Blonde's case study is so different than mine it's not even funny, my friend. I mean, different. Yea, I respect her views and all that but really, now... look for the common threads. Not many.
> 
> I'm not defensive by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply that nearly all the suggestions are given by people who are absolutely leagues away from my reality. I wish I could get some suggestions from people with more common ground. Ain't happening.
> 
> The TAM hoi polloi consider me stubborn. Not quite. I'm hardened. I don't wish ill on the _hoi polloi _but really, now, try living with an unstable person for a month, let alone 10 years, and tell me again who's stubborn.
> 
> My software guys have a name for this - it's the happy path thru the software. It's when we give a nicely scripted demo to the customer. Most of the hoi polloi live in happy path marriages where the only transgressions are buying the wrong cat food or burning the pot roast.
> 
> Life in the non happy path is far more complicated.


That Blonde has been banned from this forum is a point in its favor. I do not respect her views.

I agree. Your marriage is buggered. You need two, reasonably well balanced and committed people to make a marriage work well. Otherwise it is buggered.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> That Blonde has been banned from this forum is a point in its favor. I do not respect her views.


I have seen Blonde here recently. Why do you say she has been banned?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> *The TAM hoi polloi consider me stubborn. Not quite. I'm hardened. I don't wish ill on the hoi polloi but really, now, try living with an unstable person for a month, let alone 10 years, and tell me again who's stubborn*.


 I had to look up the term "hoi polloi" = "common people, the masses" was the definition... 

I just want to say.. I think any sort of mental illness or unstableness in a relationship would be pure hell to live with.. I couldn't do it.. I'd loose my patience with someone like that.. they'd cause me to be unstable. I'd want OUT.. If I stayed.. I'd likely be depressed, bitter and angry myself.. Just trying to imagine it.. On that note..I sympathize with anyone living with this.. 

But your wife is a very SMART Woman, isn't she @john117 , a high paying career Job?..... when I read you speaking of this one day...I thought to myself.. how could she have all these issues.. how does one cover this up at work or it not interfere?? Just curious is all...


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Well said. I think @jld is coming from the perspective of a woman being like the child, while the man is the adult. In a relationship between an adult and a child, the responsibility to make the relationship work is on the adult and they has to be able to be completely in charge and empathize.
> 
> However, not many women want to be the child and it would not suit all men either.


Gottman's research says that men have influence over women. Even if a woman gets angry, if a man makes her feel listened to and respected, she will soften.

In some marriages it may be true that the man really does not have that influence. They may be in over their heads with a woman more powerful than they are. In that case divorce may be the only solution for them.

What is hard to know, though, is whether they truly do not have it, or whether they are too lazy to recognize and use it, and simply want the woman to make it easy for them.


----------



## john117

Easy, SA. High Functioning.


----------



## MattMatt

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok I clicked on the link.. read it... I agree. one shouldn't state something is with "90% accuracy".. first of all... many couples remain in MISERABLE marriages due to not wanting to uproot their children , or finances..so on that note...whomever wrote it like that.. ..it should be revised.. probably true that about 90% aren't in "fulfilling" marriages though ....
> 
> But is that your biggest beef.. I'll have to agree with MEM on this one...despite that ....his message is actually quite GOOD ...
> 
> I don't know much about Wikipedia.. I have heard almost anyone can get on there & add stuff, put lies on there.. I don't know how this works...so I take it with a grain of salt or remind myself ... I should when I read something there..


People in offices often change their Wikipedia entry and somehow think nobody will know it was them. They would be wrong.


----------



## MattMatt

john117 said:


> Easy, SA. High Functioning.


Oh. So you are the other TAM member with the "My spouse is High Functioning" t-shirt, eh?

I acknowledge your pain.


----------



## EllisRedding

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I think many men - especially sole bread winners - are fine with a model where they put wife first, she puts the kids first and the husband second.
> 
> The marriages that struggle are those where the husband becomes a low priority. I would say that almost always equates to a lack wife loving husband.


Just wanted to quote this portion of @MEM11363 post as this is something I have heard other guys comment about, and something that at times I have felt as well. I would say at times I equate low priority with being taken for granted.

Also, it is important to add that is not is Male specific as plenty of women as well have gone through feeling like they are at the bottom of the totem pole with their SO.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> Easy, SA. *High Functioning*.


What does this mean exactly.. The only way I relate to this statement is ....I have a GF who has a high functioning Aspberger's son, he's 19 now... but I'll admit if he was my kid.. I would have pulled my hair completely out over the years.... 

I don't particularly like being around him.. he talks too much about what he's into, he goes through obsessions... has no sense of knowing others don't want to hear all that, doesn't understand cues or emotions ...when he hugs you, he won't let go... but yet he is high functioning..

Is your wife on Medication to control whatever.. is she well liked / respected at work? if she can be reasonable, logical, sensible at work.. what changes when she gets home ? Is this more a deliberate choice on her part then... Just trying to make sense of it.. is all.


----------



## john117

MattMatt said:


> Oh. So you are the other TAM member with the "My spouse is High Functioning" t-shirt, eh?
> 
> I acknowledge your pain.


Yep, PhD in Applied Mathematics, socially awkward, loner, autistic brother, the works. 

She has lucked out in that the last 6 years she's working from home and even before she worked 60-70 hour weeks and the bosses were reluctant to go after her because of the volume and quality of work she did. Once they did but usually not.


----------



## john117

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't particularly like being around him.. he talks too much about what he's into, he goes through obsessions... has no sense of knowing others don't want to hear all that, doesn't understand cues or emotions ...when he hugs you, he won't let go... but yet he is high functioning..
> 
> Is your wife on Medication to control whatever.. is she well liked / respected at work? if she can be reasonable, logical, sensible at work.. what changes when she gets home ? Is this more a deliberate choice on her part then... Just trying to make sense of it.. is all.


That's her right there. No medications or intervention of any kind. 

Read my response to Matt. She's socially awkward - much more so than 20 years ago - has few friends, etc. At work she manages in a savant like fashion, but dealing with "loved" ones... no can do. This is textbook high functioning BPD... only some people trigger her.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> That's her right there. No medications or intervention of any kind.
> 
> Read my response to Matt. She's socially awkward - much more so than 20 years ago - has few friends, etc. At work she manages in a savant like fashion, but dealing with "loved" ones... no can do. This is textbook *high functioning BPD*... only some people trigger her.


Ok...Borderline Personality Disorder.. I've never knew anyone in real life who had this.. that I know of anyway. I never even heard of it until I started posting here..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok...Borderline Personality Disorder.. I've never knew anyone in real life who had this.. that I know of anyway. I never even heard of it until I started posting here..


Dug says she has HiBPD.*

(*Husband-induced BPD)


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Dug says she has HiBPD.*
> 
> (*Husband-induced BPD)


Geez, does this mean my shrink was wrong about how I ended up being a BPD'er? Thanks Dug!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


rubbish just more man-blaming.
The man is expected to have a more active and initatory role, so it makes him easier to blame.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Dug says she has HiBPD.*
> 
> (*Husband-induced BPD)


I wish. The only thing this husband has induced is an occasional need for reality check...


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I wish. The only thing this husband has induced is an occasional need for reality check...


One thing Gottmann stresses is that the couple must feel emotionally supported by each other. I don't think your wife feels that.


----------



## jld

spotthedeaddog said:


> rubbish just more man-blaming.
> The man is expected to have a more active and initatory role, so it makes him easier to blame.


Gottmann is trying to help men. He cannot help them if they will not listen.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> *Yep, PhD in Applied Mathematics*, socially awkward, loner, autistic brother, the works.
> 
> She has lucked out in that the last 6 years she's working from home and even before *she worked 60-70 hour weeks and the bosses were reluctant to go after her because of the volume and quality of work she did. *Once they did but usually not.


 she sounds brilliant ! .. I just looked up this break-down of the different sub sets of BPD...  Manifestations of Borderline Personality Disorder ...it says this about the high functioning:



> § *High Functioning Borderline*–
> 
> The High Functioning Borderline Personality shares many core aspects of the low functioning borderline personality, except for the fact that they can manage their lives, appear to be productive, and generally keep their relationships civil (even diplomatic in nature).
> 
> High Functioning borderlines can appear to be normal, driven people one moment; then moody, inconsolable, and manipulative the next. Somehow, there is a mechanism within the minds of High Functioning Borderlines that allows them to lead somewhat “competent” lives, despite the fact that they are in a constant battle with BPD. High functioning BPDs are no better than low functioning: it’s basically the same face wearing a different mask.


The others..



> § * Low Functioning Borderline* –
> 
> The “Low Functioning” borderline is what most people think of when they are first introduced to the condition. Low functioning BPDs are a living train wreck. They have intense difficulties taking care of their basic needs, are constantly experiencing mood swings. They also have an extremely hard time managing any sort of relationship with another human being. Low Functioning BPDs are often hospitalized more than other BPD types, for the very reason that they can’t live productively without constant coaching and supervision.
> 
> These patients are challenging for all but the most experienced psychiatrists. Unless otherwise treated, low functioning borderlines lead self-destructive lives and attempt to manipulate those around them with desperate acts, including self-harm (cutting, etc.).
> 
> 
> § *Extroverted Borderline*–
> 
> Anyone familiar with the Meyer-Briggs personality tests will understand the psychological differences between extroversion and introversion. When these characteristics are mixed with BPD, there are two different results.
> 
> The Extroverted Borderline pushes all their feelings, fears, manipulation, rage, and moodiness outward to the people around them. In essence, if you are around an extroverted BPD, you feel like you’re living through their emotions while coping with your own at the same time. Further, extroverted BPDs will attempt self abusive acts in plain view of others in order to avoid abandonment or to express their rage.
> 
> For example, an Extroverted BPD might cut themselves and then immediately share it with family and friends around them, hoping to gain sympathy or attention. In most cases, these types of behaviors frighten non-Borderlines, and they wonder whether or not the Extroverted BPD should be committed to a psych ward.
> 
> § *Introverted Borderline*–
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, “introverted” doesn’t necessarily describe someone who is a recluse (agoraphobic). Instead, introversion is characterized by experiencing life in a self-reflective, private, and at times distant manner.
> 
> To others, introverts may appear shy or lacking in people skills. This might be true, however, introverts make up for their lack of social skills with rich inner lives, thoughts, and deep thinking. As a result, the introverted Borderline primarily focuses all their BPD emotions and reactions inward. Instead of having a rage episode in public, they might retreat to their rooms and cry for hours on end, perhaps even cutting themselves for their own amusement or as stress relief.
> 
> Introverted Borderlines live in an odd world: on one hand, they spend most of their time in personal thought and reflection, looking to fill themselves with a viable sense of self; but on the other, they are conflicted by emptiness and the bottomless emotional pit that BPD produces. Introverted BPDs might be harder to “spot” unless you happen to know one personally, in which case you might notice occasional depressive symptoms and evidence of self harm.
> 
> 
> § *Transparent Borderline*–
> 
> The Transparent Borderline is a bit of a mix between a high functioning borderline and either extroverted or introverted tendencies. In plain terms, Transparent Borderlines live double lives: on the surface, “in public”, they appear one way, but in private, amongst immediate family and friends, they appear completely different.
> 
> As a result, they may or may not be high functioning due to this conflicted state of mind. Transparent Borderlines spend most of their emotional energy trying to balance the personality demands of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the both of which experience strong BPD emotions like anyone else with the disease. Like Introverted Borderlines,
> 
> Transparent Borderlines are harder to spot, and often only confess their true disposition after a harrowing rage, major break up, or other severely traumatic event that brings all their BPD feelings to the fore.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> One thing Gottmann stresses is that the couple must feel emotionally supported by each other. *I don't think your wife feels that.*


Jld.. seriously without knowing them personally .. without being a fly on the wall in their home.. there is no way of knowing just what all John has done, given, tried, lived through.. I mean.. I can only imagine how I would feel if someone didn't give me the benefit of the doubt if I have went above & beyond only to be met with resistance , nothingness/ ugliness time & time again.. I'd want to sock someone judging me like it's all MY FAULT somehow, that I didn't do enough.. I'd want to hand them "my shoes".. ya know. 

Come on now.. if the woman was diagnosed as such.. this isn't any walk in the park for a spouse..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Jld.. seriously without knowing them personally .. without being a fly on the wall in their home.. there is no way of knowing just what all John has done, given, tried, lived through.. I mean.. I can only imagine how I would feel if someone didn't give me the benefit of the doubt if I have went above & beyond only to be met with resistance , nothingness/ ugliness time & time again.. I'd want to sock someone judging me like it's all MY FAULT somehow, that I didn't do enough.. I'd want to hand them "my shoes".. ya know.
> 
> Come on now.. if the woman was diagnosed as such.. this isn't any walk in the park for a spouse..


Some of us have been following his posts for years, SA. He has played an active role in the deterioration of his marriage.

And without at least examining that, looking at his own hand in his troubles, as you often say, he risks the same problems in a future relationship.


----------



## anonmd

MEM11363 said:


> Blond,
> 
> I can tell you this from observation.
> 
> You take two groups of humans: one whose testosterone levels are ten times that of the other - and you will find the high testosterone group tends to shy away from verbal conflict.
> 
> Conflict is physiologically harder on them. I'll try and find the study. It takes a LOT more practice for a man to get good at peaceful conflict. Peaceful - meaning - it isn't spiking his vitals.


We are wired for conflict. 

Conflict is not hard at all, what is hard is the relationship needs to be a different type of conflict. You aren't killing things and dragging them home. Violence not allowed, physical OR verbal. 

It is not all that hard for a young male to recognize that physical violence is not appropriate and suppress it. MUCH harder to suppress the natural wiring to win in the verbal realm. We generally don't make 25 or 30 year olds senior managers for basically that reason I think. Marriage is OK though...


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Gottman's research says that men have influence over women. Even if a woman gets angry, if a man makes her feel listened to and respected, she will soften.
> 
> In some marriages it may be true that the man really does not have that influence. They may be in over their heads with a woman more powerful than they are. In that case divorce may be the only solution for them.
> 
> What is hard to know, though, is whether they truly do not have it, or whether they are too lazy to recognize and use it, and simply want the woman to make it easy for them.


It is hard to know. It is therefore dangerous to make assumptions. You recognize that most relationship books are targeted at women, so what will be a more popular message "Women are rubbish, your poor man" or "Men are rubbish, you poor woman. Still, be brave!"

Most people who read self-help books tend to do them as an alternative to actually helping themselves. A minority act.

Again, you are very stubbornly sticking to a single paradigm of relationship advice. There are such things as basic principles, but like any craft, they are only the foundation. 

We have the terrible case on this forum of a poster's wife who has increased in size to over 400lb. Clearly, this woman's fear of having a horrible life, disability, blindness, pain, incapacity and completely disregard her husband and kids. This might have an organic mental illness cause, it might be demons from her past, it might be how he has treated her, or a combination of two or three. Showing empathy might be an essential pre-cursor to her tackling her problems, but it will not be enough. Ultimately, man or woman, we are the only person who can solve our own problems. The only thing a man can do (and he should) do is provide her with the right support (physical, emotional, financial) in order for her to do that and to lead a happy life.

Many people are wrong in what will make them happy. I spoke to a lady recently who was giving herself some time to herself as she was a little down and overwhelmed and needed a break. We spoke for a while about why she was down (unsure), about what her greatest fears were (no real answer) and about when she was happiest in life. When she described when was happiest in life, I could suggest those times were when was when she was social and tackling her problems head on. She agreed to her surprise and changed her plans. So, Gottman would have given me a silver star. 

I was good at that chat, as I was very experienced as I had such talks many times with my ex-wife, she was adamant that the best thing she could do was play on the internet and feel sorry for herself. It did not work for her. I could provide her all the support, make conditions to be as least overwhelming as possible and encourage, but as she was not open to making an effort, I was just making my life hard. She was at the same time deluded, so there was not possibility of worthwhile communication. 

The difference was in the former case that I was talking to a lover who was open minded and willing to examine her own way of thinking. If I get a silver star from Gottman, she is the one who deserves it for that self-examination. Indeed, one chat with someone she trusted (and appealed to her vanity) and she saw things differently. Not all people are like that, men or women. 

The standard relationship advice story we read on the internet is about a man who is self-centered. He becomes less attracted to his wife, who is always tired from looking after their kids, doing all the housework, and working a full-time job. He decides that he can do better as he is fed up of the way that years of lack of appreciation have left her emotionally drained. Then he realizes his folly, makes some effort and they all live happily ever after. Clearly, in these anecdotes, some empathy from the man cures everything, but this man appears to be something close to a psychopath rather than a normal man is no use for anyone in practical terms. Yet, this is often the broad standard for relationship advice books. 

I am also seeing a lady who broke up from her husband. He was apparently a good man (a poet), but she confessed that when she complained he was not making an effort to get a decent paid job, he responded by doing all the housework. He had not done what he should. He had done the first step of listening (the words), and responded by trying to make it fair. Had he listened and done the next two stages, and tried to understand how she felt (uncomfortable, insecure as a woman) and considered her what motivated her (a longing to be the women to his man), he would have understood that doing all the housework was completely the wrong thing to do. That is an example of what you are talking about. But consider that she did not really understand why she resented his act of doing more housework. I understood and she was grateful when I started treating her with a little apparent insensitivity, I am sure the marriage counselor and Gottman would have thought I was terrible and that her ex-husband (about poet who wrote an sensitive emotions) would have been a better bet.

In the cases I bring up, some are pretty much out of the man's hands. In none of them is it simply that the woman is more powerful. My wife refused to see further than her own self-pity, the lady with the compulsion to eat does not see further than that compulsion as a need. You would regard that as being the man's fault only because you would not want a relationship where you feel the need to take ultimate responsibility. However, you are clearly a very kind and considerate wife because you a very kind and considerate person. In those two cases, however, can be empathetic and aware of what i going on and what she needs, but part of what she needs is to work on herself. Empathy in that case is a precursor, but not a solution. In the latter two cases, the advice is not being a complete psycho and secondly be less focused on your own emotions and justification - essentially the only problem is the lack of empathy. 

Then there are the cases, where you can listen, really listen, but oh my people are as complicated as we are! I have been blessed with the company of many women over the years. The husband and poet had only ever been with his wife and they were married for fifteen years. I am sure he is at least as smart with people as I am, but he was inexperienced. His ex-wife had a few contradictions in her sexual and emotional need that I was OK with and understood only through experience. He could have listened all day, but it would not have been enough. I do not really blame him for that.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Dug says she has HiBPD.*
> 
> (*Husband-induced BPD)


That is extraordinarily insensitive, and lacks any and all empathy.


----------



## MEM2020

We are more wired for combat than 'non violent, non threatening conflict'.

Peaceful verbal conflict is a relatively new thing.



anonmd said:


> We are wired for conflict.
> 
> Conflict is not hard at all, what is hard is the relationship needs to be a different type of conflict. You aren't killing things and dragging them home. Violence not allowed, physical OR verbal.
> 
> It is not all that hard for a young male to recognize that physical violence is not appropriate and suppress it. MUCH harder to suppress the natural wiring to win in the verbal realm. We generally don't make 25 or 30 year olds senior managers for basically that reason I think. Marriage is OK though...


----------



## EllisRedding

MEM11363 said:


> We are more wired for combat than 'non violent, non threatening conflict'.
> 
> Peaceful verbal conflict is a relatively new thing.


 @MEM11363 - check your PM (not for me, another user is trying to get in touch with you, not literally of course :laugh: )


----------



## samyeagar

As to what Gottman says, and I have read a lot of his stuff...there are some tidbits here and there that are good, common sense advice in the context of being gender neutral. I have been in three exclusive, long term, committed relationships in my life, and I can honestly say that most of what he says does not apply at best, or would have been actively destructive at worst to my personal experience.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> As to what Gottman says, and I have read a lot of his stuff...there are some tidbits here and there that are good, common sense advice in the context of being gender neutral. I have been in three exclusive, long term, committed relationships in my life, and I can honestly say that most of what he says does not apply at best, or would have been actively destructive at worst to my personal experience.


His advice to men really seems to make some defensive. I wonder why they don't use it as an opportunity to increase their influence?


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> It is hard to know. It is therefore dangerous to make assumptions. You recognize that most relationship books are targeted at women, so what will be a more popular message "Women are rubbish, your poor man" or "Men are rubbish, you poor woman. Still, be brave!"
> 
> Most people who read self-help books tend to do them as an alternative to actually helping themselves. A minority act.
> 
> Again, you are very stubbornly sticking to a single paradigm of relationship advice. There are such things as basic principles, but like any craft, they are only the foundation.
> 
> We have the terrible case on this forum of a poster's wife who has increased in size to over 400lb. Clearly, this woman's fear of having a horrible life, disability, blindness, pain, incapacity and completely disregard her husband and kids. This might have an organic mental illness cause, it might be demons from her past, it might be how he has treated her, or a combination of two or three. Showing empathy might be an essential pre-cursor to her tackling her problems, but it will not be enough. Ultimately, man or woman, we are the only person who can solve our own problems. The only thing a man can do (and he should) do is provide her with the right support (physical, emotional, financial) in order for her to do that and to lead a happy life.
> 
> Many people are wrong in what will make them happy. I spoke to a lady recently who was giving herself some time to herself as she was a little down and overwhelmed and needed a break. We spoke for a while about why she was down (unsure), about what her greatest fears were (no real answer) and about when she was happiest in life. When she described when was happiest in life, I could suggest those times were when was when she was social and tackling her problems head on. She agreed to her surprise and changed her plans. So, Gottman would have given me a silver star.
> 
> I was good at that chat, as I was very experienced as I had such talks many times with my ex-wife, she was adamant that the best thing she could do was play on the internet and feel sorry for herself. It did not work for her. I could provide her all the support, make conditions to be as least overwhelming as possible and encourage, but as she was not open to making an effort, I was just making my life hard. She was at the same time deluded, so there was not possibility of worthwhile communication.
> 
> The difference was in the former case that I was talking to a lover who was open minded and willing to examine her own way of thinking. If I get a silver star from Gottman, she is the one who deserves it for that self-examination. Indeed, one chat with someone she trusted (and appealed to her vanity) and she saw things differently. Not all people are like that, men or women.
> 
> The standard relationship advice story we read on the internet is about a man who is self-centered. He becomes less attracted to his wife, who is always tired from looking after their kids, doing all the housework, and working a full-time job. He decides that he can do better as he is fed up of the way that years of lack of appreciation have left her emotionally drained. Then he realizes his folly, makes some effort and they all live happily ever after. Clearly, in these anecdotes, some empathy from the man cures everything, but this man appears to be something close to a psychopath rather than a normal man is no use for anyone in practical terms. Yet, this is often the broad standard for relationship advice books.
> 
> I am also seeing a lady who broke up from her husband. He was apparently a good man (a poet), but she confessed that when she complained he was not making an effort to get a decent paid job, he responded by doing all the housework. He had not done what he should. He had done the first step of listening (the words), and responded by trying to make it fair. Had he listened and done the next two stages, and tried to understand how she felt (uncomfortable, insecure as a woman) and considered her what motivated her (a longing to be the women to his man), he would have understood that doing all the housework was completely the wrong thing to do. That is an example of what you are talking about. But consider that she did not really understand why she resented his act of doing more housework. I understood and she was grateful when I started treating her with a little apparent insensitivity, I am sure the marriage counselor and Gottman would have thought I was terrible and that her ex-husband (about poet who wrote an sensitive emotions) would have been a better bet.
> 
> In the cases I bring up, some are pretty much out of the man's hands. In none of them is it simply that the woman is more powerful. My wife refused to see further than her own self-pity, the lady with the compulsion to eat does not see further than that compulsion as a need. You would regard that as being the man's fault only because you would not want a relationship where you feel the need to take ultimate responsibility. However, you are clearly a very kind and considerate wife because you a very kind and considerate person. In those two cases, however, can be empathetic and aware of what i going on and what she needs, but part of what she needs is to work on herself. Empathy in that case is a precursor, but not a solution. In the latter two cases, the advice is not being a complete psycho and secondly be less focused on your own emotions and justification - essentially the only problem is the lack of empathy.
> 
> Then there are the cases, where you can listen, really listen, but oh my people are as complicated as we are! I have been blessed with the company of many women over the years. The husband and poet had only ever been with his wife and they were married for fifteen years. I am sure he is at least as smart with people as I am, but he was inexperienced. His ex-wife had a few contradictions in her sexual and emotional need that I was OK with and understood only through experience. He could have listened all day, but it would not have been enough. I do not really blame him for that.


Like I said, it does seem like some men do not have much influence over their wives. Gottman's advice could help them get more influence, if they wanted it.

But breaking up is certainly another alternative.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> His advice to men really seems to make some defensive. I wonder why they don't use it as an opportunity to increase their influence?


Disagreement does not equal defensiveness. I suspect that for many men, as with me, it simply doesn't apply to, or reflect our life experiences.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Disagreement does not equal defensiveness. I suspect that for many men, as with me, it simply doesn't apply to, or reflect our life experiences.


I think Gottman would acknowledge that not every man has influence over his wife. But his research showed it to generally be true.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think Gottman would acknowledge that not every man has influence over his wife. But his research showed it to generally be true.


But would he acknowledge that not every women is influencable? Would you?


----------



## Livvie

I think in a marriage with a reasonable woman, the man can definitely influence the marriage in the way Gottman discusses. When the woman is unreasonable, has a personality dysfunction, or is emotionally unhealthy/damaged, the man is not likely to be able to influence her much. It just doesn't work the same when dealing with a damaged partner!!!!


----------



## Cletus

Livvie said:


> I think in a marriage with a reasonable woman, the man can definitely influence the marriage in the way Gottman discusses. When the woman is unreasonable, has a personality dysfunction, or is emotionally unhealthy/damaged, the man is not likely to be able to influence her much. It just doesn't work the same when dealing with a damaged partner!!!!


With almost no exposure to Gottman, I imagine he would not disagree.

Is it just here or in general that people have difficulty dealing with generalizations (that's not directed at you, just an observation). If Gottman has advice that "only" works for 70% of the population (and I do not know that he does), then there will be millions of exceptions, but many millions more who will find useful information. As long as we understand when the generalization breaks down, it's all good.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Livvie said:


> I think in a marriage with a reasonable woman, the man can definitely influence the marriage in the way Gottman discusses. When the woman is unreasonable, has a personality dysfunction, or is emotionally unhealthy/damaged, the man is not likely to be able to influence her much. *It just doesn't work the same when dealing with a damaged partner!!!!*


TRUTH.. no matter which gender is emotionally unhealthy / damaged.... I sympathize with their plight.. many become co-dependent to survive such marriages.


----------



## samyeagar

Festivus said:


> With almost no exposure to Gottman, I imagine he would not disagree.
> 
> *Is it just here or in general that people have difficulty dealing with generalizations* (that's not directed at you, just an observation). If Gottman has advice that "only" works for 70% of the population (and I do not know that he does), then there will be millions of exceptions, but many millions more who will find useful information. As long as we understand when the generalization breaks down, it's all good.


There is a poster or two here who have very difficult times with generalities, in that they tend to go from idea to idea...sort of a catch phrase of the day, and then move onto a different one a while later...and that becomes their catchall advice that they suggest for virtually every situation, giving almost no consideration for an exceptional situation, until the next catchphrase comes along.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> But would he acknowledge that not every women is influencable? Would you?


A heterosexual woman not able to be influenced by any man at all?

I would find that hard to believe. Cannot speak for Gottman, obviously.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> A heterosexual woman not able to be influenced by any man at all?
> 
> I would find that hard to believe. Cannot speak for Gottman, obviously.


(wears professional hat)

It depends on the level of influence needed and the subject matter.

Some things are more influenceable than others. The parameters that swing the decision vary. Look up Experimental Economics if you have a chance. Very related to what I did. 

Some things are not influenceable - you can guess what. The brain goes into full reptilian mode and you waste effort for nuttin'...

When you deal with such people its like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. One is very pliable but the other is not.


----------



## MattMatt

john117 said:


> Yep, PhD in Applied Mathematics, socially awkward, loner, autistic brother, the works.
> 
> She has lucked out in that the last 6 years she's working from home and even before she worked 60-70 hour weeks and the bosses were reluctant to go after her because of the volume and quality of work she did. Once they did but usually not.


Ha! Bingo! Two Doctorates and three BAs, plus an MA.

She once signed up for a course for fun. And was genuinely surprised when it earned her another degree! 

However Asperger's rages are not fun. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

I don't have the energy to look further into the touch aversion link to serious developmental psychology issues, but I have confirmed that she's seriously touch averse. Not just to me but to her children. Only the cat - as long as he dies not shed - is immune. 

A couple years ago I might have cared but today...


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Like I said, it does seem like some men do not have much influence over their wives. Gottman's advice could help them get more influence, if they wanted it.
> 
> But breaking up is certainly another alternative.


Indeed. Empathy is a very basic part of a relationship. Experience is useful in this as people are not straight forward.



jld said:


> I think Gottman would acknowledge that not every man has influence over his wife. But his research showed it to generally be true.


Again, you phrasing is curious. "not every man has influence over his wife", the implication, intended or not, is that the problem is the husband here is inadequate. Do you understand why I get that impression, and please, do not just dismiss it as a misunderstanding or my problem with reading and listening.

This suggests that it is not the role is the wife to be open to the husband, but all responsibility is not the man. Therefore it is also the man's fault if the relationship fails. It should also follow from that that the woman should get no credit for a successful marriage, but I assume you would not agree with that.



jld said:


> A heterosexual woman not able to be influenced by any man at all?
> 
> I would find that hard to believe. Cannot speak for Gottman, obviously.


Which is why that is not being said. Again, (really, again) it is that a husband can support a wife, but cannot and should not lead her life for her.

People carry flaws some big and some small. Some are subtle, but then become apparent under stress, others are very deeply hidden, but emerge under specific circumstances (e.g birth, early 30's, family bereavement). As adults, it is up to us to handle our issues and up to our partners, family and friends to offer the support they can offer. Some people will do this with minimal support, others will be offered all the help and understanding possible, but not tackle them. 

Empathy and listening is also difficult. Sometimes people will say "I just need a break" and it means they need you to motivate them again, tell them how much this matters to you both and get going again. Sometimes it will mean they just need a break. We have to understand the words, how they are feeling and what motivates them. It is difficult and we will inevitably often be wrong as the person saying it will frequently not know either. We must be open minded in order to have a chance and accept we will all often make mistakes.

I will also write something you will consider stupid. I do not consider you a good listener. I do not consider you an empathetic poster. A poster see his wife killing herself through compulsive eating, to see that she is in huge pain is obvious, but it is up to her to seek help and stop. My ex-wife had issues arise from her childhood, she could tackle them or just give up and decide I should do everything, I could see she was suffering far more clearly than you could, but that was not enough for her to change or make effort in the marriage (had she been on here you would have heard a very different tale, far from reality and swallowed every word). 

I am not sure if you read it, but in the post you reply to, I gave the example of a lady who had her car at the shop as the tank had run dry. I mentioned how ludicrous it would be if she went around telling everyone with a broken car that they should just put gas in the tank. I am afraid I see a comparison to your advice on here. It is great that the problem in your own marriage was recognized, but also recognize that relationships vary. 

I believe that you contribute hugely to your marriage and are grateful for your husband who also contributes hugely. It is a great example. What if you firmly believed that you did everything, but actually did nothing? It would be a delusion, but we all have them, generally minor. @john117 's wife probably sees his emotional needs as trivial and silly, I doubt she will ever see otherwise. He can see that she does not see it, but that is not enough to help.

I also mentioned that case of a marriage of two poets. The husband listened and tried his best. She wanted a man who would act like a man, but subtly allow her to be in charge. He did not have the experience to know this as he had rules in his head like, "listen and show you care", what he needed was "show her you are the man". Had he gone on here, he might have had this input. I guess that you would have advised his to try and empathize.

Yourself and Dug are a great example of a functioning marriage. In large part, there was the willingness to look at the problems and make it work from both sides. That is not always there. Sometimes the woman is willing and the man is not, but sometimes that man is and the woman is not. You might not believe this as women tell you their struggles. 

My wife would have said the problems in our marriage was that I was going through a mid-life crisis as I was used to everything being easy. Symptoms of my mid-life crisis was the conviction that she did not help with the housework and was not trying to find a job. Her friends sympathized, but many of her closest friends realized she was not doing any housework or looking for a job, she merely was convinced in her own mind that she was. The best option was leave, not, as you asserted, try and empathize more.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed. Empathy is a very basic part of a relationship. Experience is useful in this as people are not straight forward.


Not really sure what this has to do with what you quoted from me?



> Again, you phrasing is curious. "not every man has influence over his wife", the implication, intended or not, is that the problem is the husband here is inadequate. Do you understand why I get that impression, and please, do not just dismiss it as a misunderstanding or my problem with reading and listening.


I don't know that he is inadequate. I do think he may be in over his head with that particular woman, though.



> This suggests that it is not the role is the wife to be open to the husband, but all responsibility is not the man. Therefore it is also the man's fault if the relationship fails. It should also follow from that that the woman should get no credit for a successful marriage, but I assume you would not agree with that.


And when the woman is not open, do you just quit? 

I think a woman can be persuaded to trust a man. But he has to earn it. 

MTO, I do not find anything inspiring about a man who has to go to counseling or any other third party to have them tell his wife she has to listen to him. It says to me that he cannot, on his own, inspire her trust. He has to rely on an outside party to get influence with his wife. 

Again, just not attractive to me at all.



> Which is why that is not being said.


It is exactly what was said. Look at Sam's quote.

_"But would he acknowledge that not every women is influencable? Would you?"_



> Again, (really, again) it is that a husband can support a wife, but cannot and should not lead her life for her.
> 
> People carry flaws some big and some small. Some are subtle, but then become apparent under stress, others are very deeply hidden, but emerge under specific circumstances (e.g birth, early 30's, family bereavement). As adults, it is up to us to handle our issues and up to our partners, family and friends to offer the support they can offer. Some people will do this with minimal support, others will be offered all the help and understanding possible, but not tackle them.


I get the feeling you want to limit how much responsibility you have for your partner?

There are people who will move heaven and earth to help their SOs. And there are people who have limits to what they will do. As long as they are each satisfied with the match-up, it may work either way.



> Empathy and listening is also difficult. Sometimes people will say "I just need a break" and it means they need you to motivate them again, tell them how much this matters to you both and get going again. Sometimes it will mean they just need a break. We have to understand the words, how they are feeling and what motivates them. It is difficult and we will inevitably often be wrong as the person saying it will frequently not know either. We must be open minded in order to have a chance and accept we will all often make mistakes.
> 
> I will also write something you will consider stupid. I do not consider you a good listener. I do not consider you an empathetic poster. A poster see his wife killing herself through compulsive eating, to see that she is in huge pain is obvious, but it is up to her to seek help and stop. My ex-wife had issues arise from her childhood, she could tackle them or just give up and decide I should do everything, I could see she was suffering far more clearly than you could, but that was not enough for her to change or make effort in the marriage (had she been on here you would have heard a very different tale, far from reality and swallowed every word).


I do not think you are stupid. And it is fine you think I am not an empathetic poster. I do not have empathy for everyone. I think that for some people, as in Lila's example with her husband yesterday, empathy just gives them the feeling whatever they are doing is okay. I think people can get stuck that way, and I do not want to enable that.

I don't know your wife or her side of the story, so really cannot comment.



> I am not sure if you read it, but in the post you reply to, I gave the example of a lady who had her car at the shop as the tank had run dry. I mentioned how ludicrous it would be if she went around telling everyone with a broken car that they should just put gas in the tank. I am afraid I see a comparison to your advice on here. It is great that the problem in your own marriage was recognized, but also recognize that relationships vary.


Yes, relationships vary. But considering Gottman has studied marriage for four decades, and has given consistent advice, you might want to consider the ways your own convictions differ from his. Or not, as you like.



> I believe that you contribute hugely to your marriage and are grateful for your husband who also contributes hugely. It is a great example. What if you firmly believed that you did everything, but actually did nothing? It would be a delusion, but we all have them, generally minor. @john117 's wife probably sees his emotional needs as trivial and silly, I doubt she will ever see otherwise. He can see that she does not see it, but that is not enough to help.


Again, she has her side of the story. She is not here, so we just do not know.



> I also mentioned that case of a marriage of two poets. The husband listened and tried his best. She wanted a man who would act like a man, but subtly allow her to be in charge. He did not have the experience to know this as he had rules in his head like, "listen and show you care", what he needed was "show her you are the man". Had he gone on here, he might have had this input. I guess that you would have advised his to try and empathize.


I think it is risky to tell a man to "show her you are the man," considering that phrase may mean different things to different people. Some of what it could mean could be quite damaging, especially if interpreted as physical violence. After all, "First, do no harm."

And I do think that empathy is usually helpful in dealing with women. The concern here on TAM seems to be that a man who is already in over his head with his wife, because she is stronger than he is, could be taken advantage of. That has not been what I personally have seen IRL, and it does not seem to figure prominently in Gottman's research, either. Could be an open question, though. But since I am not familiar with it, I think it safer to err on the side of Gottman and encourage empathy when dealing with a wife.



> Yourself and Dug are a great example of a functioning marriage. In large part, there was the willingness to look at the problems and make it work from both sides. That is not always there. Sometimes the woman is willing and the man is not, but sometimes that man is and the woman is not. You might not believe this as women tell you their struggles.


I have been told by several people that I bring more to this marriage than I realize. That is probably true. But I have known many women who have brought even more than I have, and without the cooperation of the husband, really ended up against a wall. Again, this seems to be echoed in Gottman's research.



> My wife would have said the problems in our marriage was that I was going through a mid-life crisis as I was used to everything being easy. Symptoms of my mid-life crisis was the conviction that she did not help with the housework and was not trying to find a job. Her friends sympathized, but many of her closest friends realized she was not doing any housework or looking for a job, she merely was convinced in her own mind that she was. The best option was leave, not, as you asserted, try and empathize more.


Maybe in your marriage leaving was the best course of action. You may not have been able to influence her in a more positive direction. And now she is free to choose her own course.

I really do not understand why you seem to be trying to fight the research of a man who has spent more time studying marriage than you may have been alive. Gottman is certainly not an amateur in this field.


----------



## MattMatt

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed. Empathy is a very basic part of a relationship. Experience is useful in this as people are not straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you phrasing is curious. "not every man has influence over his wife", the implication, intended or not, is that the problem is the husband here is inadequate. Do you understand why I get that impression, and please, do not just dismiss it as a misunderstanding or my problem with reading and listening.
> 
> This suggests that it is not the role is the wife to be open to the husband, but all responsibility is not the man. Therefore it is also the man's fault if the relationship fails. It should also follow from that that the woman should get no credit for a successful marriage, but I assume you would not agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why that is not being said. Again, (really, again) it is that a husband can support a wife, but cannot and should not lead her life for her.
> 
> People carry flaws some big and some small. Some are subtle, but then become apparent under stress, others are very deeply hidden, but emerge under specific circumstances (e.g birth, early 30's, family bereavement). As adults, it is up to us to handle our issues and up to our partners, family and friends to offer the support they can offer. Some people will do this with minimal support, others will be offered all the help and understanding possible, but not tackle them.
> 
> Empathy and listening is also difficult. Sometimes people will say "I just need a break" and it means they need you to motivate them again, tell them how much this matters to you both and get going again. Sometimes it will mean they just need a break. We have to understand the words, how they are feeling and what motivates them. It is difficult and we will inevitably often be wrong as the person saying it will frequently not know either. We must be open minded in order to have a chance and accept we will all often make mistakes.
> 
> I will also write something you will consider stupid. I do not consider you a good listener. I do not consider you an empathetic poster. A poster see his wife killing herself through compulsive eating, to see that she is in huge pain is obvious, but it is up to her to seek help and stop. My ex-wife had issues arise from her childhood, she could tackle them or just give up and decide I should do everything, I could see she was suffering far more clearly than you could, but that was not enough for her to change or make effort in the marriage (had she been on here you would have heard a very different tale, far from reality and swallowed every word).
> 
> I am not sure if you read it, but in the post you reply to, I gave the example of a lady who had her car at the shop as the tank had run dry. I mentioned how ludicrous it would be if she went around telling everyone with a broken car that they should just put gas in the tank. I am afraid I see a comparison to your advice on here. It is great that the problem in your own marriage was recognized, but also recognize that relationships vary.
> 
> I believe that you contribute hugely to your marriage and are grateful for your husband who also contributes hugely. It is a great example. What if you firmly believed that you did everything, but actually did nothing? It would be a delusion, but we all have them, generally minor. @john117 's wife probably sees his emotional needs as trivial and silly, I doubt she will ever see otherwise. He can see that she does not see it, but that is not enough to help.
> 
> I also mentioned that case of a marriage of two poets. The husband listened and tried his best. She wanted a man who would act like a man, but subtly allow her to be in charge. He did not have the experience to know this as he had rules in his head like, "listen and show you care", what he needed was "show her you are the man". Had he gone on here, he might have had this input. I guess that you would have advised his to try and empathize.
> 
> Yourself and Dug are a great example of a functioning marriage. In large part, there was the willingness to look at the problems and make it work from both sides. That is not always there. Sometimes the woman is willing and the man is not, but sometimes that man is and the woman is not. You might not believe this as women tell you their struggles.
> 
> My wife would have said the problems in our marriage was that I was going through a mid-life crisis as I was used to everything being easy. Symptoms of my mid-life crisis was the conviction that she did not help with the housework and was not trying to find a job. Her friends sympathized, but many of her closest friends realized she was not doing any housework or looking for a job, she merely was convinced in her own mind that she was. The best option was leave, not, as you asserted, try and empathize more.


:iagree:

This is a gold medal post.


----------



## Mr The Other

MattMatt said:


> :iagree:
> 
> This is a gold medal post.


Gosh golly!
Thanks!:grin2:


----------



## Duguesclin

samyeagar said:


> Disagreement does not equal defensiveness. I suspect that for many men, as with me, it simply doesn't apply to, or reflect our life experiences.


This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.


----------



## pidge70

Duguesclin said:


> This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.


Wow! This is just rude af.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Not really sure what this has to do with what you quoted from me?
> 
> I don't know that he is inadequate. I do think he may be in over his head with that particular woman, though.
> 
> And when the woman is not open, do you just quit?
> 
> I think a woman can be persuaded to trust a man. But he has to earn it.
> 
> MTO, I do not find anything inspiring about a man who has to go to counseling or any other third party to have them tell his wife she has to listen to him. It says to me that he cannot, on his own, inspire her trust. He has to rely on an outside party to get influence with his wife.
> 
> Again, just not attractive to me at all.
> 
> It is exactly what was said. Look at Sam's quote.
> 
> _"But would he acknowledge that not every women is influencable? Would you?"_
> 
> *I get the feeling you want to limit how much responsibility you have for your partner?*
> 
> There are people who will move heaven and earth to help their SOs. And there are people who have limits to what they will do. As long as they are each satisfied with the match-up, it may work either way.
> 
> I do not think you are stupid. And it is fine you think I am not an empathetic poster. I do not have empathy for everyone. I think that for some people, as in Lila's example with her husband yesterday, empathy just gives them the feeling whatever they are doing is okay. I think people can get stuck that way, and I do not want to enable that.
> 
> I don't know your wife or her side of the story, so really cannot comment.
> 
> Yes, relationships vary. But considering Gottman has studied marriage for four decades, and has given consistent advice, you might want to consider the ways your own convictions differ from his. Or not, as you like.
> 
> Again, she has her side of the story. She is not here, so we just do not know.
> 
> *I think it is risky to tell a man to "show her you are the man,"* considering that phrase may mean different things to different people. Some of what it could mean could be quite damaging, especially if interpreted as physical violence. After all, "First, do no harm."
> 
> *And I do think that empathy is usually helpful in dealing with women. *The concern here on TAM seems to be that a man who is already in over his head with his wife, because she is stronger than he is, could be taken advantage of. That has not been what I personally have seen IRL, and it does not seem to figure prominently in Gottman's research, either. Could be an open question, though. But since I am not familiar with it, I think it safer to err on the side of Gottman and encourage empathy when dealing with a wife.
> 
> *I have been told by several people that I bring more to this marriage than I realize. That is probably true. But I have known many women who have brought even more than I have, and without the cooperation of the husband, really ended up against a wall. * Again, this seems to be echoed in Gottman's research.
> 
> Maybe in your marriage leaving was the best course of action. * You may not have been able to influence her in a more positive direction. And now she is free to choose her own course.*
> 
> I really do not understand why you seem to be trying to fight the research of a man who has spent more time studying marriage than you may have been alive. Gottman is certainly not an amateur in this field.


I appreciate your respect for research. I actually do agree with you that empathy is very important. I also think that you marriage is a great example to hold up. 

Where I might criticize is that I suspect you use Gottman as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than enlightenment. You have taken from Gottman what you already believed. I have in the past quote research that suggested active listening was generally ineffective, I do not believe this research that contradicted your existing view was one you gave as much credibility. 

I think we both feel that we are limiting the responsibility the other has in the relationship, so I would agree with this statement. I believe that it is fifty fifty, but both sides should be willing to work hard and do as much as they can while doing extra when their partner or relationship is in trouble. This does share the responsibility for the relationship with the woman rather than just placing it on the man. I would also point out that this gives credit to the woman. I have seen cases (perhaps you have to) where the woman is taking on a great deal and contributing a huge amount and without her extra effort the relationship would fail. If we acknowledge this effort we must also realizes the woman makes a difference too.

I also think you are quite right that the advice "show her you are the man" could go very badly. I certainly would hope such advice is generally dished out on its own! I have the habit of asking questions to a new poster to get a fuller picture, as I cannot rely on my intuition to do that. I hope a few more nuances would have been discussed. Text is often limited and misunderstandings are easy! 

I do not doubt that there are many women that have brought huge amounts to their marriages and they fail through the indifference of their partner. My point is perhaps a little more modest that it seems (and perhaps not worth all the words, excuse me that!); I have seen men that have brought huge amounts to their marriages and they fail through the indifference of their partner. Sometimes they are trying but have problems with empathy, sometimes they are trying but do not have the experience to make a relationship work, sometimes their partner is just not willing to put in the effort or is emotionally damaged in a way that may or may not have been apparent earlier. There are guidelines we can give, but there is never a sure method for either sex.

I certainly agree though, someone can have a long lasting marriage with little empathy, but it is likely to be miserable for their partner and hardly worth having. For a good relationship, empathy is important. Many men and some women are bad at it, many men and some women are hard to empathize with, most people struggle to put in the effort it required. That is why relationships are not often easy. 

I find the final line you enbolden enlightening. I certainly hope she is doing better, few people are made happy by feeling entitled and I believe those feelings brought her down. However, she is not free to choose her own course now in a way she was not before. We discussed what we wanted a great deal before the marriage and after the marriage. I could encourage, support and lead the way as required, but I could not control her choices. She is free to choose her own course then and is now. Both sexes are free and consequences are a product of that freedom.


----------



## Blondilocks

pidge70 said:


> Wow! This is just rude af.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It was only a matter of time before 'the husband' showed up. Has to show support for the little woman if he wants her to continue to be influence-able.


----------



## MattMatt

Blondilocks said:


> It was only a matter of time before 'the husband' showed up. Has to show support for the little woman if he wants her to continue to be influence-able.


But why be rude? :scratchhead:


----------



## Blondilocks

Got me. And, Sam's one of the more level-headed posters here.


----------



## Duguesclin

pidge70 said:


> Wow! This is just rude af.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I just look at data. 3 long term relationships only makes you an expert on how you go to the next one, not at sticking with one.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> I appreciate your respect for research. I actually do agree with you that empathy is very important. I also think that you marriage is a great example to hold up.
> 
> Where I might criticize is that I suspect you use Gottman as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than enlightenment. You have taken from Gottman what you already believed. I have in the past quote research that suggested active listening was generally ineffective, I do not believe this research that contradicted your existing view was one you gave as much credibility.


I was not familiar with Gottman's work when I arrived on TAM. I was indeed surprised to read that much of what he had learned through his research I already suspected just from observation and listening to other women throughout my life.

I think some men get defensive about his work because some of them want marriage to be equal in every way. But Gottman's research shows, as evidenced in the quotes that begin this thread, that it is men and not women on whom marital success seems to depend. And that must be painful for some men to acknowledge.

On active listening . . . I read an interview with him once in which he said that active listening is a powerful tool that couples should by all means use if they can do it. He said that many couples cannot remain calm enough to do it, though, when they are angry.

Dug and I learned about active listening in 2000. We could not believe the difference it made in our relationship. It was like magic for feeling heard.

Obviously, YMMV.



> I think we both feel that we are limiting the responsibility the other has in the relationship, so I would agree with this statement. I believe that it is fifty fifty, but both sides should be willing to work hard and do as much as they can while doing extra when their partner or relationship is in trouble. This does share the responsibility for the relationship with the woman rather than just placing it on the man. I would also point out that this gives credit to the woman. I have seen cases (perhaps you have to) where the woman is taking on a great deal and contributing a huge amount and without her extra effort the relationship would fail. If we acknowledge this effort we must also realizes the woman makes a difference too.


I have not personally seen women *not* contribute to their marriages. If anything, I have seen them time after time give all they have to them, often ending up with the short end of the stick, without much improvement in the marriage.

In contrast, when a man decides things are going to get better, and sets to work making them better, through the practice of such virtues as patience, empathy, and humility, things seem to get better very quickly. In alignment with Gottman's research, my own personal observation is that men are the shortcut to a healthier marriage.

Again, I am not really sure why some men seem to reject this opportunity that Gottman's advice offers them to make the marriage better. The only thing I can think of is that unlike most of the men Gottman studied, these men are simply unable (or unwilling to learn) to influence their spouses. 



> I also think you are quite right that the advice "show her you are the man" could go very badly. I certainly would hope such advice is generally dished out on its own! I have the habit of asking questions to a new poster to get a fuller picture, as I cannot rely on my intuition to do that. I hope a few more nuances would have been discussed. Text is often limited and misunderstandings are easy!
> 
> I do not doubt that there are many women that have brought huge amounts to their marriages and they fail through the indifference of their partner. My point is perhaps a little more modest that it seems (and perhaps not worth all the words, excuse me that!); I have seen men that have brought huge amounts to their marriages and they fail through the indifference of their partner. Sometimes they are trying but have problems with empathy, sometimes they are trying but do not have the experience to make a relationship work, sometimes their partner is just not willing to put in the effort or is emotionally damaged in a way that may or may not have been apparent earlier. There are guidelines we can give, but there is never a sure method for either sex.


There may not be guarantees, but I hope that is not used as an excuse to avoid trying Gottman's suggestions.



> I certainly agree though, someone can have a long lasting marriage with little empathy, but it is likely to be miserable for their partner and hardly worth having. For a good relationship, empathy is important. Many men and some women are bad at it, many men and some women are hard to empathize with, most people struggle to put in the effort it required. That is why relationships are not often easy.
> 
> I find the final line you enbolden enlightening. I certainly hope she is doing better, few people are made happy by feeling entitled and I believe those feelings brought her down. However, she is not free to choose her own course now in a way she was not before. We discussed what we wanted a great deal before the marriage and after the marriage. I could encourage, support and lead the way as required, but I could not control her choices. She is free to choose her own course then and is now. Both sexes are free and consequences are a product of that freedom.


I hope she will make the most of her freedom as a single woman. If she is addicted to video games, though, that may be a challenge.


----------



## MattMatt

Duguesclin said:


> I just look at data. 3 long term relationships only makes you an expert on how you go to the next one, not at sticking with one.


My wife had been married twice.

She got the same "helpful" type of comment "If you are such an expert on relationships how come you have been married twice?"

She answered "My first husband died."

Also it might be possible to stay married to the same person because you have low expectations.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MattMatt

Active Listening. It is like when a salesman looks directly into your eyes.

Both are learned techniques.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.


Hmmm ... by this I have only been in what could be classified as 1 LTR. I mean, I knew I was awesome, but this post just confirmed that I am basically King of TAM 

:allhail:


What a d$ck response, but from seeing other posts I guess it was only a matter of time ...


----------



## MattMatt

EllisRedding said:


> Hmmm ... by this I have only been in what could be classified as 1 LTR. I mean, I knew I was awesome, but this post just confirmed that I am basically King of TAM
> 
> :allhail:
> 
> 
> What a d$ck response, but from seeing other posts I guess it was only a matter of time ...


Sire, surely you need a more Regal avatar, now?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I have not personally seen women *not* contribute to their marriages. If anything, I have seen them time after time give all they have to them, often ending up with the short end of the stick, without much improvement in the marriage*.


 This RIGHT HERE is the clincher with Jld... 

I've have this discussion with her many times..what everyone on this thread needs to realize is.. she is purely speaking out of everything she has Seen around her - all of her life... our experiences weigh heavily on us...it's hard to shake..

Now me, on the other hand, my experience is different.. sure I have known some Chauvinistic men with too much control, squashing the good woman.. (and my blood boiled for her too)... but I've seen my share of women take advantage of a good man, the type of man who would give his ALL for his wife & family.. 

In my world.. if THAT isn't enough.. what the hell is wrong with the woman...Basically she is spoiled ! Some of them were Lazy, sucked everything up, didn't want to have sex ... they most certainly contributed to the marital issues/ downfall... where I felt the man was doing the best he could -outside of getting rough with her to Straighten her up..but NO.. he wasn't the abusive type...

My own mother was a detriment to my father.. His next wife, my step mother worshiped the ground he walked on .. because he was a good man (that was a case of pure incompatibility I suppose) but still ... a woman can be stubborn too.. and cause problems in a marriage.. 

For all of us.. we have to watch speaking out of our own experiences too much.. I try to bring a blank slate when I read a new thread here in regards to who is more at fault.. as with most posters (human nature) we are only hearing one side of the story...many are not self aware enough to paint an accurate "well balanced" picture of the issues ...

The Influencing thing.. I am of the belief... in a healthy Union.. the wife and husband will have influence on each other.. When we met...I was the more "needy" partner.. I leaned on him, I sucked up all his attention, his care... he was there for me.. but as I grew healthier emotionally, gained some self esteem so to speak / felt more self assured...I have surely influenced my husband also over the years...



> *Influence definition:* Influence is the power to have an important effect on someone or something. If someone influences someone else, they are changing a person or thing in an indirect but important way.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> This RIGHT HERE is the clincher with Jld...
> 
> I've have this discussion with her many times..what everyone on this thread needs to realize is.. she is purely speaking out of everything she has Seen around her - all of her life... our experiences weigh heavily on us...it's hard to shake..
> 
> Now me, on the other hand, my experience is different.. sure I have known some Chauvinistic men with too much control, squashing the good woman.. (and my blood boiled for her too)... but I've seen my share of women take advantage of a good man, the type of man who would give his ALL for his wife & family..
> 
> In my world.. if THAT isn't enough.. what the hell is wrong with the woman...Basically she is spoiled ! Some of them were Lazy, sucked everything up, didn't want to have sex ... they most certainly contributed to the marital issues/ downfall... where I felt the man was doing the best he could -outside of getting rough with her to Straighten her up..but NO.. he wasn't the abusive type...
> 
> My own mother was a detriment to my father.. His next wife, my step mother worshiped the ground he walked on .. because he was a good man (that was a case of pure incompatibility I suppose) but still ... a woman can be stubborn too.. and cause problems in a marriage..
> 
> For all of us.. we have to watch speaking out of our own experiences too much.. I try to bring a blank slate when I read a new thread here in regards to who is more at fault.. as with most posters (human nature) we are only hearing one side of the story...many are not self aware enough to paint an accurate "well balanced" picture of the issues ...
> 
> The Influencing thing.. I am of the belief... in a healthy Union.. the wife and husband will have influence on each other.. When we met...I was the more "needy" partner.. I leaned on him, I sucked up all his attention, his care... he was there for me.. but as I grew healthier emotionally, gained some self esteem so to speak / felt more self assured...I have surely influenced my husband also over the years...


For sure, both partners influence each other. That is why it is so important to choose wisely. We are opening our deepest selves to the influence of that person. We want to be influenced wisely, not foolishly.

SA, you have quoted Gottman many times. I know you have great respect for him. He has consistently said that men need to step up in marriage. His research has not led him to "equal" conclusions about how to improve marriages. I think his research is consistent with my own observations in life.

If a woman does not appreciate a good man, she may indeed lose him. Life often brings a sort of natural justice.


----------



## EllisRedding

MattMatt said:


> Sire, surely you need a more Regal avatar, now?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Done 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.


Seriously DUG.. One thing I know about you.. you really haven't a care if anyone is offended by what you say (this only shows a man's weakness to care)...so even this post is wasting my breath...but I am going to go on anyway... 

Look.. poster wise... I greatly appreciate @samyeagar.. he sounds a lot like my husband, you met my husband DUG.. I think you liked him , thought he was a Good Guy ! ... Look the way Samyeagar has conducted himself with women.. he stands out on this forum to me....so much !! 

I want you to realize something...his 1st GF died, she was the love of his life, I believe it was a car accident...and you know what.. I would bet anything he'd only have had that 1 beautiful relationship had she lived.. 

It's silly for me to say to you that I think this was rude & hurtful.. because I know you just don't care... So for the sake of others reading here... I will agree.. it was very out of line.. and I , for one, appreciate Samyeagar's input..


----------



## john117

Au contraire, the comment was not made with the je m'en fou attitude attributed. It was quite thoughtful - much like the Hi BPD one. 

Spontaneity isn't. 😂


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> For sure, both partners influence each other. That is why it is so important to choose wisely. We are opening our deepest selves to the influence of that person. We want to be influenced wisely, not foolishly.


 Yes.. hugely important to choose wisely.... sometimes people do change though.. even if we haven't and remained steadfast. I think OTHER influences in a person's life can WRECK a marriage.. like if/ when a wife starts doing too many "girls night's out".. this happened to someone we are close to... Her husband wasn't into that scene...he didn't want to go out dancing ...(Probably a bad move) as what ended up happening is.. she & some drummer hooked up, an affair began....they ended up divorced.. if we asked a variety of people who was at fault here.. I wonder what sort of replies we would get.. 

Should her husband have went ?.. should he have laid the law down.. no more dancing with the girls.. what? It's easy to say he should have influenced her.. but maybe she was bordering a stubborn mule on this issue, she would have been hugely resentful.. sometimes there just aren't any easy answers... 



> SA, you have quoted Gottman many times. I know you have great respect for him. He has consistently said that men need to step up in marriage. His research has not led him to "equal" conclusions about how to improve marriages. I think his research is consistent with my own observations in life.


 there is another book "*Love & Respect*" that speaks how men care more about being RESPECTED over being LOVED... which shows some differences in the sexes.. though some would say if we RESPECT.. we LOVE.. I don't know..

By stepping up , being an Honorable man.. he should get more respect.. but look at people today... how dysfunctional so many are.. there are those who want to go out , get trashed & find a HOT Guy (who cares about character! -look at that body!) to get it on with.... women throw the good guys to the curb every day ...and pine after the Jerk...

I am speaking more before marriage I suppose...but think about it...when this has been a woman's experience.. don't you think this could mess with her mind some, will she suddenly really care about the GOOD MEN someday?...maybe when that biological clock gets ticking louder... 

Just a question.. but couldn't it mess with what should BE -or how it should flow.. in a future marriage.. Add all the independence to our women today .... do they even need influenced ?? They may not appreciate that thought even...



> If a woman does not appreciate a good man, she may indeed lose him. Life often brings a sort of natural justice.


 She should loose him.. but sometimes they stay for the wife & children.. the good ones often will.. and sacrifice themselves.. then someone will come along & tell them they are too Beta.. heck a man can't win for loosing in some circumstances.. he needs to be just as wise with his Picker as women.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's silly for me to say to you that I think this was rude & hurtful.. because I know you just don't care... So for the sake of others reading here... I will agree.. it was very out of line.. and I , for one, appreciate Samyeagar's input..


I honestly don't feel inspired by him .... he needs to step up his game if he hopes to get into my pants ... :laugh:


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> Seriously DUG.. One thing I know about you.. you really haven't a care if anyone is offended by what you say (this only shows a man's weakness to care)...so even this post is wasting my breath...but I am going to go on anyway...
> 
> Look.. poster wise... I greatly appreciate @samyeagar.. he sounds a lot like my husband, you met my husband DUG.. I think you liked him , thought he was a Good Guy ! ... Look the way Samyeagar has conducted himself with women.. he stands out on this forum to me....so much !!
> 
> I want you to realize something...his 1st GF died, she was the love of his life, I believe it was a car accident...and you know what.. I would bet anything he'd only have had that 1 beautiful relationship had she lived..
> 
> It's silly for me to say to you that I think this was rude & hurtful.. because I know you just don't care... So for the sake of others reading here... I will agree.. it was very out of line.. and I , for one, appreciate Samyeagar's input..


You're very kind SA, and always have been, and as I've said before, remind me of my wife in many ways, and I do see many similarities between your husband and I. Though we have led different paths to where we are, I think you and your husband, and my wife and I...we have arrived in nearly the same place respectively.

You are correct, my first Love died in a car wreck, and although no way of knowing for sure, I think you are correct that she and I would like still be together to this day, if not for that tragic morning.

My second LTR lasted 20 years, 17 of which we were married, and it turns out she was diagnosed NPD. Since some here are big fans of research, the general consensus among the broader psychological community is that maintaining a close healthy relationship with a NPD person is not sustainable over any significant length of time...they are simply missing missing the empathy parts of their personality, as in they are just not there...sort of like trying to drive a car without an engine...no matter what you do, how hard you try, how badly you want to, the car is never going to go anywhere, except maybe rolling down a hill, or falling over a cliff. In fact, I've been told that it is a testament to my strength of mind, will and, character that I lasted as long as I did without ending up in a psych ward myself.

As to my current LTR...four years and counting, and despite the one issue we have had, which I will say, the past few weeks have been much, much better on that front, without me even broaching the subject again, but other than that...we're in awesome shape.

Now, as to that comment dug made, yeah, it was rude, and insensitive, quite obviously made without any regard or knowledge of the entire situation. Sort of like the know it all who jumps in in the middle of a conversation that everybody kind of looks at sideways. He and jld are who they are, so it was not surprising in the least.


----------



## samyeagar

Duguesclin said:


> This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.


So seriously dug, since you go by data, and obviously knew the whole story before you decided to chime in, what, pray tell is Gottmans advice for maintaining a good healthy relationship with a dead woman? A relationship that would likely be illegal in most jurisdictions...it's a little hard to influence once rigor sets in.

Also, please point me to specifically where Gottman addresses marriage to an NPD woman...not some generalities, or self validating studies, but his specific research into marriages where the woman has a professionally diagnosed psychological disorder.


----------



## just got it 55

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...qNP5ViJ5ankF7CqnQ&sig2=8Fvyj0Z7KTGlLfAYNJh1-Q

This is a Business book But I think some of the principals may apply

55


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> So seriously dug, since you go by data, and obviously knew the whole story before you decided to chime in, what, pray tell is Gottmans advice for maintaining a good healthy relationship with a dead woman? A relationship that would likely be illegal in most jurisdictions...it's a little hard to influence once rigor sets in...*jackass.*
> 
> Also, please point me to specifically where Gottman addresses marriage to an NPD woman...not some generalities, or self validating studies, but his specific research into marriages where the woman has a professionally diagnosed psychological disorder.


Name calling is against forum rules.


----------



## jld

just got it 55 said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...qNP5ViJ5ankF7CqnQ&sig2=8Fvyj0Z7KTGlLfAYNJh1-Q
> 
> This is a Business book But I think some of the principals may apply
> 
> 55


Likely so. Empathy can create space for influence. 

And again, it is very important to choose carefully who we let into that space. Not all empathy is helpful to us.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> Now, as to that comment dug made, yeah, it was rude, and insensitive, quite obviously made without any regard or knowledge of the entire situation. Sort of like the know it all who jumps in in the middle of a conversation that everybody kind of looks at sideways. He and jld are who they are, so it was not surprising in the least.


 They are Crazy GOOD at shaking things UP here, aren't they... It's a wonder you even dare post on her threads.. You must be a masochist.. ha ha...

I can attest 1st hand... THEY DO THINK ALIKE - true compatibility lives there....so it IS their honest perspective to feel as they post... but true.. many of our marriages are just not of the same dynamic , including our own...

In a few areas.. we are utterly backwards from their dynamic, I mean from Black to White for goodness sake... but still, regardless of how they may "come off" in a post... in real life..they are very friendly , generous, GOOD people... we can agree to disagree and still respect that these differences work for us..









Being on a forum, sometimes can't capture the personality behind it.. JLD is such an empathizer in reality.. but it sways almost always to women...yes, this is hugely obvious. 

You have been through 2 truly traumatic life experiences...loosing your 1st love suddenly as you did...then marrying a woman incapable of empathy.. yes, it's a wonder you are still sane.. 

Who is to say you aren't a strong man.. can I whack them [email protected]#


----------



## samyeagar

> So seriously dug, since you go by data, and obviously knew the whole story before you decided to chime in, what, pray tell is Gottmans advice for maintaining a good healthy relationship with a dead woman? A relationship that would likely be illegal in most jurisdictions...it's a little hard to influence once rigor sets in...*EDITED*.
> 
> Also, please point me to specifically where Gottman addresses marriage to an NPD woman...not some generalities, or self validating studies, but his specific research into marriages where the woman has a professionally diagnosed psychological disorder.





jld said:


> Name calling is against forum rules.


That's fine, and you are absolutely correct. Name calling is against the forum rules. I edited my original post, but I am quoting this as a great example of how the only response you can come up with to what your husband said was to defend him against name calling.

Does he really need you to defend him jld? Is he really that weak?


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> They are Crazy GOOD at shaking things UP here, aren't they... It's a wonder you even dare post on her threads.. You must be a masochist.. ha ha...
> 
> I can attest 1st hand... THEY DO THINK ALIKE - true compatibility lives there....so it IS their honest perspective to feel as they post... but true.. many of our marriages are just not of the same dynamic , including our own...
> 
> In a few areas.. we are utterly backwards from their dynamic, I mean from Black to White for goodness sake... but still, regardless of how they may "come off" in a post... in real life..they are very friendly , generous, GOOD people... we can agree to disagree and still respect that these differences work for us..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being on a forum, sometimes can't capture the personality behind it.. JLD is such an empathizer in reality.. but it sways almost always to women...yes, this is hugely obvious.
> 
> You have been through 2 truly traumatic life experiences...loosing your 1st love suddenly as you did...then marrying a woman incapable of empathy.. yes, it's a wonder you are still sane..
> 
> Who is to say you aren't a strong man.. can I whack them [email protected]#


And I have regularly been the first to point out that they are absolutely perfect for each other. They have found that little niche that works or them, and jld, in her little back handed way has told me I am weak on numerous occasions, but meh...by her definition, I would not want to be a strong man...the woman I am attracted to, the one who loves me wouldn't like me very much if I was


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. hugely important to choose wisely.... sometimes people do change though.. even if we haven't and remained steadfast. I think OTHER influences in a person's life can WRECK a marriage.. like if/ when a wife starts doing too many "girls night's out".. this happened to someone we are close to... Her husband wasn't into that scene...he didn't want to go out dancing ...(Probably a bad move) as what ended up happening is.. she & some drummer hooked up, an affair began....they ended up divorced.. if we asked a variety of people who was at fault here.. I wonder what sort of replies we would get..
> 
> Should her husband have went ?.. should he have laid the law down.. no more dancing with the girls.. what? It's easy to say he should have influenced her.. but maybe she was bordering a stubborn mule on this issue, she would have been hugely resentful.. sometimes there just aren't any easy answers...


We do have to be careful the people we allow to influence us. Not everyone is going to guide us in a wise direction.



> there is another book "*Love & Respect*" that speaks how men care more about being RESPECTED over being LOVED... which shows some differences in the sexes.. though some would say if we RESPECT.. we LOVE.. I don't know..
> 
> By stepping up , being an Honorable man.. he should get more respect.. but look at people today... how dysfunctional so many are.. there are those who want to go out , get trashed & find a HOT Guy (who cares about character! -look at that body!) to get it on with.... women throw the good guys to the curb every day ...and pine after the Jerk...


A woman who chooses unwisely will reap the consequences. That is just how life works.



> I am speaking more before marriage I suppose...but think about it...when this has been a woman's experience.. don't you think this could mess with her mind some, will she suddenly really care about the GOOD MEN someday?...maybe when that biological clock gets ticking louder...


If she is wise, she will. It is risky to be drawn in by more superficial attraction. 



> Just a question.. but couldn't it mess with what should BE -or how it should flow.. in a future marriage.. Add all the independence to our women today .... do they even need influenced ?? They may not appreciate that thought even...


I don't think a woman should be with a man because she has to be. It is much better if it is a free will choice. Women's economic independence today facilitates that free choice.

And it makes men step up. They cannot count on their paycheck keeping a woman with them. There has to be an emotional connection forged and nurtured. And I think that ultimately benefits both the husband and wife.



> She should loose him.. but sometimes they stay for the wife & children.. the good ones often will.. and sacrifice themselves.. then someone will come along & tell them they are too Beta.. heck a man can't win for loosing in some circumstances.. he needs to be just as wise with his Picker as women.


Men absolutely need to be wise as to whom they choose to marry. I am very clear on that with my sons. They must _look beyond the packaging!_

SA, I think you skipped over what I said about Gottman's directives specifically to men, though. He focuses on them as the key to successful marriage. Have you looked at his points to them?


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. hugely important to choose wisely.... sometimes people do change though.. even if we haven't and remained steadfast. I think OTHER influences in a person's life can WRECK a marriage.. like if/ when a wife starts doing too many "girls night's out".. this happened to someone we are close to... Her husband wasn't into that scene...he didn't want to go out dancing ...(Probably a bad move) as what ended up happening is.. she & some drummer hooked up, an affair began....they ended up divorced.. if we asked a variety of people who was at fault here.. I wonder what sort of replies we would get..
> 
> Should her husband have went ?.. should he have laid the law down.. no more dancing with the girls.. what? It's easy to say he should have influenced her.. but maybe she was bordering a stubborn mule on this issue, she would have been hugely resentful.. sometimes there just aren't any easy answers...
> 
> there is another book "*Love & Respect*" that speaks how men care more about being RESPECTED over being LOVED... which shows some differences in the sexes.. though some would say if we RESPECT.. we LOVE.. I don't know..
> 
> By stepping up , being an Honorable man.. he should get more respect.. but look at people today... how dysfunctional so many are.. there are those who want to go out , get trashed & find a HOT Guy (who cares about character! -look at that body!) to get it on with.... women throw the good guys to the curb every day ...and pine after the Jerk...
> 
> I am speaking more before marriage I suppose...but think about it...when this has been a woman's experience.. don't you think this could mess with her mind some, will she suddenly really care about the GOOD MEN someday?...maybe when that biological clock gets ticking louder...
> 
> Just a question.. but couldn't it mess with what should BE -or how it should flow.. in a future marriage.. Add all the independence to our women today .... do they even need influenced ?? They may not appreciate that thought even...
> 
> She should loose him.. but sometimes they stay for the wife & children.. the good ones often will.. and sacrifice themselves.. then someone will come along & tell them they are too Beta.. heck a man can't win for loosing in some circumstances.. he needs to be just as wise with his Picker as women.


I wish I could like this post twice.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> Also, please point me to specifically where Gottman addresses marriage to an NPD woman...not some generalities, or self validating studies, but his specific research into marriages where the woman has a professionally diagnosed psychological disorder.


This is the problem with any really good material on Healthy relationships.. it DOES NOT address the truly dysfunctional partner, the devastation debilitating depression can bring even, mental illness, heavy addictions - any of those things that can tear something otherwise good, into the ground.. 

It's premises is assuming both are relatively well adjusted, can reason & choose to do right by the other... with smaller issues in the way... like opposite love languages, learning to be more assertive, cut back on working too much if a couple needs more quality time, learning healthy boundaries, add mismatched libidos in there, etc ... 

Outside of these normal marital squabbles with our stubborn wills to get our own way... one really needs *specialized help* to deal with those incapable of "self awareness", understanding / feeling empathy...it's just another animal.. so I feel.. those who haven't walked it.. can not begin to understand.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> If a woman does not appreciate a good man, she may indeed lose him. Life often brings a sort of natural justice.


In this scenario, what would you be encouraging the man to do? I think that is the more intriguing question.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> They are Crazy GOOD at shaking things UP here, aren't they... It's a wonder you even dare post on her threads.. You must be a masochist.. ha ha...
> 
> I can attest 1st hand... THEY DO THINK ALIKE - true compatibility lives there....so it IS their honest perspective to feel as they post... but true.. many of our marriages are just not of the same dynamic , including our own...
> 
> In a few areas.. we are utterly backwards from their dynamic, I mean from Black to White for goodness sake... but still, regardless of how they may "come off" in a post... in real life..they are very friendly , generous, GOOD people... we can agree to disagree and still respect that these differences work for us..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being on a forum, sometimes can't capture the personality behind it.. JLD is such an empathizer in reality.. but it sways almost always to women...yes, this is hugely obvious.
> 
> You have been through 2 truly traumatic life experiences...loosing your 1st love suddenly as you did...then marrying a woman incapable of empathy.. yes, it's a wonder you are still sane..
> 
> Who is to say you aren't a strong man.. can I whack them [email protected]#


 

We just see things differently. People are allowed to do that on forums. 

What I love about our conversations, SA, is that we can transparently discuss issues _thoroughly_, for _hours_, decide we _completely disagree_  and still feel much respect and affection for each other. That is real friendship.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> In this scenario, what would you be encouraging the man to do? I think that is the more intriguing question.


You want my honest opinion, right?

I think it depends on the strength of the man. If he truly loves her, and is not naturally weaker than she is, I think he can turn things around. But both true love and the ability to influence her, which I would call dominance, will be required.

The issue of natural dominance, or more specifically, the lack of it, is, at least imo, a real factor in many relationship issues for men on TAM. 

That is likely hard for many people to hear, probably as hard as hearing Gottman's message to men. But I think it is true, nonetheless. And the truth can set people free. _If only they will hear it!_


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> In this scenario, what would you be encouraging the man to do? I think that is the more intriguing question.


I would just like to add to this, far, that letting him go, not fighting his leaving, is probably in both their best interests. She needs a man she can genuinely respect. If he cannot influence her, just on the strength of his character alone, I think they are both better off in search of more compatible partners.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> And I have regularly been the first to point out that they are absolutely perfect for each other. They have found that little niche that works or them, and jld, in her little back handed way has told me I am weak on numerous occasions, but meh...by her definition, I would not want to be a strong man...the woman I am attracted to, the one who loves me wouldn't like me very much if I was


I've as much told her I PREFER Weak a$$ed men then.. going by how easily she uses the definition..... I appreciate a sensitive man in so many ways....also I like to feel I have some "power" over him.. some of that influence... 

There is the healthy sensitive (he sincerely cares how another feels) & a "pansy ass" sensitive ...it's not always so easy to differentiate these..... as the *word *conquers up different things to different people... I've tried on numerous threads.. you have been there too... 

We've also agreed my husband would be a turn off to her...:2gunsfiring_v1: and I'd want to Kill DUG ! .... But that's Ok.. we can laugh about this.. there is absolutely no fear of us swapping partners anyway..


----------



## john117

SimplyAmorous said:


> Outside of these normal marital squabbles with our stubborn wills to get our own way... one really needs *specialized help* to deal with those incapable of "self awareness", understanding / feeling empathy...it's just another animal.. so I feel.. those who haven't walked it.. can not begin to understand.


In other words what I've been saying for years here.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> We just see things differently. People are allowed to do that on forums.
> 
> What I love about our conversations, SA, is that we can transparently discuss issues _thoroughly_, for _hours_, decide we _completely disagree_  and still feel much respect and affection for each other. That is real friendship.


Yes.. It is .. we are a good example.. and really.. I don't think you nor I - get offended too easily.... we just bounce right back & keep sharing away....we'll write it out -till the cows come home... trying to get our "feelings / our truth" we hold dear, understood somehow.. 

We both appreciate a healthy debate.. wanting to get to the REAL ROOT of whatever is going on.. We ENJOY that... that's why we're forum junkies ...right jld !


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've as much told her I PREFER Weak a$$ed men then.. going by how easily she uses the definition..... I appreciate a sensitive man in so many ways....also I like to feel I have some "power" over him.. some of that influence...
> 
> There is the healthy sensitive (he sincerely cares how another feels) & a "pansy ass" sensitive ...it's not always so easy to differentiate these..... as the *word *conquers up different things to different people... I've tried on numerous threads.. you have been there too...
> 
> We've also agreed my husband would be a turn off to her...:2gunsfiring_v1: and I'd want to Kill DUG ! .... But that's Ok.. we can laugh about this.. there is absolutely no fear of us swapping partners anyway..


 Nope, we're each safe!

I think you can tell, in your words, a "pansy ass" sensitive man by his reactivity. Can he hear a different pov without taking it personally? Can he consider, objectively, what truth there might be in it? Or does he become angry and defensive, perhaps feeling threatened?

Healthy sensitivity is based, after all, and as you said, in genuine care and concern for another person, and not on, first and foremost, regard for one's own hurt feelings.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I would just like to add to this, far, that letting him go, not fighting his leaving, is probably in both their best interests. She needs a man she can genuinely respect. If he cannot influence her, just on the strength of his character alone, I think they are both better off in search of more compatible partners.


Then why do you spend so much time convincing men in the throes of infidelity to stomach it? I am not trying to be difficult. I genuinely do not understand.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous

john117 said:


> In other words what I've been saying for years here.


 Yes.. I wouldn't begin to understand what YOU deal with John on a daily basis... 

But for the couples that has the normal every day run of the mill issues with stubborness, selfishness....if they are willing to step up and do some work on themselves, learn better ways to communicate..I do feel there is a place for us common folk to offer advice too.. 

There are many mental health forums on the net, surely some specifically devoted to BPD & their family members, for support ..... I would imagine these are a great source with much helpful information, posters to relate to your individual struggles...over TAM anyway.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. It is .. we are a good example.. and really.. I don't think you nor I - get offended too easily.... we just bounce right back & keep sharing away....we'll write it out -till the cows come home... trying to get our "feelings / our truth" we hold dear, understood somehow..
> 
> We both appreciate a healthy debate.. wanting to get to the REAL ROOT of whatever is going on.. We ENJOY that... that's why we're forum junkies ...right jld !


Right on, girlfriend! 

I love a vigorous debate. I love to explore ideas, really hash them out. I think it is the only way to really shake out truth. And truth, if we can hear it, can only help us. 

We won't get to truth by protecting feelings. Pride can too easily stand in the way.

Anyway, you and I have those kinds of vigorous debates on our own. We're strong. That strength that we see in each other is part of why we respect each other. We know we don't have to tiptoe around each other.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Nope, we're each safe!
> 
> I think you can tell, in your words, a "pansy ass" sensitive man by his reactivity. Can he hear a different pov without taking it personally? Can he consider, objectively, what truth there might be in it? Or does he become angry and defensive, perhaps feeling threatened?
> 
> *Healthy sensitivity is based, after all, and as you said, in genuine care and concern for another person, and not on, first and foremost, regard for one's own hurt feelings*.


I don't completely agree...My husband *CAN* be hurt by something I have said.. in the past he wouldn't have that conversation with me.. he'd stuff it.... I have as much told him to NEVER do that.. that I want to know.. dam* it.. 

So yeah he has come forth and told me he didn't like my attitude / something I said / what is bothering him.. Good for him ! 

He doesn't cry in his cereal.. and he's very forgiving, he doesn't hold grudges.. but still I CAN HURT HIM.. and I wouldn't take that away.. is the point.. I want that ability.. not because I am a nasty Mother -but it shows I can "get under his skin"... that he cares.. that I'd be missed.. that he loves me.. that bla bla bla..


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> My software guys have a name for this - it's the happy path thru the software. It's when we give a nicely scripted demo to the customer. Most of the hoi polloi live in happy path marriages where the only transgressions are buying the wrong cat food or burning the pot roast.
> 
> Life in the non happy path is far more complicated.


The official name for this is a "pnambic" system. The acronym is from "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain".


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Then why do you spend so much time convincing men in the throes of infidelity to stomach it? I am not trying to be difficult. I genuinely do not understand.


I want to give men a chance to grow. I don't want to give up on them right away, far. With some encouragement and wise guidance, they might be able to turn things around.

But maybe I should just give up on them right away. If their instinct is to leave, maybe they cannot do more. We cannot ask more of people than they are capable of. It just frustrates both sides.

Women need strong men, far. Strong men do not just up and leave women and children when adversity strikes. 

Strong men do what is best for women and children, not what is in their own selfish interest. That always includes examining their own consciences. And it might include leaving, if that is in the best interests of the women and children. 

I admire men, far. And whether or not TAM can see it, I have great respect for them. Or at least some of them. The ones who accept their responsibilities and do not try to hide behind women, or, even more shamefully, children.

I think men are the stronger sex. And I believe that with that strength comes great responsibility.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> Name calling is against forum rules.


So is what dug did. The profanit used accurately described what he was doing. In light if the further explanations of the circumstances, he owes an apology.

Only a weak man would strike like this. Even a weaker one would refuse to apologize.


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> I was not familiar with Gottman's work when I arrived on TAM. I was indeed surprised to read that much of what he had learned through his research I already suspected just from observation and listening to other women throughout my life.
> 
> I think some men get defensive about his work because some of them want marriage to be equal in every way. But Gottman's research shows, as evidenced in the quotes that begin this thread, that it is men and not women on whom marital success seems to depend. And that must be painful for some men to acknowledge.
> 
> On active listening . . . I read an interview with him once in which he said that active listening is a powerful tool that couples should by all means use if they can do it. He said that many couples cannot remain calm enough to do it, though, when they are angry.
> 
> Dug and I learned about active listening in 2000. We could not believe the difference it made in our relationship. It was like magic for feeling heard.
> 
> Obviously, YMMV.
> 
> I have not personally seen women *not* contribute to their marriages. If anything, I have seen them time after time give all they have to them, often ending up with the short end of the stick, without much improvement in the marriage.
> 
> In contrast, when a man decides things are going to get better, and sets to work making them better, through the practice of such virtues as patience, empathy, and humility, things seem to get better very quickly. In alignment with Gottman's research, my own personal observation is that men are the shortcut to a healthier marriage.
> 
> Again, I am not really sure why some men seem to reject this opportunity that Gottman's advice offers them to make the marriage better. The only thing I can think of is that unlike most of the men Gottman studied, these men are simply unable (or unwilling to learn) to influence their spouses.
> 
> There may not be guarantees, but I hope that is not used as an excuse to avoid trying Gottman's suggestions.
> 
> I hope she will make the most of her freedom as a single woman. If she is addicted to video games, though, that may be a challenge.


I have to Google YMMV! I agree with that very much! I hope you can understand that much of what you consistently write seems to people to contradict that.

I do not disbelieve that active listening worked really well for you and Dug and I am very pleased about that. My marriage counselor was briefly of the opinion that if I would communicate that I was suffering too, my wife's attitude would change. The problem was that she was too wrapped up in her own painful concerns to care about that (the opposite of being malicious and unfeeling). When we would talk, it was almost painful to hear everything I said dismissed and her project a version of reality that was clearly not true (if you have never had a discussion about whether a bowl of coco pops from the morning has been cleaned of not when it is in front of you both with coco pops in it, it is hard to believe how odd this can be).

I think I speak for a few when I say that when you write many of your posts, it seems as though our genuine real life experiences are being completely dismissed. I am fortunate that I went through the break-up in Denmark, where sexual equality is ingrained. After the break-up my marriage counselor congratulated me on the decision and her best friend in Denmark made it clear to me (and, on another occasion, to my ex-wife) that I had done absolutely everything I could. These cases do exist. There are also many cases of men being insensitive and caught up in themselves, we can agree on this. 

Your assumption here is that I should have practiced virtues as patience, empathy, and humility. I absolutely should. We all should. They are hard for everyone, but essential. In fact they are a guarantee of a good life, but they are not a guarantee of a successful life with good relations with any particular person.

When the problem is that the man is not putting in the effort and empathy, it is clear to most people on here that it will cause big problems. However, although you have not seen cases of marriage problems where the woman is not putting in the effort, it does happen. As I state earlier, past traumas or ingrained attitudes can emerge in a change of circumstance, or things that were suppressed can bubble to the surface.

Perhaps the approach on here should be to ensure the person is practicing empathy to the best of their ability, ensure they are giving their partner the chance to be heard and being a decent spouse. Often in the first set of replies to a poster, these questions are included (as well as many immediately recommending divorce, others telling the OP they are a helpless victim, a few telling them they are evil, and some coming down hard on each sex ), which will ensure these pre-requisites are being met. 

It is not a rejection of Gottman's advice to say that it will be useful in some of even many cases, but not solve all. I hope that even Gottman himself would not argue that it is the comprehesive approach in almost all marriage problems. In fact, I hope you can believe that I endorse the approach you put forward. However, I endorse it as a good and wise approach to people and relationships and a per-cursor to a strong healthy relationship, but it will not confirm it. 

We should be open to the possibility that they are being met though, and sometimes even that is not enough. 

Thank you for your considered replies to me long posts. I hope you accept that while I am often critical of you, I would not spend as long as I do writing to you if I had not some respect for your contributions.


----------



## Mr The Other

Duguesclin said:


> I just look at data. 3 long term relationships only makes you an expert on how you go to the next one, not at sticking with one.


It would be equally unfair to suggest he knows three times more about long term relationships than you do or suggest that only he knows how relationships can vary. To dismiss a widower for his inability to keep that relationship going was, I assume not your intent and can be clarified.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Name calling is against forum rules.


After what Dug said, and the context in which he said it, this is your response? 

And he is either too insensitive or too cowardly to come on and apologise. 

Wow.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> I have to Google YMMV! I agree with that very much! I hope you can understand that much of what you consistently write seems to people to contradict that.
> 
> I do not disbelieve that active listening worked really well for you and Dug and I am very pleased about that. My marriage counselor was briefly of the opinion that if I would communicate that I was suffering too, my wife's attitude would change. The problem was that she was too wrapped up in her own painful concerns to care about that (the opposite of being malicious and unfeeling). When we would talk, it was almost painful to hear everything I said dismissed and her project a version of reality that was clearly not true (if you have never had a discussion about whether a bowl of coco pops from the morning has been cleaned of not when it is in front of you both with coco pops in it, it is hard to believe how odd this can be).
> 
> I think I speak for a few when I say that when you write many of your posts, it seems as though our genuine real life experiences are being completely dismissed. I am fortunate that I went through the break-up in Denmark, where sexual equality is ingrained. After the break-up my marriage counselor congratulated me on the decision and her best friend in Denmark made it clear to me (and, on another occasion, to my ex-wife) that I had done absolutely everything I could. These cases do exist. There are also many cases of men being insensitive and caught up in themselves, we can agree on this.
> 
> Your assumption here is that I should have practiced virtues as patience, empathy, and humility. I absolutely should. We all should. They are hard for everyone, but essential. In fact they are a guarantee of a good life, but they are not a guarantee of a successful life with good relations with any particular person.
> 
> When the problem is that the man is not putting in the effort and empathy, it is clear to most people on here that it will cause big problems. However, although you have not seen cases of marriage problems where the woman is not putting in the effort, it does happen. As I state earlier, past traumas or ingrained attitudes can emerge in a change of circumstance, or things that were suppressed can bubble to the surface.
> 
> Perhaps the approach on here should be to ensure the person is practicing empathy to the best of their ability, ensure they are giving their partner the chance to be heard and being a decent spouse. Often in the first set of replies to a poster, these questions are included (as well as many immediately recommending divorce, others telling the OP they are a helpless victim, a few telling them they are evil, and some coming down hard on each sex ), which will ensure these pre-requisites are being met.
> 
> It is not a rejection of Gottman's advice to say that it will be useful in some of even many cases, but not solve all. I hope that even Gottman himself would not argue that it is the comprehesive approach in almost all marriage problems. In fact, I hope you can believe that I endorse the approach you put forward. However, I endorse it as a good and wise approach to people and relationships and a per-cursor to a strong healthy relationship, but it will not confirm it.
> 
> We should be open to the possibility that they are being met though, and sometimes even that is not enough.
> 
> Thank you for your considered replies to me long posts. I hope you accept that while I am often critical of you, I would not spend as long as I do writing to you if I had not some respect for your contributions.


It sounds like you were in over your head with your wife, MTO. You were not able to influence her. 

And she was not able to assume leadership of the relationship and first meet your needs, either. 

Sounds like divorce was the best solution.

And remember, my agreeing or disagreeing with you is ultimately irrelevant. As long as you are at peace with your decisions, anything anyone on a message boards thinks really need not have any bearing on your life.

Okay, back to the match in Bordeaux . . .


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> It sounds like you were in over your head with your wife, MTO. You were not able to influence her.
> 
> And she was not able to assume leadership of the relationship and first meet your needs, either.
> 
> Sounds like divorce was the best solution.
> 
> And remember, my agreeing or disagreeing with you is ultimately irrelevant. As long as you are at peace with your decisions, anything anyone on a message boards thinks really need not have any bearing on your life.
> 
> Okay, back to the match in Bordeaux . . .


Indeed! We are very proud of Wales, even if us being happy for them annoys the Welsh! :grin2: Wonderful to think that they will have got further than either Germany or Italy.

I am much happier and this would have been painful to discuss otherwise. In over my head does still suggest to me that you believe had I done better, it could have been OK. There were times when I could see what it would have taken to make the marriage work, and it would not have been good. 

It would have been utterly breaking her down psychologically. A thorough slapping for not following through, using a fog horn whenever she started saying things that were blatantly untrue. Had I been willing to go down that pathway of abuse that was cruel to be kind, I hope you would have applauded me for not being "in over my head". I certainly chose against that path and do not regret it, destroying a person to save a marriage is not wise.

The discussion, as you rightly observe, is not really about my marriage. It is about how your advice is perceived on this forum. More particularly, I personally would suggest that the suggestion of being more empathetic will typically hit hardest those that can see their partners pain and struggle. Those that do not care are more likely to shrug it off.

And I think most on here do not see your advice as bad _per se_, merely you occasionally give the impression of it being one size fits all. As you pithily write "YMMV" and for many it may not even get them out of the mechanics shop (I actually pick my non-metaphorical car up on Tuesday).


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
This matter of influence - is - both important and complicated. 

There's the explicit stuff where we each say what we WANT and sometimes why we want it. 

And then there's the implicit behavior modeling thing. 

So if you watched us for a day - and had us hooked up to heart rate monitors - you would see a very interesting dynamic. 

M2 routinely apologizes to me for doing ANYTHING - without me. Especially if it takes longer than she thinks it 'should' take. 

Having lunch with her friend - staining a porch chair. 

Now if you asked her - she'd acknowledge that I do not get upset about her doing stuff for herself. In fact I'm not even neutral - I encourage it. 

So why is she apologizing for a behavior she KNOWS I support? 

Because she is treating me the way she WANTS me to treat her. 

If I'm fixing the sound drivers on our desktop and it's taking longer than expected - she wants me to apologize for being off doing my own thing - for an excessive amount of time - even if the whole family benefits from what I'm doing. 






SimplyAmorous said:


> This RIGHT HERE is the clincher with Jld...
> 
> I've have this discussion with her many times..what everyone on this thread needs to realize is.. she is purely speaking out of everything she has Seen around her - all of her life... our experiences weigh heavily on us...it's hard to shake..
> 
> Now me, on the other hand, my experience is different.. sure I have known some Chauvinistic men with too much control, squashing the good woman.. (and my blood boiled for her too)... but I've seen my share of women take advantage of a good man, the type of man who would give his ALL for his wife & family..
> 
> In my world.. if THAT isn't enough.. what the hell is wrong with the woman...Basically she is spoiled ! Some of them were Lazy, sucked everything up, didn't want to have sex ... they most certainly contributed to the marital issues/ downfall... where I felt the man was doing the best he could -outside of getting rough with her to Straighten her up..but NO.. he wasn't the abusive type...
> 
> My own mother was a detriment to my father.. His next wife, my step mother worshiped the ground he walked on .. because he was a good man (that was a case of pure incompatibility I suppose) but still ... a woman can be stubborn too.. and cause problems in a marriage..
> 
> For all of us.. we have to watch speaking out of our own experiences too much.. I try to bring a blank slate when I read a new thread here in regards to who is more at fault.. as with most posters (human nature) we are only hearing one side of the story...many are not self aware enough to paint an accurate "well balanced" picture of the issues ...
> 
> The Influencing thing.. I am of the belief... in a healthy Union.. the wife and husband will have influence on each other.. When we met...I was the more "needy" partner.. I leaned on him, I sucked up all his attention, his care... he was there for me.. but as I grew healthier emotionally, gained some self esteem so to speak / felt more self assured...I have surely influenced my husband also over the years...


----------



## john117

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*

The well regarded BPD family forum makes TAM look like an Ivy League... 

Basically you had two groups - the stay group and the go group. The go was straightforward. The stay group was pretty much a cult.


----------



## john117

tech-novelist said:


> The official name for this is a "pnambic" system. The acronym is from "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain".


That sounds like my team's demos at CES every year... I'll introduce the term in my next meeting.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> SA, I think you skipped over what I said about Gottman's directives specifically to men, though. He focuses on them as the key to successful marriage. Have you looked at his points to them?


I haven't spent enough time reading every single one.. just kinda busy.. grabbing a moment here & there.. . regardless of what he says.. I do not feel a man should endlessly put up with lousy behavior from a woman.. and I will never think all woman are so easy to live with.. no matter how many examples you throw at me..

All my life I have liked MALE bosses better...why is that .. women can be real Bi*ches (including myself in a moment)... God help some of our husbands. 

There is just that other side of the coin.. if Gottman has neglected to mention that now & then.. well that's just wrong..

There is this thread in the Infidelity section.. by "Drifting On".. so many times I've wanted to leave a post on there.. I so sympathized with this guy.. thinking he is like Pure Gold for a man.. strong... the highest character ever.. My Lord - he stayed with his cheating wife after she got pregnant with twins, she didn't tell him for 2 & half yrs... how does anyone do THAT ?? Most people will see him as a complete Beta sucking up Fool ...but I see so much more than that. .reading his posts.. he is stronger than most could ever be...and he's went out of his way to be that strong tower for his family, loving those boys as his own...He is sensitive too... My lord.. is there any better mix in a man. 

I seen some of your posts on there to him earlier today ..:BoomSmilie_anim: I wanted to shoot you Jld [email protected]# 

He can't even come & get some feedback without you putting him down.. I was thinking to myself.. My lord.. how much grief this guy takes from people.... then he turns around and stood up for his wife [email protected]#... as that's what's in his heart.. So self aware he spoke of his own flaws.. man he's got it ALL going on.. 

Jeez if more people were like him, what a better world this would be.... he is like above & beyond the norm to me.. . how blessed his wife really is.. but dang it ticks me off to see people of HIS caliber..(yes a man) put down just for a moment of venting...

I have come to the concussion.. I am more of a feminist on this over you.. Men should be able to vent too ! His working it out here.. what is wrong with that.. Maybe I am reading you wrong.. do you think men should be able to vent?? or maybe you just didn't agree with how he handled it ??


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> This matter of influence - is - both important and complicated.
> 
> There's the explicit stuff where we each say what we WANT and sometimes why we want it.
> 
> And then there's the implicit behavior modeling thing.
> 
> *So if you watched us for a day - and had us hooked up to heart rate monitors - you would see a very interesting dynamic.
> 
> M2 routinely apologizes to me for doing ANYTHING - without me. Especially if it takes longer than she thinks it 'should' take.
> 
> Having lunch with her friend - staining a porch chair.
> 
> Now if you asked her - she'd acknowledge that I do not get upset about her doing stuff for herself. In fact I'm not even neutral - I encourage it.
> 
> So why is she apologizing for a behavior she KNOWS I support?
> *
> Because she is treating me the way she WANTS me to treat her.


 I hear what you are saying.. BUT I don't understand why she would be doing this.. as She already knows YOU WANT HER TO HAVE THAT ALONE TIME...and I'm sure you have assured her of this....

This would only make sense to me IF you did miss her (and she knew that).... to apologize.. that would always be in the back of my mind (even if I didn't like it & wished HE DID miss me) but I'd realize it was "fruitless" to apologize for it.. 

I've never heard that term "implicit behavior modeling".. though I bet it is common enough.. Another subtle way of communicating perhaps ? 



> If I'm fixing the sound drivers on our desktop and it's taking longer than expected - she wants me to apologize for being off doing my own thing - for an excessive amount of time - even if the whole family benefits from what I'm doing.


 And I'm betting you don't apologize ...even knowing she wants you too... Never really thought about anything like this before....

This whole influencing topic.. I mean my life has been more influenced by my husband than any person I have ever known.. what I titled our story thread speaks the







of it.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-t...t-inspiration-he-who-taught-me-what-love.html

That IS a tremendous amount of influence.. so I can't DENY that what Gottman says *IS true*...at least I feel with ME, as a wife who came to him with basically "Chips on my shoulder", maybe some abandonment issues, some anger issues...I was a damsel in distress. 

I really don't feel I would be who I am today (satisfied, thankful, happy with our family, our life) had I married a man who didn't treat me well, or have that patience with me...

But Still I had a part to play.. what if I wasn't a faithful woman.. what if I decided I missed out on my youth.. & needed to find myself.. since I've only been with him...I could have easily forked everything despite HOW GOOD he was to me.. it just can't all fall on the man.. we have our role to play too... that's all I am trying to say..


----------



## MEM2020

M5 (daughter age 19) says to me: Dad, this theme of yours: I only care whether or not you had a good time - and clearly hope you did.

To Mom - that lack of need - implies a lack of love.

Me: Yes - Mom equates love with need. Seems unable to accept that I totally love her - but don't NEED her. 

She needs me more than she loves me. And I love her more than I need her. And I'm at peace with that. 






SimplyAmorous said:


> I hear what you are saying.. BUT I don't understand why she would be doing this.. as She already knows YOU WANT HER TO HAVE THAT ALONE TIME...and I'm sure you have assured her of this....
> 
> This would only make sense to me IF you did miss her (and she knew that).... to apologize.. that would always be in the back of my mind (even if I didn't like it & wished HE DID miss me) but I'd realize it was "fruitless" to apologize for it..
> 
> I've never heard that term "implicit behavior modeling".. though I bet it is common enough.. Another subtle way of communicating perhaps ?
> 
> And I'm betting you don't apologize ...even knowing she wants you too... Never really thought about anything like this before....
> 
> This whole influencing topic.. I mean my life has been more influenced by my husband than any person I have ever known.. what I titled our story thread speaks the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of it..
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-t...t-inspiration-he-who-taught-me-what-love.html
> 
> That IS a tremendous amount of influence.. so I can't DENY that what Gottman says *IS true*...at least I feel with ME, as a wife who came to him with basically "Chips on my shoulder", maybe some abandonment issues, some anger issues...I was a damsel in distress.
> 
> I really don't feel I would be who I am today (satisfied, thankful, happy with our family, our life) had I married a man who didn't treat me well, or have that patience with me...
> 
> But Still I had a part to play.. what if I wasn't a faithful woman.. what if I decided I missed out on my youth.. & needed to find myself.. since I've only been with him...I could have easily forked everything despite HOW GOOD he was to me.. it just can't all fall on the man.. we have our role to play too... that's all I am trying to say..


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed! We are very proud of Wales, even if us being happy for them annoys the Welsh! :grin2: Wonderful to think that they will have got further than either Germany or Italy.


Wow, what a game. Nail biter at the end.



> I am much happier and this would have been painful to discuss otherwise. In over my head does still suggest to me that you believe had I done better, it could have been OK. There were times when I could see what it would have taken to make the marriage work, and it would not have been good.


By in over your head, I mean I am not sure you ever had influence over her. You may have started off at a natural disadvantage. And that is hard to ever overcome.

Or you may have lost it and never been able to recover it. I don't know.



> It would have been utterly breaking her down psychologically. A thorough slapping for not following through, using a fog horn whenever she started saying things that were blatantly untrue. Had I been willing to go down that pathway of abuse that was cruel to be kind, I hope you would have applauded me for not being "in over my head". I certainly chose against that path and do not regret it, destroying a person to save a marriage is not wise.


I certainly would not agree with what you are suggesting!

If you are with the right woman for you, I think you naturally have influence. You inspire her, and she trusts you. There is no "breaking her down," "thorough slapping," or "using a fog horn." I do not think any of that would have brought anything good and lasting to the relationship. 

You two were simply not compatible. I do not know if that was right from the beginning, or if the incompatibility developed later. But divorce was surely a deliverance.



> The discussion, as you rightly observe, is not really about my marriage. It is about how your advice is perceived on this forum. More particularly, I personally would suggest that the suggestion of being more empathetic will typically hit hardest those that can see their partners pain and struggle. Those that do not care are more likely to shrug it off.


I think encouraging empathy is part of Gottman's message. But if that were all he were doing, this discussion would not incite so much passion. It is his specifically telling men that they "make or break heterosexual relationships" that seems to cause distress.

And what is sad about that is that just stopping to consider what Gottman is suggesting men do could help at least some of those men.



> And I think most on here do not see your advice as bad _per se_, merely you occasionally give the impression of it being one size fits all. As you pithily write "YMMV" and for many it may not even get them out of the mechanics shop (I actually pick my non-metaphorical car up on Tuesday).


I guess we are all going to see advice differently. This might be helpful: "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Wow, what a game. Nail biter at the end.
> 
> By in over your head, I mean I am not sure you ever had influence over her. You may have started off at a natural disadvantage. And that is hard to ever overcome.
> 
> Or you may have lost it and never been able to recover it. I don't know.
> 
> I certainly would not agree with what you are suggesting!
> 
> If you are with the right woman for you, I think you naturally have influence. You inspire her, and she trusts you. There is no "breaking her down," "thorough slapping," or "using a fog horn." I do not think any of that would have brought anything good and lasting to the relationship.
> 
> You two were simply not compatible. I do not know if that was right from the beginning, or if the incompatibility developed later. But divorce was surely a deliverance.
> 
> I think encouraging empathy is part of Gottman's message. But if that were all he were doing, this discussion would not incite so much passion. It is his specifically telling men that they "make or break heterosexual relationships" that seems to cause distress.
> 
> And what is sad about that is that just stopping to consider what Gottman is suggesting men do could help at least some of those men.
> 
> I guess we are all going to see advice differently. This might be helpful: "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


I hate penalties to decide, but then I am English. Were I German, I would probably have a very different attitude!
:grin2:

I hope Wales beat Portugal, and of course we have the _de facto_ final to look forward to in France versus Germany!

One of the hardest things was watching my ex-wife change from someone who was socially outgoing and happy, to becoming extremely entitled and alienating her closest friends and eventually her husband. At first, there were people surprised that I was not going for a lady who was rich or classically beautiful, but I she was fun, compassionate and (at that point) empathetic and I was very fortunate to have such a lady. To the end, she would have said she admired me, but that I was going through a mid-life crisis that deluded my way of thinking. This conviction was not same and that was painful. There were a few circumstances that caused the change and I think getting married was one of them.

I will also bore you with an experience I had in Belgium many years ago. Relations between men and women seemed similar between men and women. On my second date with a lady, she came round and I quickly prepared dinner cleaning as I went as we had to leave quickly after eating. She was stunned. British and Belgian women all said that their husbands either never cooked or did it occasionally and left a huge mess. In England, it is just something women say regardless of whether it is true. In Belgium it was actually the case. It was not until then that I realized I had listened to womens' tales of relationships and just taken it as words. After all, when I nursed a woman when we both had flu, she would tell her friends about how I was the cry baby and she was brave. Just things women said. It was then it struck me that my experiences, very real, had taught me to dismiss the complaints of some women. 

This was perhaps I felt at home in Denmark, there was a sense of equal responsibility. When my Danish girlfriend was chatting with women in England about how their men were such babies when ill, she commented that I was rather stoic about these things. She got nasty looks and later came to ask me why.

It does mean that when you say that you have the experience of your friends to bring I (and this is a confession) look at it with a jaundiced eye. I am probably too cynical, but perhaps we are right on average! My marriage did improve my empathy, to the point I was extremely good at understanding and motivating people. When two sets of solid steel rugby posts needed moving, I was able to go onto the street and get almost every single man to stop what they were doing and help carry this heavy metal half a mile up the road. That is a great deal of charisma and motivational ability, but I could not persuade my wife that playing candy-crush eight hours a day was not a good use of time. I doubt that anyone could without extreme methods, which I am glad neither of us would condone. I became empathetic enough, that a remarkable number of people would cry on my shoulder (men and women), I could certainly see the pain my wife was in. Even at that extreme, empathy was not enough. Listening was not enough. Determination was not enough. Understanding was not enough. (though these skills have stood me in fine stead for my life now). She had demons that emerged and she was no longer really able to have a healthy relationship. For some men who come on here, the challenge is what mine was - to learn that I cannot take full responsibility for another human being, just as a parent cannot take full responsibility for their child. It does not mean they should just give up on them. Good parenting can give a child every advantage, but it is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee that being a good husband will produce a good marriage (though, we can both agree that being a bad parent/husband is almost certainly a way to a dysfunctional relationship). 

I write all this perhaps to illustrate that we have had very different experiences. Although we both know in our heads that these things influence us, our gut reactions always return to what we know. I have felt the heat of this projection on here myself. I remember a lady I knew being genuinely shocked to find I was divorced, as she could not fathom that it would happen to me. She had assumed that if the man was open, loving, and empathetic it would be enough. I suspect if we had met in different circumstances, your reaction might be the same to me and to some other men on here (just guessing).

However, as you write, there are many men who would do well to take the advice of Gottman and indeed yourself on board. Perhaps, I might be so bold as to suggest that you can improve on being open minded to what men say when they arrive, as they will generally love their wives and know them better than anyone else. Equally, I know in my head that there are women out there who are loving and able to see men as people, I have to work on my faith in that respect. 

I suspect that TAM is not a very typical place. Relationship boards are not typically friendly to heterosexual men. The first board I went to condemned me as sleazy for importing a mail-order bride, then forcing my old, obese body on her, after forcing her to scrub, clean and prepare food all day*. Had I not been in an emotionally vulnerable place, it would have been comical. Here, I had good advice from @tunrea2 among others. The empathy and understanding and being heard on here was valuable. Many men that come here may not be typical and are ones who are willing to make more effort than most. 

Once again, sorry for the essay!

I very much like "Take what works for you, and leave the rest", I think it should be the TAM motto!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I am British, she was American. We moved from the USA as she expressed an interest in doing so and I was happy to do so. We were a few years apart in age. She was not working and would not help with housework. I am actually in very good shape as teenagers have found out in a boxing ring!


----------



## Duguesclin

Mr The Other said:


> I hate penalties to decide, but then I am English. Were I German, I would probably have a very different attitude!
> :grin2:
> 
> I hope Wales beat Portugal, and of course we have the _de facto_ final to look forward to in France versus Germany!
> 
> One of the hardest things was watching my ex-wife change from someone who was socially outgoing and happy, to becoming extremely entitled and alienating her closest friends and eventually her husband. At first, there were people surprised that I was not going for a lady who was rich or classically beautiful, but I she was fun, compassionate and (at that point) empathetic and I was very fortunate to have such a lady. To the end, she would have said she admired me, but that I was going through a mid-life crisis that deluded my way of thinking. This conviction was not same and that was painful. There were a few circumstances that caused the change and I think getting married was one of them.
> 
> I will also bore you with an experience I had in Belgium many years ago. Relations between men and women seemed similar between men and women. On my second date with a lady, she came round and I quickly prepared dinner cleaning as I went as we had to leave quickly after eating. She was stunned. British and Belgian women all said that their husbands either never cooked or did it occasionally and left a huge mess. In England, it is just something women say regardless of whether it is true. In Belgium it was actually the case. It was not until then that I realized I had listened to womens' tales of relationships and just taken it as words. After all, when I nursed a woman when we both had flu, she would tell her friends about how I was the cry baby and she was brave. Just things women said. It was then it struck me that my experiences, very real, had taught me to dismiss the complaints of some women.
> 
> This was perhaps I felt at home in Denmark, there was a sense of equal responsibility. When my Danish girlfriend was chatting with women in England about how their men were such babies when ill, she commented that I was rather stoic about these things. She got nasty looks and later came to ask me why.
> 
> It does mean that when you say that you have the experience of your friends to bring I (and this is a confession) look at it with a jaundiced eye. I am probably too cynical, but perhaps we are right on average! My marriage did improve my empathy, to the point I was extremely good at understanding and motivating people. When two sets of solid steel rugby posts needed moving, I was able to go onto the street and get almost every single man to stop what they were doing and help carry this heavy metal half a mile up the road. That is a great deal of charisma and motivational ability, but I could not persuade my wife that playing candy-crush eight hours a day was not a good use of time. I doubt that anyone could without extreme methods, which I am glad neither of us would condone. I became empathetic enough, that a remarkable number of people would cry on my shoulder (men and women), I could certainly see the pain my wife was in. Even at that extreme, empathy was not enough. Listening was not enough. Determination was not enough. Understanding was not enough. (though these skills have stood me in fine stead for my life now). She had demons that emerged and she was no longer really able to have a healthy relationship. For some men who come on here, the challenge is what mine was - to learn that I cannot take full responsibility for another human being, just as a parent cannot take full responsibility for their child. It does not mean they should just give up on them. Good parenting can give a child every advantage, but it is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee that being a good husband will produce a good marriage (though, we can both agree that being a bad parent/husband is almost certainly a way to a dysfunctional relationship).
> 
> I write all this perhaps to illustrate that we have had very different experiences. Although we both know in our heads that these things influence us, our gut reactions always return to what we know. I have felt the heat of this projection on here myself. I remember a lady I knew being genuinely shocked to find I was divorced, as she could not fathom that it would happen to me. She had assumed that if the man was open, loving, and empathetic it would be enough. I suspect if we had met in different circumstances, your reaction might be the same to me and to some other men on here (just guessing).
> 
> However, as you write, there are many men who would do well to take the advice of Gottman and indeed yourself on board. Perhaps, I might be so bold as to suggest that you can improve on being open minded to what men say when they arrive, as they will generally love their wives and know them better than anyone else. Equally, I know in my head that there are women out there who are loving and able to see men as people, I have to work on my faith in that respect.
> 
> I suspect that TAM is not a very typical place. Relationship boards are not typically friendly to heterosexual men. The first board I went to condemned me as sleazy for importing a mail-order bride, then forcing my old, obese body on her, after forcing her to scrub, clean and prepare food all day*. Had I not been in an emotionally vulnerable place, it would have been comical. Here, I had good advice from @tunrea2 among others. The empathy and understanding and being heard on here was valuable. Many men that come here may not be typical and are ones who are willing to make more effort than most.
> 
> Once again, sorry for the essay!
> 
> I very much like "Take what works for you, and leave the rest", I think it should be the TAM motto!!!
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *I am British, she was American. We moved from the USA as she expressed an interest in doing so and I was happy to do so. We were a few years apart in age. She was not working and would not help with housework. I am actually in very good shape as teenagers have found out in a boxing ring!


MTO, what are you trying to say?


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> MTO, what are you trying to say?


No apology to Sam? Pretty weak Dug.


----------



## john117

Sam needs to wait, I'm ahead of him in the apologies line 😂😂😂


----------



## jld

MTO, I think you are trying to say that you feel there was nothing you could have done to prevent your divorce. And when you hear Gottman say that men are the key element to marriage success, you feel like he is assigning you agency you never felt you had.

You said you felt very comfortable dating a Danish woman. You liked the emphasis on "equality" between the sexes in Denmark. I found the following article on the subject. Does it seem accurate to you?

Comment: Dating Danish MEN - a guide for the foreign woman | University Post


_*Not the dominant figure*


In Hollywood – or Bollywood – movies, the male actor is taller because he's supposed to be in charge, the dominant figure. But that's not true in Danish romance. The man is NOT in charge.

This means a lot if you're a foreign woman dating a Danish man. He is a not a Frenchman who will pursue you to the ends of the earth. He doesn't send flowers, he doesn't buy chocolates. He doesn't take you in his arms and kiss you until you're breathless. If you are a romance novelist, the Danish man is not your dream man.

If you're a feminist, a Danish man IS your dream man. He will cook and help with the housework. He will take being a father seriously. He'll spend time with the kids. He'll take your opinion seriously. He doesn't force himself on you. In fact, you may have to force yourself on him. But if you do, he'll usually be really grateful.

Cont. . ._


----------



## jld

Here is the rest of it:

_*Danish women carry their own packages*

Why are Danish men like this? I've asked my Danish male friends, and they say they're reacting to Danish women. Danish women, they say, like to do things for themselves. They don't want some clown opening the door for them, or helping them carry packages. They can carry their own packages. My Danish male friends say that after offering to be chivalrous a couple of times and getting turned down in a nasty manner, they don't want to do that any more.

So, the Danish male approach is largely passive. They wait to see if the woman is interested. I get a lot of mail from non-Danish women trying to figure out if the Danish man they're dating is interested in them. ''He's really happy when I call him, but he never calls me''.
I honestly don't know what to tell them. I mean, I come from a culture where men whistle at beautiful women they don't know walking down the street.

When I first moved to Denmark, I thought I'd stopped hearing whistles because I'd aged out of the whistle target group. But I've since established that beautiful young women don't get whistled at either. Danish men do not want to offend women.


*Sometimes err on the soft side*

Now, I'm a modern woman, and I like a lot of things about these modern men. But they can occasionally err a bit on the soft side.

For example, a few weeks ago, we had a big storm in Denmark, and it knocked down some large trees. Before the local government came to collect them, some people were sawing off bits for free firewood, or to make furniture, or other arts and crafts project.
On our street, there was a very large tree down, and as I was walking by that Saturday, I saw a young couple trying to take part of it home. The small, slender young woman was sawing away at this big tree with an old-fashioned manual saw, while her boyfriend was just standing there, smiling, with his hands in his pockets.

Now, I don't know what was going on.

Maybe he had a back injury – he was about 25, so maybe had a very youthful back injury. Maybe he was a professional hand model and couldn't risk his fingernails on a messy metal saw. Or maybe he was a big wimp who was willing to let his girlfriend saw a giant tree stump while he stood there, acting like a giant tree stump. Who knows?_


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> MTO, I think you are trying to say that you feel there was nothing you could have done to prevent your divorce. And when you hear Gottman say that men are the key element to marriage success, you feel like he is assigning you agency you never felt you had.
> 
> You said you felt very comfortable dating a Danish woman. You liked the emphasis on "equality" between the sexes in Denmark. I found the following article on the subject. Does it seem accurate to you?
> 
> Comment: Dating Danish MEN - a guide for the foreign woman | University Post
> 
> 
> _*Not the dominant figure*
> 
> 
> In Hollywood – or Bollywood – movies, the male actor is taller because he's supposed to be in charge, the dominant figure. But that's not true in Danish romance. The man is NOT in charge.
> 
> This means a lot if you're a foreign woman dating a Danish man. He is a not a Frenchman who will pursue you to the ends of the earth. He doesn't send flowers, he doesn't buy chocolates. He doesn't take you in his arms and kiss you until you're breathless. If you are a romance novelist, the Danish man is not your dream man.
> 
> If you're a feminist, a Danish man IS your dream man. He will cook and help with the housework. He will take being a father seriously. He'll spend time with the kids. He'll take your opinion seriously. He doesn't force himself on you. In fact, you may have to force yourself on him. But if you do, he'll usually be really grateful.
> 
> Cont. . ._


Thanks, jld. I am certainly not like the average Danish man. I have lived in Denmark, so I am aware. If I found a niche there, it was from not being the same. If you had suggested to my wife that she did not follow my decisions, she would have thought you mad. I will say that article seems typical for many Danish women incidentally. As an Englishman the expectations are different. 

However, you should know this. We have discussed it many times. You do not accept it as it does not fit with what you believe in your gut. That is because of your experiences. You cannot accept that people really did have different experiences than you, rather they just failed to see as well as you.

My point was not about me. You have not witnessed the main problem in a relationship being the ideas in a woman's head, or perhaps those problems being so deep that no family, friends or husband could get through to her. It does happen though. It happens to the poster whose wife suddenly developed an eating disorder and was 400lb. I am good at motivation and empathy, you cannot accept that as it would need you have to loosen your theory. I wore the trousers, but there are people in this world who have demons are are deluded and self-destructive. From what I have read of Gottman, he would give up on some relationships before you.

Gottman say men are key element. I agree. Typically, the man should lead and be the stronger one. Emotional weakness in a marriage can be the death of it. In the case, where one party is deluded and unwilling to self-examine, there is nothing that can be done. That is opinion of as many doctors and authors as you may wish to cite. What you are saying (not directly, but through your assumptions and dismissal of other opinions), is that the man is the only significant element. Essentially, I am the one agreeing with Gottman and you are not.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Thanks, jld. I am certainly not like the average Danish man. I have lived in Denmark, so I am aware. If I found a niche there, it was from not being the same. If you had suggested to my wife that she did not follow my decisions, she would have thought you mad. I will say that article seems typical for many Danish women incidentally. As an Englishman the expectations are different.


Are you sure? She did not stop her video games or do housework like you wanted. Your influence really seems to have been lacking.



> However, you should know this. We have discussed it many times. You do not accept it as it does not fit with what you believe in your gut. That is because of your experiences. You cannot accept that people really did have different experiences than you, rather they just failed to see as well as you.


Other people may see far better than I, MTO. I just share what I see. And you are free to disregard it.



> My point was not about me. You have not witnessed the main problem in a relationship being the ideas in a woman's head, or perhaps those problems being so deep that no family, friends or husband could get through to her. It does happen though. It happens to the poster whose wife suddenly developed an eating disorder and was 400lb. I am good at motivation and empathy, you cannot accept that as it would need you have to loosen your theory. I wore the trousers, but there are people in this world who have demons are are deluded and self-destructive. From what I have read of Gottman, he would give up on some relationships before you.


I have advised some men to divorce, MTO. If I do not think he can meet her needs, I always advise it. It is better for him that way, too.

What does "wearing the trousers" mean to you?



> Gottman say men are key element. I agree. Typically, the man should lead and be the stronger one. Emotional weakness in a marriage can be the death of it. In the case, where one party is deluded and unwilling to self-examine, there is nothing that can be done. That is opinion of as many doctors and authors as you may wish to cite. What you are saying (not directly, but through your assumptions and dismissal of other opinions), is that the man is the only significant element. Essentially, I am the one agreeing with Gottman and you are not.


I do agree with Gottman that men are key. But what also seems clear to me is that not every man is able to influence his wife. He may not have that influence naturally and/or he cannot develop it. And unless the woman can take the leadership position, I think those men and the women they are unhappily with are better off parting ways.

Are you sure you are not like those Danish men? You seem to really like the Danish interpretation of equality between the sexes, and the way the counseling there was based on it. You also mentioned enjoying dating a Danish gal. 

Your wife did not seem to take to the equality idea. I also wonder if she just got bored all the way around?


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Are you sure? She did not stop her video games or do housework like you wanted. Your influence really seems to have been lacking.
> 
> Other people may see far better than I, MTO. I just share what I see. And you are free to disregard it.
> 
> I have advised some men to divorce, MTO. If I do not think he can meet her needs, I always advise it. It is better for him that way, too.
> 
> What does "wearing the trousers" mean to you?
> 
> I do agree with Gottman that men are key. But what also seems clear to me is that not every man is able to influence his wife. He may not have that influence naturally and/or he cannot develop it. And unless the woman can take the leadership position, I think those men and the women they are unhappily with are better off parting ways.
> 
> Are you sure you are not like those Danish men? You seem to really like the Danish interpretation of equality between the sexes, and the way the counseling there was based on it. You also mentioned enjoying dating a Danish gal.
> 
> Your wife did not seem to take to the equality idea. I also wonder if she just got bored all the way around?


She was deluded. She was self-destructive and her reaction to that was to be more self-destructive. It is very caring to think "if only someone like Dug had been there", but that is idiotic. The idea that you understand her better than me is stupid. 

Jld, you disregard the input of qualified people time and time again. I stand by my lamppost analogy. The input of professionals who dealt with us was (MC, she has to address her problems, no progress until she is willing to do that. You have given her all the support anyone can. Move on) and her therapist (start working on yourself of stop coming to see me) has been dismissed by you. 

The reason I reject your analysis is not that it is critical. @tunera2 was very critical too. The difference is that you do not listen. You believe you listen and empathise, yet the evidence is that you do not. I am not being howled down on this thread as you would expect if I were saying this stuff to someone with a reputation for open-minded listening. 

You bring to to my case. Well, her family thought I was an amazing influence on her. Her friends thought I was a great influence on her. You disagree. Is that because you are more insightful or because you are stuck with only one diagnosis?

"not every man is able to influence his wife". I am sure you are convinced that Dug could have made all the difference. All I have seen on this thread is that he is ignorant, rude and a little silly. Yet, I know that is far from the full picture. I know this because people who know him personally see him and realise that is not the case and I trust them as more reliable that my impression on this board. What would you say is more reliable?

Am I sure that I am not like those Danish men? Yes. I really am. Come on, Jld. I have actually met the lady who wrote the first chunk of that article. She would tell you the same.

I understand your reservation. A poor workman always blames his tools, but you must also accept that sometimes (and not rarely) the tools are broken.


----------



## john117

The key to the relationship is BOTH people, JLD. This ain't the Army.

Think contributory negligence before inspiration and leadership.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> She was deluded. She was self-destructive and her reaction to that was to be more self-destructive. It is very caring to think "if only someone like Dug had been there", but that is idiotic. The idea that you understand her better than me is stupid.
> 
> Jld, you disregard the input of qualified people time and time again. I stand by my lamppost analogy. The input of professionals who dealt with us was (MC, she has to address her problems, no progress until she is willing to do that. You have given her all the support anyone can. Move on) and her therapist (start working on yourself of stop coming to see me) has been dismissed by you.
> 
> The reason I reject your analysis is not that it is critical. @tunera2 was very critical too. The difference is that you do not listen. You believe you listen and empathise, yet the evidence is that you do not. I am not being howled down on this thread as you would expect if I were saying this stuff to someone with a reputation for open-minded listening.
> 
> You bring to to my case. Well, her family thought I was an amazing influence on her. Her friends thought I was a great influence on her. You disagree. Is that because you are more insightful or because you are stuck with only one diagnosis?
> 
> "not every man is able to influence his wife". I am sure you are convinced that Dug could have made all the difference. All I have seen on this thread is that he is ignorant, rude and a little silly. Yet, I know that is far from the full picture. I know this because people who know him personally see him and realise that is not the case and I trust them as more reliable that my impression on this board. What would you say is more reliable?
> 
> Am I sure that I am not like those Danish men? Yes. I really am. Come on, Jld.
> 
> I understand your reservation. A poor workman always blames his tools, but you must also accept that sometimes (and not rarely) the tools are broken.


MTO, relax. I am just sharing my impressions with you. Maybe they are completely wrong. We do not know each other and never will. I can only draw my opinions from what I read, including your tone.

I have no idea how Dug would have done with her. Was not even thinking that. And you should not compare yourself to him, either. 

I do not know what kind of influence you were on her. I am not disagreeing with her family; how would I even have known what they thought? 

But you have told us you were not able to persuade her to give up video games or do housework. To me that looks like a lack of influence, at least in the areas that mattered most to you. 

I feel like you are seeking validation from me. But you do not need it, MTO. If you are at peace, my opinion, whatever it may be, and I would say at this point it is still evolving, is irrelevant. 

And again, on a forum you are going to get a variety of opinions. It does not mean any of them are correct. It is risky to put very much weight on any of them. 

Remember: "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> The key to the relationship is BOTH people, JLD. This ain't the Army.
> 
> Think contributory negligence before inspiration and leadership.


The problem is that she seems to have such a one track, narrow view of things...to the likes I have have never seen before, and a well honed ability to turn virtually everything around on the man...that ability is because she truly believes it to her core and struggles with even conceiving of the possibility of something different.

I mean hell, there was a thread a while back where the woman was physically and verbally abusive, her boyfriend left her, and went dark, and jld suggested the abusive woman was lucky to have dodged a bullet by him dumping her because why would she want to be with someone who brought out the violent abusive side of her.

Just look at this thread...to make it seem like she has some ability to view things in a gender neutral way she says that she has suggested men get a divorce in other threads...if he can't meet her needs.


----------



## Mr The Other

Duguesclin said:


> MTO, what are you trying to say?


Dug, I have received a good deal of support on this thread, which suggests I am reasonably clear. You have made an idiot of yourself on this thread and should have the dignity to apologize for your earlier petulant, stupid and offensive post.



jld said:


> MTO, relax. I am just sharing my impressions with you. Maybe they are completely wrong. We do not know each other and never will. I can only draw my opinions from what I read, including your tone.
> 
> I have no idea how Dug would have done with her. Was not even thinking that. And you should not compare yourself to him, either.
> 
> I do not know what kind of influence you were on her. I am not disagreeing with her family; how would I even have known what they thought?
> 
> But you have told us you were not able to persuade her to give up video games or do housework. To me that looks like a lack of influence, at least in the areas that mattered most to you.
> 
> I feel like you are seeking validation from me. But you do not need it, MTO. If you are at peace, my opinion, whatever it may be, and I would say at this point it is still evolving, is irrelevant.
> 
> And again, on a forum you are going to get a variety of opinions. It does not mean any of them are correct. It is risky to put very much weight on any of them.
> 
> Remember: "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


Really, I cited my own experience in the context of you citing yours. This was to illustrate that we have different experiences that alter how we emotionally view things. We should be aware of that. 

My advice to you is to work on self-awareness and empathy for people who are not just like you. Your reaction to criticism is that whoever writes it cannot accept it from their personal baggage. I realize you are then offering sympathy. That is why you kept bringing it back to my personal case. That is not me requiring validation from you, I am well aware your views are stuck. 

You cite research, but only what agree with your gut instinct and ignore the rest. That is why it does not give you credence to cite research as higher authority, it is the case of the the dog that did not bark.

Most men who post on here will know their wives better than you ever will, their hopes, feelings and aspirations. There will be limits, but there are limits to our self-awareness to. Thinking you have all the answers is a sure sign of a lack of self-awareness.


----------



## Mr The Other

samyeagar said:


> The problem is that she seems to have such a one track, narrow view of things...to the likes I have have never seen before, and a well honed ability to turn virtually everything around on the man...that ability is because she truly believes it to her core and struggles with even conceiving of the possibility of something different.
> 
> I mean hell, there was a thread a while back where the woman was physically and verbally abusive, her boyfriend left her, and went dark, and jld suggested the abusive woman was lucky to have dodged a bullet by him dumping her because why would she want to be with someone who brought out the violent abusive side of her.
> 
> Just look at this thread...to make it seem like she has some ability to view things in a gender neutral way she says that she has suggested men get a divorce in other threads...if he can't meet her needs.


Poor lady, he was not able to influence her!
:grin2:


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Really, I cited my own experience in the context of you citing yours. This was to illustrate that we have different experiences that alter how we emotionally view things. We should be aware of that.
> 
> My advice to you is to work on self-awareness and empathy for people who are not just like you. Your reaction to criticism is that whoever writes it cannot accept it from their personal baggage. I realize you are then offering sympathy. That is why you kept bringing it back to my personal case. That is not me requiring validation from you, I am well aware your views are stuck.
> 
> You cite research, but only what agree with your gut instinct and ignore the rest. That is why it does not give you credence to cite research as higher authority, it is the case of the the dog that did not bark.
> 
> Most men who post on here will know their wives better than you ever will, their hopes, feelings and aspirations. There will be limits, but there are limits to our self-awareness to. Thinking you have all the answers is a sure sign of a lack of self-awareness.


MTO, I think *you* think I have all the answers. I *know* I do not have them. But I am always seeking them, where I think they can be found.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> The key to the relationship is BOTH people, JLD. This ain't the Army.
> 
> Think contributory negligence before inspiration and leadership.


And what do you do when both are not on the same page? 

I think that is where inspiration and leadership come in.


----------



## samyeagar

Mr The Other said:


> Dug, I have received a good deal of support on this thread, which suggests I am reasonably clear. You have made an idiot of yourself on this thread and should have the dignity to apologize for your earlier petulant, stupid and offensive post.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, I cited my own experience in the context of you citing yours. This was to illustrate that we have different experiences that alter how we emotionally view things. We should be aware of that.
> 
> My advice to you is to work on self-awareness and empathy for people who are not just like you. Your reaction to criticism is that whoever writes it cannot accept it from their personal baggage. I realize you are then offering sympathy. That is why you kept bringing it back to my personal case. That is not me requiring validation from you, I am well aware your views are stuck.
> 
> You cite research, but only what agree with your gut instinct and ignore the rest. That is why it does not give you credence to cite research as higher authority, it is the case of the the dog that did not bark.
> 
> Most men who post on here will know their wives better than you ever will, their hopes, feelings and aspirations. There will be limits, but there are limits to our self-awareness to. Thinking you have all the answers is a sure sign of a lack of self-awareness.


Over the course of her posting on TAM, there have been bits and pieces of jld's past. Not a whole lot of detail, but one of the most telling things was how she grew up very afraid of her father.

It is entirely possible that her views of marriage and relationships, which are very much parent/child like, her rigid black and white thinking all stem from unresolved childhood trauma. That issues in her past have caused her to in some ways never progress past that childhood stage, and perhaps viewing her input here as coming from an unhealed trauma victim would provide a more understandable context to view it in.


----------



## Mr The Other

samyeagar said:


> Over the course of her posting on TAM, there have been bits and pieces of jld's past. Not a whole lot of detail, but one of the most telling things was how she grew up very afraid of her father.
> 
> It is entirely possible that her views of marriage and relationships, which are very much parent/child like, her rigid black and white thinking all stem from unresolved childhood trauma. That issues in her past have caused her to in some ways never progress past that childhood stage, and perhaps viewing her input here as coming from an unhealed trauma victim would provide a more understandable context to view it in.


Sweet Lord!

The scales have fallen from my eyes!

Men are meant to be strong and powerful, but are cold and indifferent. Marries a man who seems cold and indifferent, gets him to listen and thinks it is a revelation that the world has to know! But how could they

A man that seems soft would be making an error to Jld, not man enough. If he is man enough and empathetic, all would work well.

When we say that it is possible for the man to be strong, empathetic and it to still not work, we are basically saying directly the Jld's sub-conscious "Maybe some lonely little girls do not deserve to be loved".

I do not feel that Jld is particularly empathetic. I do believe she can project her own feelings onto women in troubled relationships and feels them acutely. If you see all women having the same fears and feelings in struggling relationships, then what the man should do will always be the same. The difference with empathy is to understand people have different emotions, fears and motives.

Dug may come across as a jackass to some, but that his way made him perfect for Jld to relate to as a man, husband and father figure. Then, when Dug learned to listen to her, all her dreams fell into place.

I do not want to say "Maybe some lonely little girls do not deserve to be loved", so I will stop the conversation.


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> MTO, I think *you* think I have all the answers. I *know* I do not have them. But I am always seeking them, where I think they can be found.


No, Jld. Really, no.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Mr The Other said:


> I became empathetic enough, that a remarkable number of people would cry on my shoulder (men and women), I could certainly see the pain my wife was in. *Even at that extreme, empathy was not enough. Listening was not enough. Determination was not enough. Understanding was not enough. (though these skills have stood me in fine stead for my life now). She had demons that emerged and she was no longer really able to have a healthy relationship. For some men who come on here, the challenge is what mine was - to learn that I cannot take full responsibility for another human being, just as a parent cannot take full responsibility for their child. It does not mean they should just give up on them. Good parenting can give a child every advantage, but it is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee that being a good husband will produce a good marriage (though, we can both agree that being a bad parent/husband is almost certainly a way to a dysfunctional relationship).
> *
> 
> I write all this perhaps to illustrate that we have had very different experiences. Although we both know in our heads that these things influence us, our gut reactions always return to what we know. * I have felt the heat of this projection on here myself. I remember a lady I knew being genuinely shocked to find I was divorced, as she could not fathom that it would happen to me. She had assumed that if the man was open, loving, and empathetic it would be enough.* I suspect if we had met in different circumstances, your reaction might be the same to me and to some other men on here (just guessing).


 This is my line of thinking also...This deserves a







...not that THIS happens all the time.. I wouldn't even go there.. but to assume it never happens or can't... I can't go there... 



> *However, as you write, there are many men who would do well to take the advice of Gottman and indeed yourself on board. *


 Yes , very true [email protected]#



> Perhaps, I might be so bold as to suggest that you can improve on being open minded to what men say when they arrive, as they will generally love their wives and know them better than anyone else. *Equally, I know in my head that there are women out there who are loving and able to see men as people, I have to work on my faith in that respect*.


 that's honest... you acknowledge your experiences have clouded your thinking and perceptions... I wish more people could admit these things.. it would save a lot of being defensive, and allow for us to share more of our personal experiences. 



> I suspect that TAM is not a very typical place. Relationship boards are not typically friendly to heterosexual men. The first board I went to condemned me as sleazy for importing a mail-order bride, then forcing my old, obese body on her, after forcing her to scrub, clean and prepare food all day*. Had I not been in an emotionally vulnerable place, it would have been comical. Here, I had good advice from @tunrea2 among others. The empathy and understanding and being heard on here was valuable. * Many men that come here may not be typical and are ones who are willing to make more effort than most. *


 I have thought JUST THAT many times over the years. 



> I very much like "Take what works for you, and leave the rest", I think it should be the TAM motto!!!


 Yes.. we have to, as our heads would explode otherwise... we can't please everyone...I feel judged , looked down upon as I am lessor.. with things I have read here.. suggestions to women like me.... that doesn't mean I don't have enough wonderfulness about me..but obviously not for those with their higher expectations.. We can't fit everyone's mold.... we will end up feeling hopeless , useless and worthless -if we evaluated ourselves against some of the things said here ...

Yet in the same breathe...it's healthy and GOOD to listen to our critics .... @jld has helped a number of people here...including men.... they may have loathed her at 1st... but still they couldn't deny she had some valuable things to offer along with some of it's harsher delivery... they may have stewed a bit....reevaluated some ...took what was helpful & left the rest... I like this quote...









Someone put this on Facebook a while back.. I thought to myself.. how true is that !










Very insightful posts @Mr The Other !!


----------



## Mr The Other

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is my line of thinking also...This deserves a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...not that THIS happens all the time.. I wouldn't even go there.. but to assume it never happens or can't... I can't go there...
> 
> Yes , very true [email protected]#
> 
> that's honest... you acknowledge your experiences have clouded your thinking and perceptions... I wish more people could admit these things.. it would save a lot of being defensive, and allow for us to share more of our personal experiences.
> 
> I have thought JUST THAT many times over the years.
> 
> Yes.. we have to, as our heads would explode otherwise... we can't please everyone...I feel judged , looked down upon as I am lessor.. with things I have read here.. suggestions to women like me.... that doesn't mean I don't have enough wonderfulness about me..but obviously not for those with their higher expectations.. We can't fit everyone's mold.... we will end up feeling hopeless , useless and worthless -if we evaluated ourselves against some of the things said here ...
> 
> Yet in the same breathe...it's healthy and GOOD to listen to our critics .... @jld has helped a number of people here...including men.... they may have loathed her at 1st... but still they couldn't deny she had some valuable things to offer along with some of it's harsher delivery... they may have stewed a bit....reevaluated some ...took what was helpful & left the rest... I like this quote...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone put this on Facebook a while back.. I thought to myself.. how true is that !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very insightful posts @Mr The Other !!


Thank you. That is very kind.


----------



## oneMOreguy

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*

A lot of the thoughts and concepts brought up on this thread have kinda gone over my head...I admit to being a somewhat emotionally stunted engineer type....more used to linear thinking. 

But I am bothered at a deep level at the consistent theme of a man being responsible for influence and leadership of his wife. In the real world, a person can only perform actions....be they words, work around the house, work activities, etc. Nobody can "make" another feel influenced and/or led. I cannot believe that each and every spouse reacts the same to their spouses actions, or that if another man (better match per jld) would have any different reactions from the spouse if the actions were identical. So..the baseline here is actions......the willingness to do or not do something.

I would contend that many marriages end simply because a oersons need is no longer healthy for themselves, kids, spouse, family, etc, and the spouse refuses to satsfy the unhealthy need. This is not a failure or inability, but rather a choice. This seems simple to me......but certainly is contrary to the phrasing constantly used by jld, who seems to evade the certainty that some partners can only be led or influenced by actions not in the best interest to everyone involved. 

Anyway......all I am trying to state is that not meeting unhealthy needs is not in any sense a failure, but in most cases a wise set of decisions. But I know...this does not fit in with well with dug...jld dynamics. Maybe the words used to present her case is what bothers me the most.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

jld said:


> And what do you do when both are not on the same page?
> 
> I think that is where inspiration and leadership come in.


Being on the same page is the fundamental assumption of being married. If ones idea of marriage is the house, picket fence, dog, 2.2 kids, etc and sex of course and the other person's is roommate with rare benefits, no amount of inspiration or leadership is going to turn it around. 

You can't inspire your roommate to sleep with you. It's like Three's Company 😂


----------



## oneMOreguy

john117 said:


> Being on the same page is the fundamental assumption of being married. If ones idea of marriage is the house, picket fence, dog, 2.2 kids, etc and sex of course and the other person's is roommate with rare benefits, no amount of inspiration or leadership is going to turn it around.
> 
> You can't inspire your roommate to sleep with you. It's like Three's Company 😂


I view being on the same page as both of you having healthy needs and mutual willingness to meet them. I kinda tried to say that in my above post. But maybe leaving out the healthy definition and focusing more on the mutual concept is just as important. But I continue to think a failure to lead or inspire is non helpful analysis .

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks

Some women want to be led and others don't. jld wants to be led. She wants her husband to carry the entire burden of the relationship and he tries to oblige. The women who don't want to be led realize that it takes two people to actively engage in a marriage and two people to carry the burdens. They want to share in the carrying of the burdens.

jld speaks from her experience in her dom/sub marriage. Often times, what works for one type of marriage does not work for others. There is a reality clash. People need to remember where she is coming from. Take what works and leave the rest.


----------



## oneMOreguy

I worry that too many coming here are not yet capable of discerning applicable vs unhelpful advice. I still struggle with that at times. Oh well......it is the internet....grinning of course.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr The Other

oneMOreguy said:


> I view being on the same page as both of you having healthy needs and mutual willingness to meet them. I kinda tried to say that in my above post. But maybe leaving out the healthy definition and focusing more on the mutual concept is just as important. But I continue to think a failure to lead or inspire is non helpful analysis.


Cod Psychology:

We can see that Jld does not really absorb anything that does not fit with her point of view. Nor does she really accept that her experience and personal aspirations influence how she sees things. She has limited empathy, but a large capacity for compassion. When she sees other women unhappy, she remembers her own experiences and projects them on the women (which is why she considers herself as being very empathetic with women), but cannot do this with men (so she concedes she does not have the same empathy for men). Understand that it is projection instead of empathy and it starts to make sense. 

She wants a father-like figure to accept her in a way her own father did not. Through this thread, her dynamic for a married relationship was like that of adult and child. As this is what she wants, she will 'see' that this is what women want. A man not like her own father is therefore a problem for every woman, and not suitable.

However, she knows that men struggle with empathy. As her Father and Dug did. She cannot put herself in a man's shoes and will never really accept otherwise. Therefore, if a man is like her Father, the only problem will be that he cannot communicate. She knows this, because this was her pain and as she cannot understand women are different to her, she sees them in an unhappy relationship and is reminded of her own pain. As the pain is the same, the solution will always be the same.

There is no way around this logic. To argue that the woman could be at fault is again, to her ears is at best a man not understanding relationships as _he_ lacks empathy. At worst, it is reminding her of the men she relates to as fathers and husbands declaring that there is something wrong with women (who are all like her remember) that means they are not lovable. Of course, this is rejected.


----------



## Mr The Other

Blondilocks said:


> Some women want to be led and others don't. jld wants to be led. She wants her husband to carry the entire burden of the relationship and he tries to oblige. The women who don't want to be led realize that it takes two people to actively engage in a marriage and two people to carry the burdens. They want to share in the carrying of the burdens.
> 
> jld speaks from her experience in her dom/sub marriage. Often times, what works for one type of marriage does not work for others. There is a reality clash. People need to remember where she is coming from. Take what works and leave the rest.


I will say this is one reason why I am sure Jld is a great wife. She is very clear on what she wants. There will be many partners who want to give the responsibility to their partner, but make the decisions themselves. She is clear that she wants to be led and to be heard.


----------



## Blondilocks

I once read that boys develop empathy at an earlier age than girls. I don't believe that a majority of men lack empathy. It may be that they don't express it as a result of social conditioning.

In one of John Wayne's movie roles, he stated (paraphrasing) "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness". That was a disservice to his audiences because some guys actually latched onto that sentiment.


----------



## oneMOreguy

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*

Posting on a web forum is technically easy.....but imho should be done responsibly, especially in one focused on human relationships. To me.....that includes working on self awareness, willingness to expand our knowledge based on the experiences of others, and a willingness to adjust our theories to match realities. Also important is not filling in information with assumptions from our own experiences.....good data collection is vital.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza

We all bring our own experiences. And hopefully we all apply some discernment to what we read, taking what applies to us and leaving what doesn't.

When it works, I think that's all good. An exchange of ideas. 

In an area like TAM though, we are discussing topics that are the source of deep emotions, including some pain. We have to try and be more careful than we might with some other topics.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I want to give men a chance to grow. I don't want to give up on them right away, far. With some encouragement and wise guidance, they might be able to turn things around.
> 
> But maybe I should just give up on them right away. If their instinct is to leave, maybe they cannot do more. We cannot ask more of people than they are capable of. It just frustrates both sides.
> 
> *Women need strong men, far. Strong men do not just up and leave women and children when adversity strikes.
> 
> Strong men do what is best for women and children, not what is in their own selfish interest. That always includes examining their own consciences. And it might include leaving, if that is in the best interests of the women and children. *
> 
> I admire men, far. And whether or not TAM can see it, I have great respect for them. Or at least some of them. The ones who accept their responsibilities and do not try to hide behind women, or, even more shamefully, children.
> 
> I think men are the stronger sex. And I believe that with that strength comes great responsibility.


Since your post was in response to @farsidejunky post about men dealing with infidelity, in particular the bolded above just reads as BS. What you are saying is that if a man gets cheated on and decides to end the relationship b/c a core moral belief of his (fidelity) was broken, then he is weak and selfish... It is interesting, he should act in the best interest of the woman and children, but in the example such as this, the woman has no responsibility to act in the best interest of the man or the children. 

You want to know what is strong (for both men AND women), sticking to your core moral beliefs (which in this case means not cheating when involved in a monogamous relationship). Likewise, strength is kicking your SO to the curb if they cheat on you, and find someone who shares your same beliefs instead of compromising your own... Now, I am in no way saying someone who decides to work through infidelity is weak, far from it, I think that is a very respectable option. However, classifying someone (a male really) as being weak because he won't bend when a core moral value of his is $h1t on is just nonsense.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


Cause woman are really dependent on their husbands, I mean without them what would they be right jid? :laugh:


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Cause woman are really dependent on their husbands, I mean without them what would they be right jid? :laugh:


Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. And women are increasingly outearning men. Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.


----------



## 225985

jld said:


> Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.


But where is the fun in that? You then won't be able to tell the W that she needs to leave her H.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. And women are increasingly outearning men. Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.


Provided they do the dishes and finish up the ironing first, that's quite ok.

:grin2:

P.S unfortunately the iron won't fit where you are about to suggest.....


----------



## MEM2020

Financially independent Women who dislike and distrust men already do that.

Just as men who dislike and distrust women have replaced them with a combination of video games, porn and flesh lights

Coming soon: sex bots



jld said:


> Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. And women are increasingly outearning men. Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Financially independent Women who dislike and distrust men already do that.
> 
> Just as men who dislike and distrust women have replaced them with a combination of video games, porn and flesh lights
> 
> Coming soon: sex bots


I think the interesting issue here is reproduction and its ramifications to society, not personal sexual satisfaction. 

It seems it is not possible to cover child custody in a prenup. Going to a sperm bank may be the only way, short of getting impregnated by a dying man, for a woman to ensure she will be the main influence in her biological child's life.

I think it comes down to trust, not like or dislike. And I think Gottman's advice to men could keep them relevant as women's choices expand during this next century.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. And women are increasingly outearning men. *Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether*.


That would be single women, not necessarily single mothers. Big difference.

I'm not sure that is all together a bad thing for many women, or the men they would end up marrying. With the more recent demographic shift where the idea of 18 being an adult is more a technicality than reality, where more 18-34 year olds are living with their parents than on their own with a partner, many kids, male and female aren't anywhere remotely equipped for marriage or children of their own until much later in life than previously.

I'm not sure I see the idea of marriage going away any time soon. Marital expectations and gender roles will continue to change no doubt, as they have all through out history. Regardless of the rhetoric on both sides of the gender coin, in the end, women like men, and men like women.


----------



## NotEasy

Ahhh, finally read to the end of what for me is a very timely post, but sadly found none of what I wanted. We just returned from a marriage retreat where the speaker ended by talking about his dozen best marriage books, including one by Gottman. By the end I was feeling frazzled, and may be mistaken but relevant bits I remember are:
Gottman made it into the top 4 books, but was not the best.
Gottman was the most scientific of the bunch, or his is the only one with any science and data to back him up
He based his recommendations on decades of observation in a special lab, getting couples in, stressing them and seeing how they react and interact.
He can accurately estimate the chance of divorce. This seems like a good measure for scientific testing as 'happy' is so hard to measure.
He promotes a marriage world view that seems Christian, men lead, both spouses are flawed, imperfect, sinners. He also talks about the 4 horsemen (see Revelation, apocalypse), that destroy marriage and predict divorce. 
Perhaps because of his method and lab, he looks at behaviours, not history or compatibility. How a couple interacts is seen most important, not whether they agree or argue.
Like all the authors in this field, he has multiple books that all cover similar ground.

I still haven't got any of the books, and was hoping this thread might help justify by decision to read this book.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. And women are increasingly outearning men. *Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.*


I think this a good thing. Women who cant handle the responsibility of a relationship shouldn't get married anyway. Same with men who can't. Then the rest of us who can and believe in relationships wouldn't pick partners who can't handle them because they are off the market. 

You should write a books might make some money here.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I don't believe people can so easily decouple distrust and dislike.

So - explain how this works? Single woman procreates via sperm bank and then how does she provide for her child/children?

Works full time - yes? And who watches and influences her kids - while she does that?




jld said:


> I think the interesting issue here is reproduction and its ramifications to society, not personal sexual satisfaction.
> 
> It seems it is not possible to cover child custody in a prenup. Going to a sperm bank may be the only way, short of getting impregnated by a dying man, for a woman to ensure she will be the main influence in her biological child's life.
> 
> I think it comes down to trust, not like or dislike. And I think Gottman's advice to men could keep them relevant as women's choices expand during this next century.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I think this a good thing. Women who cant handle the responsibility of a relationship shouldn't get married anyway. Same with men who can't. Then the rest of us who can and believe in relationships wouldn't pick partners who can't handle them because they are off the market.
> 
> You should write a books might make some money here.


I have been told since at least my teens that I should be a writer. But I have never been inspired in that direction.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I don't believe people can so easily decouple distrust and dislike.
> 
> So - explain how this works? Single woman procreates via sperm bank and then how does she provide for her child/children?
> 
> Works full time - yes? And who watches and influences her kids - while she does that?


I think it depends on the person.

Some work full-time, usually in some sort of professional or lucrative field. I have also read about women starting businesses and then hiring a manager to run the day to day while she spends the bulk of time with her child/ren.

I am not really sure how much different it is than for some women married to uninvolved fathers. But this way the mother does not have any custody concerns in the event of a breakup.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I have been told since at least my teens that I should be a writer. But I have never been inspired in that direction.


Well here you go. If you can inspire women who can't handle the responsibility of being married to ever get married seems like a win win for all of us !


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Well here you go. If you can inspire women who can't handle the responsibility of being married to ever get married seems like a win win for all of us !


Marriage is not the best deal out there for women, Wolf. That is the point of Ele's comment that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. Did you not understand that?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Marriage is not the best deal out there for women, Wolf. That is the point of Ele's comment that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. Did you not understand that?


And this is based upon what? Having been both married and now divorced I can tell you this isn't true in my life. 

Sorry thought you were being serious enough here not just taking other jab. Disregard should have known better


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> MTO, I think *you* think I have all the answers. I *know* I do not have them. But I am always seeking them, where I think they can be found.


No he doesn't and..

No you don't remain open or search for info with opennness.

It is pride that keeps you stuck there and it is pride keeping Dug from apologizing as he should.

I am appalled.

You have MANY posters here asking you to self assess.

Its time to listen. Its past time to listen and until you do, renders your advice useless in my book.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And this is based upon what? Having been both married and now divorced I can tell you this isn't true in my life.
> 
> Sorry thought you were being serious enough here not just taking other jab. Disregard should have known better


Why do you think that was a jab? I was quoting her and you seemed to misunderstand the meaning of what she said. 

I am not sure where it came from. Maybe ask her?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Why do you think that was a jab? I was quoting her and you seemed to misunderstand the meaning of what she said.
> 
> I am not sure where it came from. Maybe ask her?


Because I was being serious and thought you were too. Like I said should have known better. 

Same old same old carry on if that's what you want to believe lol


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> No he doesn't and..
> 
> No you don't remain open or search for info with opennness.
> 
> It is pride that keeps you stuck there and it is pride keeping Dug from apologizing as he should.
> 
> I am appalled.
> 
> You have MANY posters here asking you to self assess.
> 
> Its time to listen. Its past time to listen and until you do, renders your advice useless in my book.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



If you do not like my advice, disregard it. Not everything we read on a message board is going to please us.

I listen to people I think are wise. I also consider points I think are wise. There is neither time nor interest to invest in the rest.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Because I was being serious and thought you were too. Like I said should have known better.
> 
> Same old same old carry on if that's what you want to believe lol


I am absolutely serious. I think her quote is true. And I was surprised you did not seem to understand her point.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If you do not like my advice, disregard it. Not everything we read on a message board is going to please us.
> 
> I listen to people I think are wise. I also consider points I think are wise. There is neither time nor interest to invest in the rest.


Your flippant response to me in no way invalidates my words. Just confirmed it. You fully intend to stay blind.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Your flippant response to me in no way invalidates my words. Just confirmed it. You fully intend to stay blind.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Huh. I do not see any flippancy. I see a direct response that clearly explains my goal.

And I guess we define "blind" differently.

We come from two different poles, Blossom. We simply are not going to see things the same way.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Marriage is not the best deal out there for women, Wolf. That is the point of Ele's comment that married men are the happiest people in the world, followed by single women. Did you not understand that?


Here is the basic study...

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

And if you look at it, the points are marginal at best..



> *The study found happiest women were in de facto relationships of less than three years duration, with no dependent kids. They had partners “at least five years younger” than them. They were not “in the labour force” and their partners were in good physical and mental health, though had an education of Year 12 or below.*
> 
> Blokes are happiest “in the first few years of marriage” with no dependent children and have a wife at least five years younger in good physical and mental health. She has an education of Year 12 or below and doesn’t smoke (ladies are happier if neither smokes).
> 
> The unhappiest women are those married between 10 and 19 years with dependent children and a husband five years or more older. They are extroverted and open to new experiences but hubby isn’t and he smokes.
> 
> The most miserable blokes are in a de facto relationship of more than 20 years and have dependent children, their partner is open to new experiences but they aren’t and they are conscientious while “she isn’t”.


I do find the bolded interesting...the happiest women are the ones who are not married, not working, but in a relationship with a younger guy, who is less educated, and takes care of her...so basically women who had a hot, dumb, younger sugardaddy were the happiest...

One of the key factors seems to be...children. Both men and women are happiest in the first few years of a relationship, be it married or defacto marriage...with no dependent children. The most unhappy men and women are the ones in long term relationships with kids. Women just get unhappier quicker is all.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Huh. I do not see any flippancy. I see a direct response that clearly explains my goal.
> 
> And I guess we define "blind" differently.
> 
> We come from two different poles, Blossom. We simply are not going to see things the same way.


You are correct because I would never hold Gottman as a marriage guru when he has been divorced twice.

I also have seen women with deep depravity as in the case of the Texas woman who shot her daughters in front of her husband on his birthday for revenge.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Here is the basic study...
> 
> No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
> 
> And if you look at it, the points are marginal at best..
> 
> I do find the bolded interesting...the happiest women are the ones who are not married, not working, but in a relationship with a younger guy, who is less educated, and takes care of her...so basically women who had a hot, dumb, younger sugardaddy were the happiest...
> 
> One of the key factors seems to be...children. Both men and women are happiest in the first few years of a relationship, be it married or defacto marriage...with no dependent children. The most unhappy men and women are the ones in long term relationships with kids. Women just get unhappier quicker is all.


I don't know if Ele's comment was based on that study. My second-oldest sister, who is just a little younger than Ele, made the same comment back in the early 80s. I think there is a different origin to the saying.


----------



## Adelais

I have a serious question jld. If you are so happy in your marriage situation, why are you spending so much time reading on (a) board(s) where you disagree with most of the posters, and you are disrespected and unappreciated by so many people?

Your post count at the time of this post is 15,292. You have only been posting here since November 2013, one month after I joined. When do you have time to even _*be*_ a wife and mother, much less homeschool your children?

I ask that because I read and post here looking for answers too, and with my (measly, compared to yours) 1,243 posts, I have wasted far too much time here. When my life is going great, the last place I want to be is reading and posting on TAM. I'm only here due to continuing marital problems.

It takes _time_ to read and post here. My husband complains about the time I spend on TAM, and my children notice when my nose is in the computer instead of interacting with them. You have 5 children, right?

Why is a woman who claims to be completely content in her marriage and the way things are wasting her life reading and posting to strangers on the internet for hours every day? Few people appreciate your input, and even on this thread, many people have mocked you. Do you come here out of boredom? When do you spend time with your beloved husband and children?

(Even as I type this, my oldest daughter is asking me, "What are you doing?" She doesn't want me on the computer all day long.)


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> You are correct because I would never hold Gottman as a marriage guru when he has been divorced twice.
> 
> I also have seen women with deep depravity as in the case of the Texas woman who shot her daughters in front of her husband on his birthday for revenge.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And if Gottman's advice were based on his own personal marital/divorce record, I would likely agree with you. 

But his advice is based on 4 decades (!) of peer-reviewed academic research. That is almost as long as you and I have been alive.


----------



## jld

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> I have a serious question jld. If you are so happy in your marriage situation, why are you spending so much time reading on (a) board(s) where you disagree with most of the posters, and you are disrespected and unappreciated by so many people?
> 
> Your post count at the time of this post is 15,292. You have only been posting here since November 2013, one month after I joined. When do you have time to even _*be*_ a wife and mother, much less homeschool your children?
> 
> I ask that because I read and post here looking for answers too, and with my (measly, compared to yours) 1,243 posts, have wasted far too much time here. My husband complains about the time I spend on TAM, and my children notice when my nose is in the computer instead of interacting with them. You have 5 children, right?
> 
> Why is a woman who claims to be completely content in her marriage and the way things are wasting her life reading and posting to strangers on the internet for hours every day?


It has become an interest, IMFAR. And as you know, it is important for homeschooling moms to have their own interests.

Plus, I am here with my husband. Our time here has been very bonding for us. We have had many deep discussions about the topics we read about here.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I don't know if Ele's comment was based on that study. My second-oldest sister, who is just a little younger than Ele, made the same comment back in the early 80s. I think there is a different origin to the saying.


So you were quoting something that you were not even familiar with what you were quoting?

How about this then..consider what I linked then without regard to what you blindly quoted.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> So you were quoting something that you were not even familiar with what you were quoting?
> 
> How about this then..consider what I linked then without regard to what you blindly quoted.


I was quoting Ele. She echoed something I remember my sister saying. It was intriguing to me to hear the same statement 30 years apart.

And I can completely believe it is true.


----------



## Adelais

jld said:


> It has become an interest, IMFAR. And as you know, it is important for homeschooling moms to have their own interests.
> 
> Plus, I am here with my husband. Our time here has been very bonding for us. We have had many deep discussions about the topics we read about here.


With over 15,000 posts, you must have a super fast computer, and be an amazing speed reader. You didn't address the sheer amount of time you spend here. Honestly, I don't believe you have much of a life going on outside of TAM with that many posts. I'm not trying to be mean, but with my 1,200+ posts, I know how long it takes to read and post here.


----------



## jld

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> With over 15,000 posts, you must have a super fast computer, and be an amazing speed reader. You didn't address the sheer amount of time you spend here. Honestly, I don't believe you have much of a life going on outside of TAM with that many posts. I'm not trying to be mean, but with my 1,200+ posts, I know how long it takes to read and post here.


I don't think you are being mean. I think you had an honest question and you asked it.

I don't read everything. I read what interests me.

And I am indeed mostly home all day every day with my children, and have been for over two decades now, other than taking them to their activities, of course. We are relaxed homeschoolers, and they manage most of their studies themselves. 

Dd21, who will be starting her senior year of college next month, told me it was very helpful to have been brought up that way. She said one of the first things she noticed in college was how teacher-dependent the other students, including the ones who had been homeschooled, were. Not the case with her.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I was quoting Ele. She echoed something I remember my sister saying. It was intriguing to me to hear the same statement 30 years apart.
> 
> And I can completely believe it is true.


Without any more to go on from you, the study I linked seems to be similar to what you are anecdotally pointing to, the margin of happiness is pretty close to statistically insignificant. That both men and women are happiest in the early stages of a relationship when no children, or other realities of real life set in. Makes sense to me.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Without any more to go on from you, the study I linked seems to be similar to what you are anecdotally pointing to, the margin of happiness is pretty close to statistically insignificant. That both men and women are happiest in the early stages of a relationship when no children, or other realities of real life set in. Makes sense to me.


And yet the saying curiously does not mention children.

What is it about married men that makes them the happiest people on earth? Why are single women happier than married women? Why are unmarried men the least happy of all?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> And yet the saying curiously does not mention children.
> 
> What is it about married men that makes them the happiest people on earth? Why are single women happier than married women? Why are unmarried men the least happy of all?


I guess I struggle to see this as significant without anything to back it up.

Most of your other points in this thread have been backed up by peer-reviewed studies.

However, the quoted statement is something that resonated with you, and that is fine. Yet with no study to back it up, you are perpetuating it as though it carries the same weight as Gottman's work by assuming there must be a source?

Do I understand that correctly?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMatt

farsidejunky said:


> I guess I struggle to see this as significant without anything to back it up.
> 
> Most of your other points in this thread have been backed up by peer-reviewed studies.
> 
> However, the quoted statement is something that resonated with you, and that is fine. Yet with no study to back it up, you are perpetuating it as though it carries the same weight as Gottman's work by assuming there must be a source?
> 
> Do I understand that correctly?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


The trouble with peer reviewed studies is that "fools never differ."


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I guess I struggle to see this as significant without anything to back it up.
> 
> Most of your other points in this thread have been backed up by peer-reviewed studies.
> 
> However, the quoted statement is something that resonated with you, and that is fine. Yet with no study to back it up, you are perpetuating it as though it carries the same weight as Gottman's work by assuming there must be a source?
> 
> Do I understand that correctly?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I don't know what may or may not back it up. I just find it interesting. Could probably be its own thread.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> And if Gottman's advice were based on his own personal marital/divorce record, I would likely agree with you.
> 
> But his advice is based on 4 decades (!) of peer-reviewed academic research. That is almost as long as you and I have been alive.


Ladifricken dah...


I am not impressed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MattMatt

Blossom Leigh said:


> Ladifricken dah...
> 
> 
> I am not impressed.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The problem is that the studies can be biased. Only selecting people who fit the criteria of the researcher, for example.

Also, remember the study back in the 1950s that showed butter was very bad for you and that margarine was a wonderful, healthful food?

Turns out all the data was faked.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

MattMatt said:


> The problem is that the studies can be biased. Only selecting people who fit the criteria of the researcher, for example.,
> 
> Also, remember the study back in the 1950s that showed butter was very bad for you and that margarine was a wonderful, healthful food?
> 
> Turns out all the data was faked.


Exactly. My husband just said, "so, what she's saying is a bunch of guys got together, circle jerked and agreed he was right."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And yet the saying curiously does not mention children.
> 
> What is it about married men that makes them the happiest people on earth? Why are single women happier than married women? Why are unmarried men the least happy of all?


Except it explicitly said the happiest were women not in the workforce, in young relationships with men who were younger and good looking. The only difference between what was said about men and women was the word marriage, which implies men are happiest with the commitment, where as women want the relationship sans official title of marriage...oh, and the whole not in the workforce thing.


----------



## MEM2020

Blossom,
This post is solely analytical - I claim no science or study - just the combination of a lot of reading here, pattern analysis of what I've read and comparison of those patterns with my personal experience.

Let's start with one of the things that I found extremely appealing about Gottmans work. He identified a subset of interaction parameters that in my opinion are important. And they are also objectively quantifiable. 

In particular, heart rates and bid/response rates highlight some key dynamics. 

If you consider how highly women rate confidence - as a partner trait - you might think about how Gottmans work fully aligns with that.

One element of confidence is the absence of fear. A racing heart - typically correlates to a lot of externally visible signs of anxiety / fear. In conflict - the subtext of that is actually quite harmful. 

A high engagement level coupled with confidence - those are two big pluses. And by quantifying them Gottman started to apply real science to interpersonal dynamics. 

As far as my personal experience with this goes - it correlates to a strikingly high degree. When I'm calm we have universally positive outcomes. When I'm not, our outcomes have closer to a 50% failure rate. 







Blossom Leigh said:


> Exactly. My husband just said, "so, what she's saying is a bunch of guys got together, circle jerked and agreed he was right."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Except it explicitly said the happiest were women not in the workforce, in young relationships with men who were younger and good looking. The only difference between what was said about men and women was the word marriage, which implies men are happiest with the commitment, where as women want the relationship sans official title of marriage...oh, and the whole not in the workforce thing.


You are talking about the article. I was talking about Ele's saying. 

And I think it is assumed that single women are working.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

MEM11363 said:


> Blossom,
> This post is solely analytical - I claim no science or study - just the combination of a lot of reading here, pattern analysis of what I've read and comparison of those patterns with my personal experience.
> 
> Let's start with one of the things that I found extremely appealing about Gottmans work. He identified a subset of interaction parameters that in my opinion are important. And they are also objectively quantifiable.
> 
> In particular, heart rates and bid/response rates highlight some key dynamics.
> 
> If you consider how highly women rate confidence - as a partner trait - you might think about how Gottmans work fully aligns with that.
> 
> One element of confidence is the absence of fear. A racing heart - typically correlates to a lot of externally visible signs of anxiety / fear. In conflict - the subtext of that is actually quite harmful.
> 
> A high engagement level coupled with confidence - those are two big pluses. And by quantifying them Gottman started to apply real science to interpersonal dynamics.
> 
> As far as my personal experience with this goes - it correlates to a strikingly high degree. When I'm calm we have universally positive outcomes. When I'm not, our outcomes have closer to a 50% failure rate.


Ditto in the reverse. You are describing gender neutral reactions and behavior. I've done the same, remained calm under fire resulting in better outcomes. So, if Gottman is merely spouting what the Bible already addresses in the beatitudes of check your heart attitude then he is merely a flawed man who has stumbled across a truth that came from God, not Gottman, that these are heart issues, which are gender neutral.

And that are resolved by turning to Christ, not a flawed man like Gottman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

This is an older study, from 2001. It seems to support what my sister (and Ele) said 20 years before. And whether or not the married woman works does not seem to make a difference. 

I do not know if things have changed much in 15 years. Again, could be the subject of a good thread.

No 'Advantage For Women' In Marriage, Men Better Off

*Marriage brings bliss to newly wed couples, but researchers now say that while married men appeared physically better off than single men, the same can not be said of married women.*_

Women not only have fewer immediate personal benefits from marriage but it is at times more damaging for her overall well-being, according to The One Plus One Marriage and Partnership Research organisation, a government-funded group.

The study conducted on more than 2,000 divorced couples found that women had to make a greater adjustment to marriage than men, reports The Telegraph.

"The greater part of the husband's day will continue to be spent much as it was before his marriage, whereas this is rarely so for the wife," said Penny Mansfield, director of One Plus One.

"If she continues to work, she is likely to have to combine the job of housewife with that of full-time worker. This in itself may be a source of stress because she will have less opportunity for relaxation. Even if the wife does not work following marriage, there may be adjustment difficulties for her since she has to learn to adopt a completely different lifestyle," the researcher said.

It was found that the absence of colleagues, workmates and the loss of an independent income will require varying degrees of adaptation which may all contribute to a sense of increasing isolation in women.

Half of those surveyed reported difficulties of sexual adjustment, particularly after the birth of a baby, while about the same (48 per cent) spoke of adjustment difficulties connected with housing and finance.

Most (73 per cent) said the problems which led to marital failure started within the first five years but for a third they surfaced within the first 12 months. The duration of marital "happiness" among the couples, whose marriages lasted an average of 10-14 years, was only 3.87 years.

*Moreover, the research said that single men were more likely to regard themselves as unhappy compared to married ones. But it was not generally true of a single women.*

The organisation highlighted that couples who did manage to stay married allowed each spouse to retain some sense of autonomy, which meant being careful about what was argued about and accepting compromises. The basic components of long-lasting marriages were love, trust and respect. (ANI)

Copyright © 2001 ANI-Asian News International. All rights reserved._


----------



## MEM2020

Blossom,

I'm not taking a religious tack here. Testosterone is an amplifier. An angry man - is - on average more destructive than an angry woman. 

Why I think an anxious man is harder to be around than an anxious woman. 




Blossom Leigh said:


> Ditto in the reverse. You are describing gender neutral reactions and behavior. I've done the same, remained calm under fire resulting in better outcomes. So, if Gottman is merely spouting what the Bible already addresses in the beatitudes of check your heart attitude then he is merely a flawed man who has stumbled across a truth that came from God, not Gottman, that these are heart issues, which are gender neutral.
> 
> And that are resolved by turning to Christ, not a flawed man like Gottman.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

MEM11363 said:


> Blossom,
> 
> I'm not taking a religious tack here. Testosterone is an amplifier. An angry man - is - on average more destructive than an angry woman.
> 
> Why I think an anxious man is harder to be around than an anxious woman.


Tell that to the daughters of Christy Sheats.

And that is not the truth for my own personal experience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

That study was of 2,000 DIVORCED couples. That not just self selection - it's solely self selecting for failure. 





jld said:


> This is an older study, from 2001. It seems to support what my sister (and Ele) said 20 years before. And whether or not the married woman works does not seem to make a difference.
> 
> I do not know if things have changed much in 15 years. Again, could be the subject of a good thread.
> 
> No 'Advantage For Women' In Marriage, Men Better Off
> 
> *Marriage brings bliss to newly wed couples, but researchers now say that while married men appeared physically better off than single men, the same can not be said of married women.*_
> 
> Women not only have fewer immediate personal benefits from marriage but it is at times more damaging for her overall well-being, according to The One Plus One Marriage and Partnership Research organisation, a government-funded group.
> 
> The study conducted on more than 2,000 divorced couples found that women had to make a greater adjustment to marriage than men, reports The Telegraph.
> 
> "The greater part of the husband's day will continue to be spent much as it was before his marriage, whereas this is rarely so for the wife," said Penny Mansfield, director of One Plus One.
> 
> "If she continues to work, she is likely to have to combine the job of housewife with that of full-time worker. This in itself may be a source of stress because she will have less opportunity for relaxation. Even if the wife does not work following marriage, there may be adjustment difficulties for her since she has to learn to adopt a completely different lifestyle," the researcher said.
> 
> It was found that the absence of colleagues, workmates and the loss of an independent income will require varying degrees of adaptation which may all contribute to a sense of increasing isolation in women.
> 
> Half of those surveyed reported difficulties of sexual adjustment, particularly after the birth of a baby, while about the same (48 per cent) spoke of adjustment difficulties connected with housing and finance.
> 
> Most (73 per cent) said the problems which led to marital failure started within the first five years but for a third they surfaced within the first 12 months. The duration of marital "happiness" among the couples, whose marriages lasted an average of 10-14 years, was only 3.87 years.
> 
> *Moreover, the research said that single men were more likely to regard themselves as unhappy compared to married ones. But it was not generally true of a single women.*
> 
> The organisation highlighted that couples who did manage to stay married allowed each spouse to retain some sense of autonomy, which meant being careful about what was argued about and accepting compromises. The basic components of long-lasting marriages were love, trust and respect. (ANI)
> 
> Copyright © 2001 ANI-Asian News International. All rights reserved._


----------



## Livvie

jld said:


> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without any more to go on from you, the study I linked seems to be similar to what you are anecdotally pointing to, the margin of happiness is pretty close to statistically insignificant. That both men and women are happiest in the early stages of a relationship when no children, or other realities of real life set in. Makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the saying curiously does not mention children.
> 
> What is it about married men that makes them the happiest people on earth? Why are single women happier than married women? Why are unmarried men the least happy of all?
Click to expand...

My thoughts on this are:

A married man thrives in the structure, the structure a woman brings to his life, the female energy she brings. Women tend to be homemakers (into building a home nest, the "woman's touch"). The home is more comfortable, there will be food in the fridge, regular meals, the bathroom will get cleaned and not smell like a latrine, etc. Plus, being less social than women by nature, when married, men have a built in daily social connection. Women also tend to be caretakers, watching out for his health, making sure he goes to the doctor when sick and so forth. I think men like to be the head of the household, so to speak, the feeling that they have created a family of their own. These are all gross generalizations, but maybe sheds light on why married men are the happiest and unmarried men the least happy.

I think maybe single women are more happy than married women because often women in long term marriages are unhappy.... They feel like they have to do the majority of child care and household running and work by themselves, and are lacking emotional attention and connection with their husband. That gets old fast, and depressing. It is not fulfilling. It leads to an exhausted, sad woman.

Single women may not have the benefit of a partner, but they might have less of that kind of sadness, that they are doing it all with a partner who does not add to their life and that hurts their heart.

I was married for 16 years, two wonderful children, then divorced. I still mourn the loss of my family unit and living full time with my children (we do 50/50). I cry on a weekly basis still, after years!! But I am still happier as a single woman than I was being married to a man who let me do it all and would not be a husband and emotionally connect with me. I think the sadness of having a partner who doesn't connect with you outweighs the sadness of being single.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> That study was of 2,000 DIVORCED couples. That not just self selection - it's solely self selecting for failure.


Where do you think the comparisons to the single men and women mentioned in the article come in?

And if anyone finds a study saying that unmarried men are the happiest people in the world, followed by married women, then single women, then married men, I invite you to cite it. I think this is an interesting topic, but somewhat tangential to our original one.


----------



## MattMatt

> "How to Stay Married"?


I am in the process of ordering my wife some *very* fine wines from France.

I think that might help.


----------



## jld

Livvie said:


> My thoughts on this are:
> 
> A married man thrives in the structure, the structure a woman brings to his life, the female energy she brings. Women tend to be homemakers (into building a home nest, the "woman's touch"). The home is more comfortable, there will be food in the fridge, regular meals, the bathroom will get cleaned and not smell like a latrine, etc. Plus, being less social than women by nature, when married, men have a built in daily social connection. Women also tend to be caretakers, watching out for his health, making sure he goes to the doctor when sick and so forth. I think men like to be the head of the household, so to speak, the feeling that they have created a family of their own. These are all gross generalizations, but maybe sheds light on why married men are the happiest and unmarried men the least happy.
> 
> I think maybe single women are more happy than married women because often women in long term marriages are unhappy.... They feel like they have to do the majority of child care and household running and work by themselves, and are lacking emotional attention and connection with their husband. That gets old fast, and depressing. It is not fulfilling. It leads to an exhausted, sad woman.
> 
> Single women may not have the benefit of a partner, but they might have less of that kind of sadness, that they are doing it all with a partner who does not add to their life and that hurts their heart.
> 
> I was married for 16 years, two wonderful children, then divorced. I still mourn the loss of my family unit and living full time with my children (we do 50/50). I cry on a weekly basis still, after years!!* But I am still happier as a single woman than I was being married to a man who let me do it all and would not be a husband and emotionally connect with me.* I think the sadness of having a partner who doesn't connect with you outweighs the sadness of being single.


This is a great post, Livvie. And I cannot tell you how many times I have heard women express the bolded.


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> I was quoting Ele. She echoed something I remember my sister saying. It was intriguing to me to hear the same statement 30 years apart.
> 
> And I can completely believe it is true.


Me too, even though I've never seen the actual study/ studies that support this claim. Doing a quick Google search I found it interesting that the first page of hits came back with articles all shouting the same theme that marriage makes men happy and that marriage is no promise of happiness for women.

I'm nearly an empty nester (woohoo!) with a traveling husband. I never ever imagined being alone, even though it's only 3 days a week, would be peaceful, contented, calm and even secure. I'm not unhappy when my husband is home but I've noticed a dynamic I would have never been able to fully conceptualize until recently. Being alone dictates complete and total autonomy wrt contentment. I have absolutely no one in whole to blame for a foul mood. I have no one in whom to credit for a good mood. No one except myself. The dynamic of being alone for 3 straight days has been a refreshing eye opening experience and it couldn't have come at a more vital time in my life. I am finding peace because being alone has taught me I am not only responsible for myself I am capable of being responsible for myself. ...unless I have to go out and can't find my keys and then I call my husband who reminds me where I always find them. 

Those days of being alone have somehow allowed me to simply accept. From there I greet my husband's return with happiness and appreciation but not from a neediness/anxious void which I expect him to fill. It's been delightful.


----------



## Anon Pink

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> That study was of 2,000 DIVORCED couples. That not just self selection - it's solely self selecting for failure.


If the study consisted of divorced couples, why would the divorced men have rated their marital happiness higher than the divorced women? Seems to me that divorced men might have been just as unhappily married as the divorced women.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> That study was of 2,000 DIVORCED couples. That not just self selection - it's solely self selecting for failure.


Not to mention my study was more recent, so that seems to answer jld's question about if things had changed much.

To me, the message of Gottmans study seems more one of pick the right partner before you get married. To look at how you interact with your partner before making a lifelong commitment. This whole nebulous "influence" word means something different to every individual, and is non specific for that reason and is useless from a practical sense for one wanting a formula or recipe for success...

...if you do this, this, and this, and say this, this, and this, then you will get this outcome...

That is not what he is saying at all, and unfortunately, some people fail to understand that, and thus fall into the single template mentality, and attempt to force fit facts where they either don't exist or don't belong.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> If the study consisted of divorced couples, why would the divorced men have rated their marital happiness higher than the divorced women? Seems to me that divorced men might have been just as unhappily married as the divorced women.


This is one of the weaknesses of applying generalized self reporting studies to specific situations. Looking at actual numerical representations, the study I cited...the marital happiness men reported was 8.5 on a scale of 1-10. Women reported an 8.2 on the same scale, so a 3% difference...a marginal difference, and certainly not a mandate to declare in any useful manner that women are unhappy in their marriage as compared to men...8.5 and 5.7...now that would be useful.

Sort of like the rate your pain chart in hospital...one persons 3 might be another persons 9.

Of course, some generalized ideas such as listen to your partner, take them seriously, respect them...those kinds of things...those are all good common sense bits of advice that apply to most all human interaction, but what those things look like in a specific sense will be different for each couple and each individual.


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> This is one of the weaknesses of applying generalized self reporting studies to specific situations. Looking at actual numerical representations, the study I cited...the marital happiness men reported was 8.5 on a scale of 1-10. Women reported an 8.2 on the same scale, so a 3% difference...a marginal difference, and certainly not a mandate to declare in any useful manner that women are unhappy in their marriage as compared to men...8.5 and 5.7...now that would be useful.
> 
> Sort of like the rate your pain chart in hospital...one persons 3 might be another persons 9.
> 
> Of course, some generalized ideas such as listen to your partner, take them seriously, respect them...those kinds of things...those are all good common sense bits of advice that apply to most all human interaction, but what those things look like in a specific sense will be different for each couple and each individual.


While it may be marginal the significance can't be undervalued as _only_ 3% difference. That is a clear example of minimizing the value. Those pain charts were developed specifically to prohibit clinician from minimizing the value based on where they judge a patient's pain should be. A 3% difference on a pain chart can feel significant to the person in pain.


----------



## jld

I think Gottman's main message to men is to accept influence from women. The women have been accepting influence from men since childhood.

_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._


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> And if Gottman's advice were based on his own personal marital/divorce record, I would likely agree with you.
> 
> But his advice is based on 4 decades (!) of peer-reviewed academic research. That is almost as long as you and I have been alive.


I haven't read Gottman, and I don't particularly care either way, but I am not sure this is true. 

When you cited him I went looking. It's clear that he has relevant academic qualifications and that his statistical model has been subject to peer review. But it's all so clear that he has a for profit business writing and publishing via his own institute, and I found no indication that any of that was peer reviewed, or that his methodology and findings had been reproduced. 

If his claims of a scientific basis are important to you, I would hunt out some of the peers who reviewed his work. If you can't find them, I'd wonder if he is exaggerating on his resume, so to speak.


----------



## MEM2020

Women initiat divorce in the US at about double the rate men do.

That's a very objective measure of unhappiness. 





Anon Pink said:


> While it may be marginal the significance can't be undervalued as _only_ 3% difference. That is a clear example of minimizing the value. Those pain charts were developed specifically to prohibit clinician from minimizing the value based on where they judge a patient's pain should be. A 3% difference on a pain chart can feel significant to the person in pain.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I haven't read Gottman, and I don't particularly care either way, but I am not sure this is true.
> 
> When you cited him I went looking. It's clear that he has relevant academic qualifications and that his statistical model has been subject to peer review. But it's all so clear that he has a for profit business writing and publishing via his own institute, and I found no indication that any of that was peer reviewed, or that his methodology and findings had been reproduced.
> 
> If his claims of a scientific basis are important to you, I would hunt out some of the peers who reviewed his work. If you can't find them, I'd wonder if he is exaggerating on his resume, so to speak.


With as famous as he is, if his research were not sound, it would surely have been outed by now. I have heard that the academic arena is fiercely competitive.

I think some folks here just do not like his message.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think it comes down to trust, not like or dislike. And I think Gottman's advice to men could keep them relevant as women's choices expand during this next century.


You can't have it both ways, though. 

You can't argue that men have capabilities women don't have, and therefore have all these extra responsibilities in the marriage, while at the same time we are in danger of being rendered irrelevant due to our uselessness.

If women can really ditch men, then they can stand up and be equal partners in the marriage. 

Not based on any scientific research, just observation. I'm in my 50s. Watching the divorced people my age, it's mostly the women who are looking for another life partner, and they are frustrated by guys who don't want to commit. The guys are more wary of getting tangled again. Either they don't want that degree of commitment, or they are wary of the financial implications. It's a generalisation, but that's my impression.


----------



## Blondilocks

It is interesting that Gottman was not able to apply his research to his first two marriages. Obviously, he was unable to influence his first two wives.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

:rofl::rofl:


Blondilocks said:


> It is interesting that Gottman was not able to apply his research to his first two marriages. Obviously, he was unable to influence his first two wives.


:rofl:

Post of the day right there
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Where do you think the comparisons to the single men and women mentioned in the article come in?
> 
> And if anyone finds a study saying that unmarried men are the happiest people in the world, followed by married women, then single women, then married men, I invite you to cite it. I think this is an interesting topic, but somewhat tangential to our original one.


There have been ones saying that divorced men are healthiest. You dismissed it last year.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You can't have it both ways, though.
> 
> You can't argue that men have capabilities women don't have, and therefore have all these extra responsibilities in the marriage, while at the same time we are in danger of being rendered irrelevant due to our uselessness.
> 
> If women can really ditch men, then they can stand up and be equal partners in the marriage.
> 
> Not based on any scientific research, just observation. I'm in my 50s. Watching the divorced people my age, it's mostly the women who are looking for another life partner, and they are frustrated by guys who don't want to commit. The guys are more wary of getting tangled again. Either they don't want that degree of commitment, or they are wary of the financial implications. It's a generalisation, but that's my impression.


What capabilities are you specifically referencing?

I am not the only one who thinks men, and marriage, may become irrelevant, as women ascend economically. From the NYT:

_*Men, Who Needs Them?*

MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth — glands that are functional only in the female. And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, ****, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science. 

That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.

The central behaviors of mammals revolve around how we bear and raise our young, and humans are the parenting champions of the class. In the United States, for nearly 20 percent of our life span we are considered the legal responsibility of our parents.

With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents. 

That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead. 

Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother. 

After the two of you left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary. Then, sometime between 12 and 50 years after the two of you left your grandmother, you burst forth and were sucked by her fimbriae into the fallopian tube. You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you. 

Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass. 

Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her. By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. In contrast, your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of **** sapiens 107 billion babies ago.

And while birth seems like a separation, for us mammals it’s just a new form of attachment to our female parent. If your mother breast-fed you, as our species has done for nearly our entire existence, then you suckled from her all your water, protein, sugar, fats and even immune protection. She sampled your diseases by holding you close and kissing you, just as your father might have done; but unlike your father, she responded to your infections by making antibodies that she passed to you in breast milk. 

I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father, or my year at home as a house husband with two young kids. And I credit my own father as the more influential parent in my life. Fathers are of great benefit. But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction. 

If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis. 

It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs. 

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?

Recently, the geneticist J. Craig Venter showed that the entire genetic material of an organism can be synthesized by a machine and then put into what he called an “artificial cell.” This was actually a bit of press-release hyperbole: Mr. Venter started with a fully functional cell, then swapped out its DNA. In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can. 

When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.” 

Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough.

Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project. _


----------



## sapientia

John Gottman is an emeritus prof at University of Washington. I have colleagues who know him. Perhaps some of you don't have access to an academic bibliographic index but he's been publishing since *1969* so, yes, he has over 40 years of experience in this field.

_Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do.
- Dale Carnegie_


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> There have been ones saying that divorced men are healthiest. You dismissed it last year.


Put it out here. Let's look at it.


----------



## Mr The Other

Wazza said:


> You can't have it both ways, though.
> 
> You can't argue that men have capabilities women don't have, and therefore have all these extra responsibilities in the marriage, while at the same time we are in danger of being rendered irrelevant due to our uselessness.
> 
> If women can really ditch men, then they can stand up and be equal partners in the marriage.
> 
> Not based on any scientific research, just observation. I'm in my 50s. Watching the divorced people my age, it's mostly the women who are looking for another life partner, and they are frustrated by guys who don't want to commit. The guys are more wary of getting tangled again. Either they don't want that degree of commitment, or they are wary of the financial implications. It's a generalisation, but that's my impression.


That I must say matches my experience. 

I am wary of getting involved again, wanting plenty of time to assess for hidden neuroses.

The divorced women I have seen can be broadly divided into two, ones who perhaps had an unfulfilling marriage and are cautiously looking for a new partner. The other ones will have more baggage and their attitude towards me can be summed up as "You're lucky I am willing to give you a chance to fulfill my physical, sexual and financial needs, particularly as I was attractive fifteen years ago. But what will I get out of it?"

In other words, those that have come out of marriage with a lot of self-examination and those that have come out spoiled. For most of TAM, I suspect it is self-examination and the latter. But TAM does not represent the whole population.

PS: I am sure divorced men are no easier to date. I merely happen to have not dated men. I offer nothing but the limited scope of my personal experience. You are all very nice.


----------



## Blondilocks

jld, are you trying to put the fear of God into Dug? He already knows you wouldn't be hangin' around if you had to work. Now, it seems you are trying to convince him that he is just plain irrelevant - except for that paycheck. Are you sure you're happily married?


----------



## Mr The Other

Livvie said:


> My thoughts on this are:
> 
> A married man thrives in the structure, the structure a woman brings to his life, the female energy she brings. Women tend to be homemakers (into building a home nest, the "woman's touch"). The home is more comfortable, there will be food in the fridge, regular meals, the bathroom will get cleaned and not smell like a latrine, etc. Plus, being less social than women by nature, when married, men have a built in daily social connection. Women also tend to be caretakers, watching out for his health, making sure he goes to the doctor when sick and so forth. I think men like to be the head of the household, so to speak, the feeling that they have created a family of their own. These are all gross generalizations, but maybe sheds light on why married men are the happiest and unmarried men the least happy.
> 
> I think maybe single women are more happy than married women because often women in long term marriages are unhappy.... They feel like they have to do the majority of child care and household running and work by themselves, and are lacking emotional attention and connection with their husband. That gets old fast, and depressing. It is not fulfilling. It leads to an exhausted, sad woman.
> 
> Single women may not have the benefit of a partner, but they might have less of that kind of sadness, that they are doing it all with a partner who does not add to their life and that hurts their heart.
> 
> I was married for 16 years, two wonderful children, then divorced. I still mourn the loss of my family unit and living full time with my children (we do 50/50). I cry on a weekly basis still, after years!! But I am still happier as a single woman than I was being married to a man who let me do it all and would not be a husband and emotionally connect with me. I think the sadness of having a partner who doesn't connect with you outweighs the sadness of being single.


You should have seen my marriage! :grin2:

I am sorry your ex-husband was an ass.


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Put it out here. Let's look at it.


You dismissed it last year. It is not my job to go and hurry around after stuff you disregarded.

You will dismiss it in any hand as it does not fit with the view you have.

You are a troubled lady and deep down I suspect you realize that.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> You should have seen my marriage! :grin2:
> 
> I am sorry your ex-husband was an ass.


I think I have an idea of it, just by the tone you have used with me. I am not surprised you were not able to influence her.


----------



## sapientia

Here's a link to some of his early publications. His current ideas have clearly evolved from integrating his early work on friendship and social interaction theory. Seems like good stuff to me.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_vis=1&q=john+gottman&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=1980


----------



## Blondilocks

sapientia said:


> John Gottman is an emeritus prof at University of Washington. I have colleagues who know him. Perhaps some of you don't have access to an academic bibliographic index but he's been publishing since *1969* so, yes, he has over 40 years of experience in this field.
> 
> _Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do.
> - Dale Carnegie_


And his first two marriages still failed. If I were going to take marriage advice from someone, it wouldn't be from someone who is on their third.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> You dismissed it last year. It is not my job to go and hurry around after stuff you disregarded.
> 
> You will dismiss it in any hand as it does not fit with the view you have.
> 
> You are a troubled lady and deep down I suspect you realize that.


Show the article or it didn't happen.


----------



## Mr The Other

sapientia said:


> John Gottman is an emeritus prof at University of Washington. I have colleagues who know him. Perhaps some of you don't have access to an academic bibliographic index but he's been publishing since *1969* so, yes, he has over 40 years of experience in this field.
> 
> _Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do.
> - Dale Carnegie_


I do not think many people are dismissing Gottman. What we are dismissing is a dogmatic interpretation of his work from a very narrow minded point of view. I question whether Gottman would readily agree with what jld posts.

PS: A few people are dismissive, I suspect that is because he is being presented as an oracle rather than a researcher.


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> Show the article or it didn't happen.


What I am explaining to you is why people do not take you seriously.


----------



## sapientia

Mr The Other said:


> You dismissed it last year. It is not my job to go and hurry around after stuff you disregarded.
> 
> You will dismiss it in any hand as it does not fit with the view you have.
> 
> *You are a troubled lady and deep down I suspect you realize that.*


I'd like to see the article also. I don't recall the original thread. I assume it was an original research article?

Also, I don't see why you need to insult her, just because she asked you to backup your comment? That kind of thing gets you reported and banned.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> With as famous as he is, if his research were not sound, it would surely have been outed by now. I have heard that the academic arena is fiercely competitive.
> 
> I think some folks here just do not like his message.


I don't particularly care about his message. I have no agenda there. 

I just had a cursory look at the peer review claim because I was curious. I can see his basic statistical models have been subject to peer review. You can find people arguing for and against them. I didn't find the same evidence for his books. It may be out there. But if it's not, that would suggest academics don't see him as having ideas worth examining.

I'm not dismissing him. I would just not accept the "peer reviewed" claim uncritically. It's entirely possible that his is simply talking up his achievements on his resume to sell more books.


----------



## Mr The Other

jld said:


> I think I have an idea of it, just by the tone you have used with me. I am not surprised you were not able to influence her.


Oooh!

Catty!

:grin2:


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> I think I have an idea of it, just by the tone you have used with me. I am not surprised you were not able to influence her.


Hot damn! Another rude one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza

sapientia said:


> John Gottman is an emeritus prof at University of Washington. I have colleagues who know him. Perhaps some of you don't have access to an academic bibliographic index but he's been publishing since *1969* so, yes, he has over 40 years of experience in this field.
> 
> _Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do.
> - Dale Carnegie_


He does. He's also a business man looking at his website. 

I'm not saying he is nothing. I'm asking which bits of his work are peer reviewed.


----------



## Mr The Other

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> He does. He's also a business man looking at his website.
> 
> I'm not saying he is nothing. I'm asking which bits of his work are peer reviewed.


As I understand it, his books are based on his research.

Again, I do not think it is his qualifications that bother people. I think it is the sting of his message.


----------



## Begin again

@SimplyAmourous -

I had not read the item below before (Amazing Relationship truth #7 from your post on page 1), but it rang so very true for me.

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. 

When I tried to get my soon to be ex to eat better, or look at something from a different angle, or influence him in any way, he resisted. Then he would later actually quote something I had said as if he hadn't heard it from me. He was so very stubborn in that way and the only thing I can think of is that it undermined his masculinity for me to be right about something? And it made me give up on him, that's for sure. If he actually liked and agreed with my suggestions (sometimes) and ideas but attributed them to some other source (or said he couldn't recall where he'd heard it), why bother?


----------



## sapientia

Blondilocks said:


> And his first two marriages still failed. If I were going to take marriage advice from someone, it wouldn't be from someone who is on their third.


You do understand that one doesn't need to be an opera singer in order to analyze performances? The data is what it is.

I take your point but I suspect this guy was so focussed on his research, he neglected his early marriages. It's common for single-minded researchers.

You are also ignoring all the other people involved in this research. After 40 years, this guy has a dozen grad students who have become researchers in this area in their own right. Unlikely that all of them also have multiple failed marriages.

Perhaps you are allowing emotion to cloud your reason so you throw the baby out with the bathwater?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> What capabilities are you specifically referencing?


I'm not. I think men and women can be equal partners.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I'm not. I think men and women can be equal partners.


You said that I said men have capabilities women do not. I would like you to tell me what they are.


----------



## jld

Begin again said:


> @SimplyAmourous -
> 
> I had not read the item below before (Amazing Relationship truth #7 from your post on page 1), but it rang so very true for me.
> 
> 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.
> 
> When I tried to get my soon to be ex to eat better, or look at something from a different angle, or influence him in any way, he resisted. Then he would later actually quote something I had said as if he hadn't heard it from me.* He was so very stubborn in that way and the only thing I can think of is that it undermined his masculinity for me to be right about something?* And it made me give up on him, that's for sure. If he actually liked and agreed with my suggestions (sometimes) and ideas but attributed them to some other source (or said he couldn't recall where he'd heard it), why bother?


Reminds me of this thread.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> You said that I said men have capabilities women do not. I would like you to tell me what they are.


Well according to Gottman we are the ones who have the power to make or break a marriage. Women don't.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


I think this article is based on the study cited above. It may be easier to read:

Marriage is more beneficial for men than women, study shows


----------



## sapientia

Wazza said:


> He does. He's also a business man looking at his website.
> 
> I'm not saying he is nothing. I'm asking which bits of his work are peer reviewed.


Go have a look at the google scholar link I posted. He's solid. You don't have to agree with his conclusions, since all data is subject to interpretation, but he makes some really compelling arguments, IMO.

There is nothing wrong with profit from research. Naive to suggest otherwise. It doesn't invalidate his work in the slightest.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Well according to Gottman we are the ones who have the power to make or break a marriage. Women don't.


And it is mainly through accepting her influence.

Wazza, Gottman is trying to help men. His research could prevent them from becoming irrelevant. I am not sure why you are objecting to it.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> Oooh!
> 
> Catty!
> 
> :grin2:


Defensiveness does not become a man, MTO. That is part of Gottman's message.


----------



## sapientia

Wazza said:


> Well according to Gottman we are the ones who have the power to make or break a marriage. *Women don't.*


Is this what his research actually says, or is this an (over?) simplified interpretation?

It takes two to make a thing go right...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0


----------



## jld

jld said:


> Something similar to this, which is from Gottman's site, is quoted in the article. It certainly seems true to me.
> 
> _"Results from Dr. Gottman’s research prove a simple truth: men make or break heterosexual relationships. This does not mean that a woman doesn’t need to do her part, but the data proves that a man’s actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship succeeds or fails, which is ironic since most relationship books are written for women."_


 @sapientia


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
If you want Dug to want to spend more time with you - you might try to recognize that - defensiveness is a universally unappealing trait. 

And there is a level of repetitiveness that is indistinguishable from classically 'controlling' behavior. 






jld said:


> Defensiveness does not become a man, MTO. That is part of Gottman's message.


----------



## samyeagar

sapientia said:


> Is this what his research actually says, or is this an (over?) simplified interpretation?
> 
> It takes two to make a thing go right...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0


That is what jld's interpretation of his message seems to be, which is right in line with her mantra here on TAM.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> If you want Dug to want to spend more time with you - you might try to recognize that - defensiveness is a universally unappealing trait.
> 
> And there is a level of repetitiveness that is indistinguishable from classically 'controlling' behavior.


He does not think I am defensive, MEM. 

And I am simply consistent. Gottman has had to be, too.


----------



## sapientia

I need to read the Time article more carefully, which means I need to log into the university library remotely. I'll do that later today. I suspect that quote is a simplification of Dr. Gottman's research conclusions. Certainly I'd be shocked if he said women don't have power over their marriages, which is VERY different from saying that men's actions and attitudes have a significant influence on a healthy marriage or divorce. The former quote would never make it past peer review, not using absolute language of that sort. Those who want the source material can look up the Google Scholar link I posted.

BTW, reporters and media people often misquote researchers findings. We have to correct things on a regular basis. Sometimes it's deliberate yellow journalism to sell papers and sometimes it's just simply they aren't subject matter experts so they get it wrong, or provide an incomplete interpretation. The researchers rarely get a chance to review a news article before it gets published.

I wouldn't assume Dr. Gottman is the problem here.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> I need to read the Time article more carefully, which means I need to log into the university library remotely. I'll do that later today. I suspect that quote is a simplification of Dr. Gottman's research conclusions. That kind of quote would never make it past peer review, not using absolute language of that sort. Those who want the source material can look up the Google Scholar link I posted.
> 
> BTW, reporters and media people often misquote researchers findings. We have to correct things on a regular basis. Sometimes it's deliberate yellow journalism to sell papers and sometimes it's just simply they aren't subject matter experts so they get it wrong, or provide an incomplete interpretation. The researchers rarely get a chance to review a news article before it gets published.
> 
> I wouldn't assume Dr. Gottman is the problem here.


It is quoted directly from his site. It is regarding his new book, A Man's Guide to Women.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> He does not think I am defensive, MEM.
> 
> And I am simply consistent. Gottman has had to be, too.


Do you feel that there are some women out there that are simply not influencable in the way you believe Gottman is referring to?

Do you feel there are women out there that your husband Dug would not be able to influence?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Do you feel that there are some women out there that are simply not influencable in the way you believe Gottman is referring to?
> 
> Do you feel there are women out there that your husband Dug would not be able to influence?


Yes. Dug is able to influence me because he has the qualities I respect and admire: intelligence and good character. If he did not have those, I would not trust him, and would therefore not be open to his influence.

Women who do not value those things, or not in the specific ways that Dug has them, would likely not be influenced by him. That is where natural compatibility comes in.

It is also possible for influence to be lost. I think that is what happens in a lot of marriages when the man does not do the things Gottman's research has suggested.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> It is quoted directly from his site. It is regarding his new book, A Man's Guide to Women.


That's a quote from the publisher. It's more damning since he's clearly approved it being on his site, but still hyperbole.

The language doesn't say women don't have power over their marriages.

I guess I'll have to get the book too. Should be a fun read.

EDIT - or maybe not given the reviews on amazon.ca. LOL.

_I adore Gottman but this book, while having a lot of sound information, is so dumbed down I found it insulting to men. Each chapter is ended with a "Cheat Sheet" page where a man can find out if he is a "Hero" or a "Zero." Hints like "Shopping is in a woman's DNA" made it difficult for me to feel confidant in the rest of the info. Super disappointing._


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> That's a quote from the publisher. It's more damning since he's clearly approved it being on his site, but still hyperbole.
> 
> The language doesn't say women don't have power over their marriages.
> 
> I guess I'll have to get the book too. Should be a fun read.


He says women have to do their part. But his research must have shown that the solution to problems in marriage points more to men. 

Have you read his 12 Relationship Truths? I will try to link it, or just copy it.


----------



## jld

"Hero or Zero"? That's funny.


----------



## jld

_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 thatn those who lower their expectations.

Condensed from The Seven Principles of Making a Marriage Work by John Gottman. A recommended read!!! Based on lots of meticulous research with actual couples._


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> He says women have to do their part. *But his research must have shown that the solution to problems in marriage points more to men. *
> 
> Have you read his 12 Relationship Truths? I will try to link it, or just copy it.


Yeah, I've never been comfortable with statements like "his research *must have* shown...". It either does or it doesn't.

I'll have to go hunt it down. I'm off on holiday atm, but am supposed to be cleaning my office. LOL. I'll take a stab at looking up the references later. My curiosity is now piqued.

I'll take a look at the 12 Relationship Truths. LOL, what a title. I was first introduced to Gottman re: 4 horsemen, which was certainly indicative in my own divorce, so he seems to get some of it right from my POV at least anecdotally.


----------



## Blondilocks

sapientia said:


> You do understand that one doesn't need to be an opera singer in order to analyze performances? The data is what it is.
> 
> I take your point but I suspect this guy was so focussed on his research, he neglected his early marriages. It's common for single-minded researchers.
> 
> You are also ignoring all the other people involved in this research. After 40 years, this guy has a dozen grad students who have become researchers in this area in their own right. Unlikely that all of them also have multiple failed marriages.
> 
> Perhaps you are allowing emotion to cloud your reason so you throw the baby out with the bathwater?


1. Yes, mother

2. Oh, well, that's a justifiable excuse

3. Yes, I am. Gottman is the one being discussed - not his dozen grad students.

4. Doubt it. I was married, once, for 43 years 'til death. Maybe I can tell Gottman how to stay married?


----------



## john117

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> With over 15,000 posts, you must have a super fast computer, and be an amazing speed reader. You didn't address the sheer amount of time you spend here. Honestly, I don't believe you have much of a life going on outside of TAM with that many posts. I'm not trying to be mean, but with my 1,200+ posts, I know how long it takes to read and post here.


You'll be surprised at how little time it actually takes.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> Yeah, I've never been comfortable with statements like "his research *must have* shown...". It either does or it doesn't.
> 
> I'll have to go hunt it down. I'm off on holiday atm, but am supposed to be cleaning my office. LOL. I'll take a stab at looking up the references later. My curiosity is now piqued.
> 
> I'll take a look at the 12 Relationship Truths. LOL, what a title. I was first introduced to Gottman re: 4 horsemen, which was certainly indicative in my own divorce, so he seems to get some of it right from my POV at least anecdotally.


If it did not show it, why would he have said men make or break the relationship?


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


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


_

Those all seem reasonable to me._


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> Those all seem reasonable to me. What's the problem with those?


Nothing, to me.


----------



## john117

MattMatt said:


> The problem is that the studies can be biased. Only selecting people who fit the criteria of the researcher, for example.
> 
> Also, remember the study back in the 1950s that showed butter was very bad for you and that margarine was a wonderful, healthful food?
> 
> Turns out all the data was faked.


Sounds like psychology research to me. All except cognitive / experimental psychology that is 

Seriously, peer reviewed stuff usually considers such things. The hard part is to go from rats to people or from a small study group to a population. 

I have some questions about his methodology but I would not invalidate his work altogether.


----------



## sapientia

Blondilocks said:


> 1. Yes, mother
> 
> 2. Oh, well, that's a justifiable excuse
> 
> 3. Yes, I am. Gottman is the one being discussed - not his dozen grad students.
> 
> 4. Doubt it. I was married, once, for 43 years 'til death. Maybe I can tell Gottman how to stay married?


1. LOL. Not a problem, Child.

2. ??? it is simply a hypothesis.

3. No, it is Gottman's RESEARCH that is being discussed.

4. There is nothing stopping you from publishing and sharing your vast experience.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> If it did not show it, why would he have said men make or break the relationship?


Like I said, without the actual research, I don't know at this point how to distinguish what he actually said vs. what a publisher -- whose job it is to sell his books -- said. So I'm withholding opinion until I've done a bit more research. No difference from a practical POV but it makes a difference to how much weight I give a particular statement. I have to make judgements on stuff I read for a living, tho.


----------



## sapientia

samyeagar said:


> Do you feel that there are some women out there that are simply not influencable in the way you believe Gottman is referring to?


I agree with this^.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> Like I said, without the actual research, I don't know at this point how to distinguish what he actually said vs. what a publisher -- whose job it is to sell his books -- said. So I'm withholding opinion until I've done a bit more research. No difference from a practical POV but it makes a difference to how much weight I give a particular statement. I have to make judgements on stuff I read for a living, tho.


I think it makes sense just from that summary. Did you see how much focus he put on men, specifically?


----------



## Blondilocks

sapienta, perhaps you have the interest to research who his grad students were who were involved in his research and determine how their marriages fared. I don't. The research is under Gottman's name so he gets the kudos or the barbs.


----------



## Anon Pink

MEM11363 said:


> Women initiat divorce in the US at about double the rate men do.
> 
> That's a very objective measure of unhappiness.




Which suggests that women are less happy married than men are. Or that women have a lower threshold for unhappiness than men do. Or that men are better at being unhappy than women are. Or that women are quicker to action than men are. Or that men are oblivious to the unhappiness of women. Or that men are just all around happier than women are.


----------



## sapientia

Yes, I saw. I'm just wary of over-interpreting what his research actually suggests, particularly in light of what experience tells us. I'm not waffling, just wanting to understand the foundation before I comment further. Blame it on years of being mentally beaten into considering various alternatives for how data -- of varying quality -- best maps reality.

Consider, even if your interpretation is correct, and Gottman is essentially laying all responsibility for marriage quality on men... what are the ramifications of that kind of statement? Many young men are already questioning the value of marriage to them. It's arguably a sh!tty ROI if the data says "Guys, your women are just along for the ride... its all up to YOU, man, if you want to have a good marriage."

Do I believe this statement^, no, but it is a possible unintended consequence.

I would certainly ask my young son to think long and hard about the pros & cons of marriage if this was the expectation of his spouse.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> Which suggests that women are less happy married than men are. Or that women have a lower threshold for unhappiness than men do. Or that men are better at being unhappy than women are. Or that women are quicker to action than men are. Or that men are oblivious to the unhappiness of women. Or that men are just all around happier than women are.


Hence the correlation vs causation dilemma


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Since your post was in response to @farsidejunky post about men dealing with infidelity, in particular the bolded above just reads as BS. What you are saying is that if a man gets cheated on and decides to end the relationship b/c a core moral belief of his (fidelity) was broken, then he is weak and selfish... It is interesting, he should act in the best interest of the woman and children, but in the example such as this, the woman has no responsibility to act in the best interest of the man or the children.
> 
> You want to know what is strong (for both men AND women), sticking to your core moral beliefs (which in this case means not cheating when involved in a monogamous relationship). Likewise, strength is kicking your SO to the curb if they cheat on you, and find someone who shares your same beliefs instead of compromising your own... Now, I am in no way saying someone who decides to work through infidelity is weak, far from it, I think that is a very respectable option. However, classifying someone (a male really) as being weak because he won't bend when a core moral value of his is $h1t on is just nonsense.










.. couldn't agree more .... I was reading in one of my books last night >> Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love  .. It said:



> Men bristle over actual or imagined sexual fidelity. This male bias may have an evolutionary origin. A man runs a considerable risk if he is C0**holded: he could expend an enormous amount of time & energy raising another man's DNA


(as @drifting on DID for 2 & a half years not knowing!).. how he even stayed with her blows my mind. I personally feel it's one of the gravest injustices to SO to a man.. maybe this is because I think so highly / affectionately of "Family".. I don't know. 



> If men fear being C0**holded, women fear being abandoned -emotionally and financially .


 One could argue in our feministic "women don't need men anymore" society this is no longer true....but women will always carry these babies & during that time , she is very vulnerable. I've known a couple women on BED REST for months during pregnancy.. it's pretty dang important for the man to be able to "carry us" through some of this where we may not have our career at the forefront...it's certainly [email protected]#... 

A true blessing to have that option if it's needed.. it was surely something valuable TO ME ..and how true. I did NOT want abandoned Emotionally... 

The book did go on to say (and @jld will heartily agree)..." So if the relationship begins to founder, women take steps to overcome the obstacles..

I just wanted to point out.. I do feel this is a paramount issue for men.. it is the RAREST of men who will go above & beyond if he was betrayed in this way..It's different if he meets the woman later & she has kids, that sort of thing...but the triggering there with this brand of Betrayal .. I can't even fathom... it's the gravest injustice. 

Yes...both need to hold up their end of the marital vows , to have & to hold, forsaking all others....or there is every right for it to be broken & crushed.. .or we ultimately belittle faithfulness & commitment ... That's just not Ok.


----------



## Anon Pink

Mr The Other said:


> Oooh!
> 
> Catty!
> 
> :grin2:





pidge70 said:


> Hot damn! Another rude one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




I like both of you but you don't get to call jld out for snapping. In just 60 posts in this thread along there have been at least 8 posts that were catty and rude to her before she started snapping back. Perhaps she needs to start snapping back sooner and harder?


----------



## pidge70

Anon Pink said:


> I like both of you but you don't get to call jld out for snapping. In just 60 posts in this thread along there have been at least 8 posts that were catty and rude to her before she started snapping back. Perhaps she needs to start snapping back sooner and harder?


She gives every bit as good as she gets. Pun intended.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Blondilocks said:


> sapienta, perhaps you have the interest to research who his grad students were who were involved in his research and determine how their marriages fared. I don't. The research is under Gottman's name so he gets the kudos or the barbs.


If an oncologist gets cancer do we discount her credentials?

Ooh even better... Why do celebrate priests counsel on marriage and birth control?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Well, Elegirl said once that married men are the happiest people in the world, *followed by single women*. And women are increasingly outearning men. *Maybe in the future women will just get impregnated from a sperm bank and avoid marriage altogether.*


Very sad .. but you're probably right. I would not enjoy being single.. I just know me.. I literally pray me & hubs lives a long long time so I won't have to face the single scene.. 

This has little to do with worrying about money or being taken care of... I'd be OK there... but still.. I'd long to tie myself to a good man & enjoy Romance & togetherness.. I can't relate to women who don't have this desire.. they are foreign to me.


----------



## pidge70

Anon Pink said:


> If an oncologist gets cancer do we discount her credentials?
> 
> Ooh even better... Why do celebrate priests counsel on marriage and birth control?


Did you mean celibate?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> Yes, I saw. I'm just wary of over-interpreting what his research actually suggests, particularly in light of what experience tells us. I'm not waffling, just wanting to understand the foundation before I comment further. Blame it on years of being mentally beaten into considering various alternatives for how data -- of varying quality -- best maps reality.
> 
> Consider, even if your interpretation is correct, and Gottman is essentially laying all responsibility for marriage quality on men... what are the ramifications of that kind of statement? Many young men are already questioning the value of marriage to them. It's arguably a sh!tty ROI if the data says "Guys, your women are just along for the ride... its all up to YOU, man, if you want to have a good marriage."
> 
> Do I believe this statement^, no, but it is a possible unintended consequence.
> 
> I would certainly ask my young son to think long and hard about the pros & cons of marriage if this was the expectation of his spouse.


I don't think we should push marriage on men. I think we should just continue to help women develop themselves. I think that alone will go a long way towards sorting things out.

And I think quality men will always do fine for themselves. They will sense quality in a woman, like a tuning fork.


----------



## Anon Pink

pidge70 said:


> Did you mean celibate?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Damn auto correct!


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> I like both of you but you don't get to call jld out for snapping. In just 60 posts in this thread along there have been at least 8 posts that were catty and rude to her before she started snapping back. Perhaps she needs to start snapping back sooner and harder?


I did not think I was snapping. I really do think his tone with me gives me an eye view into how he likely treated his wife, which would explain his losing his influence on her (if he did have it). 

I was hoping he would reflect on it, as I think it could help him. But that is certainly up to him.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Very sad .. but you're probably right. I would not enjoy being single.. I just know me.. I literally pray me & hubs lives a long long time so I won't have to face the single scene..
> 
> This has little to do with worrying about money or being taken care of... I'd be OK there... but still.. I'd long to tie myself to a good man & enjoy Romance & togetherness.. I can't relate to women who don't have this desire.. they are foreign to me.


I love Dug very much. And I will be very sad when he dies.

But he gave me the gift of children. And they will sustain me when that very sad day comes.


----------



## sapientia

Blondilocks said:


> sapienta, perhaps you have the interest to research who his grad students were who were involved in his research and determine how their marriages fared. I don't. The research is under Gottman's name so he gets the kudos or the barbs.


Cool, post sh!t about the guy's personal life all you like. But trying to invalidate an entire body of research on the basis of the personal life of one man is simply wrong. Dr. Gottman's publications -- his research -- has multiple authors is a fact, not an opinion. The research is a product of many people's research over several decades. Whether you *like* the guy or not is immaterial to the validity of the research.


----------



## sapientia

Anon Pink said:


> I like both of you but you don't get to call jld out for snapping. In just 60 posts in this thread along there have been at least 8 posts that were catty and rude to her before she started snapping back. Perhaps she needs to start snapping back sooner and harder?



I've reported a bunch of posts in this thread. I'm surprised MEM as a mod hasn't engaged. Maybe I should PM another mod?

It would be nice if everyone could stick to the discussion and take it less personally.


----------



## jld

The research is meant to help people. If some people reject it based on his personal life, they may be missing a chance to help themselves.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I think it depends on the person.
> *
> Some work full-time, usually in some sort of professional or lucrative field. I have also read about women starting businesses and then hiring a manager to run the day to day while she spends the bulk of time with her child/ren.
> 
> I am not really sure how much different it is than for some women married to uninvolved fathers. But this way the mother does not have any custody concerns in the event of a breakup.


Would this sort of life appeal to YOU @jld ? Do you really think it would be good to have kids..and not have a fathers's involvement ? 

I realize many don't have it today.. so it's become commonplace.. I just don't think it's a GOOD THING -like many seem to feel.

I dislike many of the things I see today in society.. how the sexes treat each other, it's only causing more of a divide..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Would this sort of life appeal to YOU @jld ? Do you really think it would be good to have kids..and not have a fathers's involvement ?
> 
> I realize many don't have it today.. so it's become commonplace.. I just don't think it's a GOOD THING -like many seem to feel.
> 
> I dislike many of the things I see today in society.. how the sexes treat each other, it's only causing more of a divide..


I would like every woman to have as loving and devoted a husband as Dug, SA. And every child to have as committed a father. I am so very grateful to him.

But if men cannot keep up with women and their educational and economical ascension, I think what I have described may happen. Women just do not have to settle anymore. 

And honestly, Gottman is trying very hard to get men up to the level!


----------



## Wazza

sapientia said:


> That's a quote from the publisher. It's more damning since he's clearly approved it being on his site, but still hyperbole.
> 
> The language doesn't say women don't have power over their marriages.
> 
> I guess I'll have to get the book too. Should be a fun read.
> 
> EDIT - or maybe not given the reviews on amazon.ca. LOL.
> 
> _I adore Gottman but this book, while having a lot of sound information, is so dumbed down I found it insulting to men. Each chapter is ended with a "Cheat Sheet" page where a man can find out if he is a "Hero" or a "Zero." Hints like "Shopping is in a woman's DNA" made it difficult for me to feel confidant in the rest of the info. Super disappointing._


I think we are on the same page, based on this. Yes he's a serious academic - world class I would say - but that doesn't mean everything he ever wrote is peer reviewed research, or that every person who quotes his research is making a scientifically valid statement. 

Nothing wrong with for profit research b the way, and no reason that stuff is invalid just because it came from elsewhere. I find Esther Perel's work useful for example, even though it is not scientifically rigorous as I understand it. 

While Gottman might make money from his work it's a noble thing to try and help others have better lives, and bills still have to be paid.


----------



## Wazza

sapientia said:


> Yes, I saw. I'm just wary of over-interpreting what his research actually suggests, particularly in light of what experience tells us. I'm not waffling, just wanting to understand the foundation before I comment further. Blame it on years of being mentally beaten into considering various alternatives for how data -- of varying quality -- best maps reality.
> 
> Consider, even if your interpretation is correct, and Gottman is essentially laying all responsibility for marriage quality on men... what are the ramifications of that kind of statement? Many young men are already questioning the value of marriage to them. It's arguably a sh!tty ROI if the data says "Guys, your women are just along for the ride... its all up to YOU, man, if you want to have a good marriage."
> 
> Do I believe this statement^, no, but it is a possible unintended consequence.
> 
> I would certainly ask my young son to think long and hard about the pros & cons of marriage if this was the expectation of his spouse.


Just quoting this because people should read it more than once.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I love Dug very much. And I will be very sad when he dies.
> 
> *But he gave me the gift of children. And they will sustain me when that very sad day comes.*


I tend to look at it like this.. our children will have their own lives... I'd still seek to find a man! I'd want someone to watch movies with, fool around with, take walks with, vacation with... fight with so we can have make up sex.. I'm kidding.. (well maybe half)... 

Can't do all that with our kids ..


----------



## sapientia

Wazza said:


> I think we are on the same page, based on this. Yes he's a serious academic - world class I would say - but that doesn't mean everything he ever wrote is peer reviewed research, or that every person who quotes his research is making a scientifically valid statement.


Yes, so long as this isn't used as an excuse to invalidate *anything* he publishes either, I'd say we are in agreement.

I'm sure there are some men who find this stuff useful for interacting with their wives. I'm sure there are just as many wives who use these books as a reason to say "See! THIS is why you suck as a husband." Which isn't going to get positive results either.

Personally, I found the 4 horsemen stuff useful for thinking about the issues in my previous marriage. It gave me a framework to understand some areas that needed work and, after a year of effort with a counsellor, to make a decision about ending a marriage that wasn't working for either of us. One of the best decisions of my life and no regrets, b/c I put the effort into making sure it was the best decision for everyone involved. Frameworks can be helpful for that reason.

My point is that, in the end, no amount of reading from any expert is going to replace the hard work that is required from *both* spouses to improve a distressed marriage.


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> Which suggests that women are less happy married than men are. Or that women have a lower threshold for unhappiness than men do. Or that men are better at being unhappy than women are. Or that women are quicker to action than men are. Or that men are oblivious to the unhappiness of women. Or that men are just all around happier than women are.


I'll be really curious what same sex marriage bares out 20 years from now. In many ways they are good examples of what issues are indeed gender based.

Now same sex marriages are all fairly short just because they haven't been able to marry for long. Plus so many marriages among same sex couples are those that have wanted to marry for a long time so they are skewing the data as they've been in a LTR for many years already.

One area already demonstrated by this is intimate partner violence. Nearly 1/3 of hetero couples have reported violence in at least one relationship, more than 1/2 of lesbians have reported the same, and less than 1/5 gay men have.


----------



## Wazza

sapientia said:


> Is this what his research actually says, or is this an (over?) simplified interpretation?
> 
> It takes two to make a thing go right...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0


I was quoting JLD. I think she is trying to sustain two contradictory arguments and this of was one of them. 

Either men have powers and capabilities women don't have, and so are needed, or they serve no useful purpose and are in danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't think both of these can be simultaneously true, at least without further qualification.

She's going down the route of arguing that people who question him are afraid or his ideas in posts like the one below. Since I've said I'm not afraid of them, yet she keeps coming back to that, we've probably taken that discussion as far as we are going to. 



jld said:


> As I understand it, his books are based on his research.
> 
> Again, I do not think it is his qualifications that bother people. I think it is the sting of his message.


----------



## Wazza

larry.gray said:


> I'll be really curious what same sex marriage bares out 20 years from now. In many ways they are good examples of what issues are indeed gender based.
> 
> Now same sex marriages are all fairly short just because they haven't been able to marry for long. Plus so many marriages among same sex couples are those that have wanted to marry for a long time so they are skewing the data as they've been in a LTR for many years already.
> 
> One area already demonstrated by this is intimate partner violence. Nearly 1/3 of hetero couples have reported violence in at least one relationship, more than 1/2 of lesbians have reported the same, and less than 1/5 gay men have.


I see those LTR as de facto marriages already.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I tend to look at it like this.. our children will have their own lives... I'd still seek to find a man! I'd want someone to watch movies with, fool around with, take walks with, vacation with... fight with so we can have make up sex.. I'm kidding.. (well maybe half)...
> 
> Can't do all that with our kids ..


If another man wants me after Dug is gone, he can find me. I will stick with my kids.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Yes. Dug is able to influence me because he has the qualities I respect and admire: intelligence and good character. If he did not have those, I would not trust him, and would therefore not be open to his influence.
> 
> Women who do not value those things, or not in the specific ways that Dug has them, would likely not be influenced by him. That is where natural compatibility comes in.
> 
> It is also possible for influence to be lost. I think that is what happens in a lot of marriages when the man does not do the things Gottman's research has suggested.


I'm quoting this for two reasons. 

First, because I think your notion of natural compatibility is key. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all solution. 

Secondly, to acknowledge the good things Dug brings into your life, and the effort he makes for his kids. I respect that too.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I was quoting JLD. I think she is trying to sustain two contradictory arguments and this of was one of them.
> 
> Either men have powers and capabilities women don't have, and so are needed, or they serve no useful purpose and are in danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't think both of these can be simultaneously true, at least without further qualification.
> 
> She's going down the route of arguing that people who question him are afraid or his ideas in posts like the one below. Since I've said I'm not afraid of them, yet she keeps coming back to that, we've probably taken that discussion as far as we are going to.


I do not think marriage is necessary. I do not think it benefits women as much as men. They should think very hard as to whether the man is worth what they are likely to give him.

I think women who want children would do well to consider the advantages of artificial insemination, and weigh it against the likely contribution of the man they are with. Custody battles can be hell.

But if men are in a marriage, and want it to be successful, they would do well to heed Gottman's suggestions to them.

Is that clear, Wazza?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> *One of the key factors seems to be...children*. Both men and women are happiest in the first few years of a relationship, be it married or defacto marriage...with no dependent children. * The most unhappy men and women are the ones in long term relationships with kids. * Women just get unhappier quicker is all.


 *I was most UNHAPPY when we couldn't have kids*.. go figure !... why we're all different !...

We both wanted children -from the get go...a house full of them... this never changed.. 

Imagining our lives without our children.. .. I just can't go there....

They have brought us so much.. I am so thankful I get tears in my eyes thinking about it.. but still...we crave our romantic time... just shutting them out... that's well & good too! 

Statistics & studies of various kinds are an interesting read.. though one has to wonder the intent of the author too.. what is the underlying message he/she is trying to get across? ....as we've known a pretty good many who enjoy family.. and being married... I've known many single women who want to find authentic love too.. wishing they had it... Some of this may depend on where we live (more city or country)... our beliefs even.. to what shapes our happiness.. 

Someone who is focused on High Success.. driven by ambition to get ahead.. I can see where having children could slow them down...or cause too much stress..


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I do not think marriage is necessary. I do not think it benefits women as much as men. They should think very hard as to whether the man is worth what they are likely to give him.
> 
> I think women who want children would do well to consider the advantages of artificial insemination, and weigh it against the likely contribution of the man they are with. Custody battles can be hell.
> 
> But if men are in a marriage, and want it to be successful, they would do well to heed Gottman's suggestions to them.
> 
> Is that clear, Wazza?


Tell me why you are married. I believe you see Dug as worth it. Am I wrong?


----------



## jld

A further thought. If women simply want to be or stay married, not worrying about happiness, necessarily, they may be able to achieve that by bypassing Gottman's advice to husbands and simply taking charge of the relationship themselves. 

They assume all responsibility, particularly in emotional care of the man, but perhaps in financial matters, physical labor, childcare, as well. They do the active listening, they comfort and support, they soothe his heart and body with their words and ministrations. Nothing is required of him. She is the dominant partner, on whom the stability of the marriage rests.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Tell me why you are married. I believe you see Dug as worth it. Am I wrong?


Of course he is. Do you think I would have had all these children with a lesser man?


----------



## sapientia

Wazza said:


> I was quoting JLD. I think she is trying to sustain two contradictory arguments and this of was one of them.
> 
> Either men have powers and capabilities women don't have, and so are needed, or they serve no useful purpose and are in danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't think both of these can be simultaneously true, at least without further qualification.
> 
> She's going down the route of arguing that people who question him are afraid or his ideas in posts like the one below. Since I've said I'm not afraid of them, yet she keeps coming back to that, we've probably taken that discussion as far as we are going to.


Well, one thing that sites like TAM prove repeatedly is there are no experts on this topic, only folks on a journey along the continuum.

Even folks who have been blessed with a single, lifelong marriage can be very myopic in their POV on what makes a marriage successful. IMO, those folks can attribute much of their success to luck as to their skill at marriage. Also, just because a marriage is long doesn't mean its satisfying to the spouses. Plenty of examples of this on TAM also.

From my own experience, my first marriage would never have happened if I had dated more. It certainly wouldn't have dragged out for 20 years. I would have had the experience to know our personalities weren't a good fit in the long term and I would have had enough experiences in other areas of life (e.g. work and business) to been more comfortable making the decision to end it.

For the young men following this thread, here is some perhaps counter intuitive advice to what you have been told, but is what I share with my almost ready-to-launch teenage son about dating and women: 

You want to find a "nice girl", yes, as this will make you (and mom) happy.  But beware women who are "the marrying kind" if they are young and haven't had much experience. This may seem like a good thing at the time but it will come back to bite you later. What you want is to find a woman who is comfortable in her own skin and has experience at making hard decisions. This means living away from parents, having a job with enough income to be self-sufficient (i.e. living within her means w/o mom & dad), and ideally having experience having to end a bad situation, whether at work or a relationship, and can do it with some grace and w/o leaving a trail of bodies behind.

This isn't sexist, btw. My advice is the same for women seeking men, except men are trained early to exhibit more of this independent behaviour, IMO. They are not instructed to seek it out in their wives, however, as often.


----------



## john117

sapientia said:


> I've reported a bunch of posts in this thread. I'm surprised MEM as a mod hasn't engaged. Maybe I should PM another mod?
> 
> It would be nice if everyone could stick to the discussion and take it less personally.


Where's the fun there? 😂😂😂


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> They assume all responsibility, particularly in emotional care of the man, but perhaps in financial matters, physical labor, childcare, as well. They do the active listening, they comfort and support, they soothe his heart and body with their words and ministrations. Nothing is required of him. She is the dominant partner, on whom the stability of the marriage rests.


Introducing my first marriage. One classic moment, him to me, when we were discussing our marriage issues and why he refused counselling:
"It's your job to figure out what I need and how to help me!"

Oh yeah, those were the days. My psychology degree was absolutely NO help, lol. BTW, I'm sure I was a b!tch too, as I was asking him for things he simply wasn't equipped to give. It was equal opportunity incompatibility.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> If another man wants me after Dug is gone, he can find me. I will stick with my kids.


To quote my sexless marriage and open affair buddy Fred, "when you see my face on the milk carton and MISSING under it, I will be smiling".


----------



## sapientia

john117 said:


> Where's the fun there? 😂😂😂


It wasn't.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> Introducing my first marriage. One classic moment, him to me, when we were discussing our marriage issues and why he refused counselling:
> "It's your job to figure out what I need and how to help me!"
> 
> Oh yeah, those were the days. My psychology degree was absolutely NO help, lol. BTW, I'm sure I was a b!tch too, as I was asking him for things he simply wasn't equipped to give. It was equal opportunity incompatibility.


----------



## Blondilocks

Anon Pink said:


> If an oncologist gets cancer do we discount her credentials?
> 
> Ooh even better... Why do celebrate priests counsel on marriage and birth control?


Your post makes no sense in response to mine. That said: I wouldn't discount her credentials.

I have no idea why priests counsel on marriage and birth control. They're hardly qualified.


----------



## Wazza

sapientia said:


> Well, one thing that sites like TAM prove repeatedly is there are no experts on this topic, only folks on a journey along the continuum.
> 
> Even folks who have been blessed with a single, lifelong marriage can be very myopic in their POV on what makes a marriage successful. IMO, those folks can attribute much of their success to luck as to their skill at marriage. Also, just because a marriage is long doesn't mean its satisfying to the spouses. Plenty of examples of this on TAM also.
> 
> From my own experience, my first marriage would never have happened if I had dated more. It certainly wouldn't have dragged out for 20 years. I would have had the experience to know our personalities weren't a good fit in the long term and I would have had enough experiences in other areas of life (e.g. work and business) to been more comfortable making the decision to end it.
> 
> For the young men following this thread, here is some perhaps counter intuitive advice to what you have been told, but is what I share with my almost ready-to-launch teenage son about dating and women:
> 
> You want to find a "nice girl", yes, as this will make you (and mom) happy.  But beware women who are "the marrying kind" if they are young and haven't had much experience. This may seem like a good thing at the time but it will come back to bite you later. What you want is to find a woman who is comfortable in her own skin and has experience at making hard decisions. This means living away from parents, having a job with enough income to be self-sufficient (i.e. living within her means w/o mom & dad), and ideally having experience having to end a bad situation, whether at work or a relationship, and can do it with some grace and w/o leaving a trail of bodies behind.
> 
> This isn't sexist, btw. My advice is the same for women seeking men, except men are trained early to exhibit more of this independent behaviour, IMO. They are not instructed to seek it out in their wives, however, as often.


All stuff I very much agree with. I'd also throw in that it's worth sustaining a degree of self sufficiency post marriage. It's dangerous to be trapped in a marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blossom Leigh said:


> You are correct because *I would never hold Gottman as a marriage guru when he has been divorced twice.*
> 
> I also have seen women with deep depravity as in the case of the Texas woman who shot her daughters in front of her husband on his birthday for revenge.


I didn't know he was on his 3rd marriage.. this is him & his current wife I guess.. (on Wikapedia anyway)..



I haven't seen the news.. I looked this up..... 

‘She wanted him to suffer’: Sheriff explains why Texas mom killed two daughters in front of husband 

This reminds me of the father we met last year.. he came to our house to see son's date for the Prom.. she was friends with this man's son yrs ago.. his son would have been gradating last year...been among this group of friends.... he was killed by his mother 5 yrs ago...she was mentally unstable.. 

I never met this man until this day.. I watched a very emotional moment between them as son's date handed him a Painting she drew in memory of his son.. he was sitting on a bench , his back to us.. looking on...out at the sun or something like this.. just met the man and he was on the verge of tears... then I started to cry !!

I guess he tried to get his wife help.. but it was too late.... he was very close to the boy, he wanted to live with his father.... I heard the whole saga from a friend of ours.. this was a really good guy..I guess she didn't seem so messed up when they married.. then something snapped after her mom died ...I forget now.. such a tragedy..


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Of course he is. Do you think I would have had all these children with a lesser man?


I think you had a choice to be married or single. You chose to be married and you show no regret at this point. Of course, it had to be the right partner.

I think the reasons why you made that choice are why marriage, or rather relationship, won't go out of vogue. Because we choose different partners, but most of us want to be in relationship.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MattMatt said:


> The problem is that the studies can be biased. Only selecting people who fit the criteria of the researcher, for example.
> 
> Also, remember the study back in the 1950s that showed butter was very bad for you and that margarine was a wonderful, healthful food?
> 
> Turns out all the data was faked.


It's true..we do have to take everything with a grain of salt.. I am pages back on this thread.. one thing about JLD's threads.. they go & go & go & go... 

I am responding to things from yesterday still..


----------



## sapientia

Wazza said:


> All stuff I very much agree with. I'd also throw in that *it's worth sustaining a degree of self sufficiency post marriage.* It's dangerous to be trapped in a marriage.


I personally agree with this, but it seems there are still some successful partnerships where one of the spouses (usually the woman) stays home to raise the children and the other works. I think it's easier when there is a substantial income involved.

For example, a 100k+ salary isn't material when your spouse is making a few M a year or more. One fellow I know gave up a relatively lucrative banking job to join his wife's company managing the back end and caring for the children. Another woman is a nurse and her H a successful investment banker, for those who don't know this field that means approximately 50x difference in their income. Another friend of mine gave up a nursing career to stay home and "take care of everything else" when her H first company took off. They are very happy almost 30 years later.

I also know a woman, another nurse, who stayed home and almost lost everything when her husband passed away and the company tanked. Interesting thing about that story is she didn't regret staying home, she regretted not taking more of an interest in their finances.

Life is all about choices.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Livvie said:


> My thoughts on this are:
> 
> A married man thrives in the structure, the structure a woman brings to his life, the female energy she brings. Women tend to be homemakers (into building a home nest, the "woman's touch"). The home is more comfortable, there will be food in the fridge, regular meals, the bathroom will get cleaned and not smell like a latrine, etc. Plus, being less social than women by nature, when married, men have a built in daily social connection. Women also tend to be caretakers, watching out for his health, making sure he goes to the doctor when sick and so forth. I think men like to be the head of the household, so to speak, the feeling that they have created a family of their own. These are all gross generalizations, but maybe sheds light on why married men are the happiest and unmarried men the least happy.


 these generalizations...they are very true for us...I'd say this ALL hits home - well stated - for how my husband feels...



> I think maybe single women are more happy than married women because often women in long term marriages are unhappy.... They feel like they have to do the majority of child care and household running and work by themselves, *and are lacking emotional attention and connection with their husband. That gets old fast, and depressing. It is not fulfilling. It leads to an exhausted, sad woman.*


 yep.. this starts the downward spiral.... Have a good friend...her 1st marriage was lousy.. they married because she got pregnant.. not the best start....she was clearly better off single, she felt she found herself again.. she would DENY she wanted to find a man.. she admitted to me one day it was a "defense mechanism" as she never believed she would find lasting love, she's had a # of bad experiences... 

Then she met Bill.... he was different.. he was HURT TOO by his wife cheating on him....this man truly cared about her.. was there for her... he's attentive and all in...she's found she's happier being married.. when it's right.... both doing , caring for each other.. that makes all the difference.... 



> Single women may not have the benefit of a partner, but they might have less of that kind of sadness, that they are doing it all with a partner who does not add to their life and that hurts their heart.


 we're going to want out of anything that hurts our







...



> I was married for 16 years, two wonderful children, then divorced. I still mourn the loss of my family unit and living full time with my children (we do 50/50). I cry on a weekly basis still, after years!! But I am still happier as a single woman than I was being married to a man who let me do it all and would not be a husband and emotionally connect with me.* I think the sadness of having a partner who doesn't connect with you outweighs the sadness of being single.*


Great post @Livvie !!


----------



## MEM2020

Sapientia 

20 complaints today.

Triage applied as follows:

1. Racist comments got top priority as they impact the most folks
2. Someone saying: person XYZ is insulting me personally get second priority
3. Someone saying person ABC is insulting XYZ gets third priority

Each one requires context analysis. 

As always you are welcome to PM other mods as you wish. 





sapientia said:


> I've reported a bunch of posts in this thread. I'm surprised MEM as a mod hasn't engaged. Maybe I should PM another mod?
> 
> It would be nice if everyone could stick to the discussion and take it less personally.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> Those days of being alone have somehow allowed me to simply accept. From there I greet my husband's return with happiness and appreciation but not from a neediness/anxious void which I expect him to fill. It's been delightful.


I know this wasn't to make a statement about how others are so much.. just your personal feelings on it -in your own particular situation... 

I just wonder does some people feel if a woman loves to be with a man - enjoys his company that it's always to fill an empty void.. like she doesn't feel whole ? 

I look at it differently...or I should say.. it depends ....

She can also just be self aware in what she enjoys in life.. that she likes to share a life with another.. not because she feels a void in herself.. and obviously not just any man will do.. 

If she wasn't particular in them getting along well.. she'd surely want to Get away from him - and him from her too!!

Lunch break at work yesterday.. this coworker was talking how she works 3-11 and her husband works 7-3 ... she loves this..she doesn't care to see him , she'd rather see her dog.. I guess she fits the study.. though I don't think they even have kids yet.. she's probably in her 20's... I thought how sad...

Here if my husband gets laid off.. we've decided.. he's not going to go to another state to keep his job.. that's too much time away from us.. he'd miss us.. We'd miss him.. we only get one life.. so much time here...

Sure he could DO it.. the other co-workers who got laid off are living 5 days in a hotel right now together... and if he did that.. I would live the easy life. ...stay at home...but only see him 2 days a week.. I'd much rather work full time plus.. him work full time (he'll take a significant pay cut trying to find a job in our area).. but so what.. the money means less to us.. we'd rather see each other each day.. 

It's not neediness as much as it's just what matters more to us.. if that makes sense.. 

I wouldn't call myself a Needy person.. as I HATE asking anyone for help.. I am a self sufficient woman in most every way.. .. but in this.. we're both like 2 peas in a pod.. that's just what we enjoy...so we work it any way we can... at least we're both on the same page..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I am not the only one who thinks men, and marriage, may become irrelevant, as women ascend economically. From the NYT:*
> 
> _*Men, Who Needs Them?*
> 
> MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth — glands that are functional only in the female. And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, ****, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.
> 
> That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.
> 
> The central behaviors of mammals revolve around how we bear and raise our young, and humans are the parenting champions of the class. In the United States, for nearly 20 percent of our life span we are considered the legal responsibility of our parents.
> 
> With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.
> 
> That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.
> 
> Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother.
> 
> After the two of you left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary. Then, sometime between 12 and 50 years after the two of you left your grandmother, you burst forth and were sucked by her fimbriae into the fallopian tube. You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you.
> 
> Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.
> 
> Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her. By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. In contrast, your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of **** sapiens 107 billion babies ago.
> 
> And while birth seems like a separation, for us mammals it’s just a new form of attachment to our female parent. If your mother breast-fed you, as our species has done for nearly our entire existence, then you suckled from her all your water, protein, sugar, fats and even immune protection. She sampled your diseases by holding you close and kissing you, just as your father might have done; but unlike your father, she responded to your infections by making antibodies that she passed to you in breast milk.
> 
> I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father, or my year at home as a house husband with two young kids. And I credit my own father as the more influential parent in my life. Fathers are of great benefit. But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction.
> 
> *If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.
> 
> Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis*.
> 
> It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs.
> 
> *Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?*
> 
> Recently, the geneticist J. Craig Venter showed that the entire genetic material of an organism can be synthesized by a machine and then put into what he called an “artificial cell.” This was actually a bit of press-release hyperbole: Mr. Venter started with a fully functional cell, then swapped out its DNA. In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.
> 
> When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”
> 
> Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough.
> 
> Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project. _


Is it just me..I just don't like the article...the subject... for it to even have any truth.. it's rude and offending to speak it.. I even get the idea it's hinting at women hooking up with women -when it compares men to cars (above in blue)...

JLD , how do you REALLY feel about men ?? I mean I look at my own daughter ..I still hope she marries one day.. and is happy.. I can't imagine a career being enough for her.. or wanting to have kids without a man.. she has enjoyed her father so much.. she would not want her children to not have what she's lived & enjoyed herself...

Men are so easy going.. they can take this article.. brush it off.. but take a man writing an article similar to this where women's value is -like for ONE USE (compared to the men's just "being entertaining")...and see how offended women get.. 

Basically this is what MGTOW is all about.. they have no use for women.. just as articles like these are popping up. Puts a very sour taste in my mouth..


----------



## MEM2020

SA,

I do think the power dynamic in a marriage is VERY important. 

I'm gonna try and keep this as concise as possible.

1. Love
2. Fear
3. Stability
4. Excitement

Before getting into the specifics of each category - I will just say that the more powerful person - is generally the person best able to make the marriage better or worse. 

1. On average - I love M2 more. Consistently put her first. Like it that way. Her feelings fluctuate pretty often. They range from: I love you, to I'm crazily in love with you.

2. Fear - In theory I should be a lot more afraid of M2 than she is of me. The person who loves more - risks more. That's not the case for us. 

3. Stability: I provide emotional stability - M2 provides mechanical stability in our life. She makes sure bills are paid - plant and equipment gets maintained. I'm beter at making money - she's better at managing it. 

4. Excitemeant: M2 provides emotional excitement - I provide the income to fund our adventures. And I actively encourage her playfulness and adventurousness. 

So why is it I'm less afraid of losing someone I love more? 

Because - I have to make some major sacrifices - for our marriage to work. Sacrifices I wouldn't tolerate in a new relationship. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> I know this wasn't to make a statement about how others are so much.. just your personal feelings on it -in your own particular situation...
> 
> I just wonder does some people feel if a woman loves to be with a man - enjoys his company that it's always to fill an empty void.. like she doesn't feel whole ?
> 
> I look at it differently...or I should say.. it depends ....
> 
> She can also just be self aware in what she enjoys in life.. that she likes to share a life with another.. not because she feels a void in herself.. and obviously not just any man will do..
> 
> If she wasn't particular in them getting along well.. she'd surely want to Get away from him - and him from her too!!
> 
> Lunch break at work yesterday.. this coworker was talking how she works 3-11 and her husband works 7-3 ... she loves this..she doesn't care to see him , she'd rather see her dog.. I guess she fits the study.. though I don't think they even have kids yet.. she's probably in her 20's... I thought how sad...
> 
> Here if my husband gets laid off.. we've decided.. he's not going to go to another state to keep his job.. that's too much time away from us.. he'd miss us.. We'd miss him.. we only get one life.. so much time here...
> 
> Sure he could DO it.. the other co-workers who got laid off are living 5 days in a hotel right now together... and if he did that.. I would live the easy life. ...stay at home...but only see him 2 days a week.. I'd much rather work full time plus.. him work full time (he'll take a significant pay cut trying to find a job in our area).. but so what.. the money means less to us.. we'd rather see each other each day..
> 
> It's not neediness as much as it's just what matters more to us.. if that makes sense..
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a Needy person.. as I HATE asking anyone for help.. I am a self sufficient woman in most every way.. .. but in this.. we're both like 2 peas in a pod.. that's just what we enjoy...so we work it any way we can... at least we're both on the same page..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Begin again said:


> @SimplyAmourous -
> 
> I had not read the item below before (Amazing Relationship truth #7 from your post on page 1), but it rang so very true for me.
> 
> 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.
> 
> When I tried to get my soon to be ex to eat better, or look at something from a different angle, or influence him in any way, he resisted. Then he would later actually quote something I had said as if he hadn't heard it from me. He was so very stubborn in that way and the only thing I can think of is that it undermined his masculinity for me to be right about something? And it made me give up on him, that's for sure. If he actually liked and agreed with my suggestions (sometimes) and ideas but attributed them to some other source (or said he couldn't recall where he'd heard it), why bother?


It was @jld that put those points on there..(post #26)

Here:


> *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).


You said it in your post.. he was VERY STUBBORN.. this can be bad on both ends.. 

I've shared this a # of times on TAM.. as me & husband talk about some of the scenarios I read here.. bouncing things off of him.. I've learned a few new things along the way.. which has been fun, and sometimes we see things differently.. Anyway..

One day I asked him.. what 1 thing does he feel causes marriages to be miserable, where men & women miss each other / communication dies.. .. His answer was:

Stubborness.. people want to BE RIGHT.... they are too stubborn to listen or admit their wrongs before each other.. (being vulnerable).. wanting the other to cave first.. (and true to form.. my husband has never been this sort of person)

You said you feel it's an EGO thing, mentioning his masculinity.... .. with my husband ... I go around saying he is "BETA ".. but it's good BETA.. I don't mind feeding his EGO cause he's never been one to puff it up ...or worry about his EGO.. he cares more about US moving forward .. it's always US.. not just him or battling me.. so I've always been able to talk. share.. he listens.. and I listen too.. even though I generally have more to say ! 

Now if I was met with what you were.. and he wouldn't listen.. got all offended just because you are bringing something to his attention (Of course our attitudes here are important too)... I'd have felt the same as you @Begin again - for sure.. that gets really old..and you want to throw your hands up in the air.. I can understand that.. it would be wholly frustrating... :banghead: 

We all need something to work with.. showing we CARE how the other feels.. some validation.. This is an old thread.. but a good one...it speaks of the importance for us to validate each other.. so we feel heard...and understood... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/39565-validating-your-spouse.html ....a small piece of the opening thread...



> Listen by giving our full attention.
> 
> Listen to the emotions being expresed.
> 
> Listen to the needs being expressed.
> 
> Understand the issue from the other person's point of view.
> 
> Using non-verbal communication and cues is a part of validating your spouse. When your spouse is talking to you, pay attention and stay focused. Look at them when they are speaking. Give your full attention to him or her and do not allow yourself to get distracted by TVs, phones, etc.
> 
> Show that you are listening by nodding your head or giving some positive verbal sounds such as "yes" or "uh-huh." Give validating statements (you may use the pattern below for help in creating a validating statement).


----------



## sapientia

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> 
> I do think the power dynamic in a marriage is VERY important.
> 
> I'm gonna try and keep this as concise as possible.
> 
> 1. Love
> 2. Fear
> 3. Stability
> 4. Excitement
> 
> Before getting into the specifics of each category - I will just say that the more powerful person - is generally the person best able to make the marriage better or worse.
> 
> 1. On average - I love M2 more. Consistently put her first. Like it that way. Her feelings fluctuate pretty often. They range from: I love you, to I'm crazily in love with you.
> 
> 2. Fear - In theory I should be a lot more afraid of M2 than she is of me. The person who loves more - risks more. That's not the case for us.
> 
> 3. *Stability: I provide emotional stability* - M2 provides mechanical stability in our life. She makes sure bills are paid - plant and equipment gets maintained. I'm beter at making money - she's better at managing it.
> 
> 4. Excitemeant: M2 provides emotional excitement - I provide the income to fund our adventures. And I actively encourage her playfulness and adventurousness.
> 
> So why is it I'm less afraid of losing someone I love more?
> 
> Because - I have to make some major sacrifices - for our marriage to work. Sacrifices I wouldn't tolerate in a new relationship.


This is a fascinating post and I need more time to think about it. The bolded part jumped out at me, however, because it speaks to an observation I've had about marriage for years. The concept of an emotional anchor or ballast. I think certain personalities provide a -- I'm going to use a technical term for now -- damping effect to those who tend to oscillate more emotionally. Like a keel on a sailboat, it keeps the ship from swaying too far to either side and getting swamped. It also allows the boat to move forward in a strong wind, but perhaps I'm leaning too hard on the sailing analogy. 

:grin2:


----------



## NotEasy

Begin again said:


> @*Simply*Amourous -
> 
> I had not read the item below before (Amazing Relationship truth #7 from your post on page 1), but it rang so very true for me.
> 
> 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.
> 
> When I tried to get my soon to be ex to eat better, or look at something from a different angle, or influence him in any way, he resisted. Then he would later actually quote something I had said as if he hadn't heard it from me. He was so very stubborn in that way and the only thing I can think of is that it undermined his masculinity for me to be right about something? And it made me give up on him, that's for sure. If he actually liked and agreed with my suggestions (sometimes) and ideas but attributed them to some other source (or said he couldn't recall where he'd heard it), why bother?


This has just reminded me of things from the marriage retreat. Gottman especially looked at how couples interacted, did they listen and accept each other, 
His 4 horsemen covered this case. I remember that 1 was very like this, but confused the details and can't remember which one, could have been comtempt, defensiveness or stonewalling, or maybe several. Regardless he sees all of them as big red flags that each point to divorce. So he would have picked your outcome, though given your description perhaps many would have picked the outcome.
The presenter said it is OK to argue, even argue often and repeatedly. The dangerous thing is to argue badly. Not accepting the other and never changing your postion are death to the marriage. But I can't remember if this was from Gottman or the presenter.


----------



## NotEasy

sapientia said:


> I need to read the Time article more carefully, which means I need to log into the university library remotely. I'll do that later today. I suspect that quote is a simplification of Dr. Gottman's research conclusions.* Certainly I'd be shocked if he said women don't have power over their marriages, *which is VERY different from saying that men's actions and attitudes have a significant influence on a healthy marriage or divorce. The former quote would never make it past peer review, not using absolute language of that sort. Those who want the source material can look up the Google Scholar link I posted.
> 
> BTW, reporters and media people often misquote researchers findings. We have to correct things on a regular basis. Sometimes it's deliberate yellow journalism to sell papers and sometimes it's just simply they aren't subject matter experts so they get it wrong, or provide an incomplete interpretation. The researchers rarely get a chance to review a news article before it gets published.
> 
> I wouldn't assume Dr. Gottman is the problem here.


Again, I am 'quoting' my unclear recollection of a presenter talking about Gottman, but he said the 4 horsement apply to both men and women. Women can cause the same interactions problems and he would see the same red flag.
The speaker said particular problems tended to be more male than female, but modern society was equalising this. Which I took to mean women are picking up our bad traits and increasingly not listening or accepting input.
I really need to read Gottman.


----------



## sapientia

There is another article, can't remember the author, who discusses argument styles. Couples who both argue frequently, the stereotypical fiery Latino or Italian couple, are fine. So are the never argue rugsweepers, so long as they agree to disagree. Problems happen when the styles collide. Certainly was my experience.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> What capabilities are you specifically referencing?
> 
> I am not the only one who thinks men, and marriage, may become irrelevant, as women ascend economically. From the NYT:
> 
> _*Men, Who Needs Them?*
> 
> MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth — glands that are functional only in the female. And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, ****, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.
> 
> That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.
> 
> The central behaviors of mammals revolve around how we bear and raise our young, and humans are the parenting champions of the class. In the United States, for nearly 20 percent of our life span we are considered the legal responsibility of our parents.
> 
> With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.
> 
> That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.
> 
> Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother.
> 
> After the two of you left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary. Then, sometime between 12 and 50 years after the two of you left your grandmother, you burst forth and were sucked by her fimbriae into the fallopian tube. You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you.
> 
> Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.
> 
> Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her. By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. In contrast, your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of **** sapiens 107 billion babies ago.
> 
> And while birth seems like a separation, for us mammals it’s just a new form of attachment to our female parent. If your mother breast-fed you, as our species has done for nearly our entire existence, then you suckled from her all your water, protein, sugar, fats and even immune protection. She sampled your diseases by holding you close and kissing you, just as your father might have done; but unlike your father, she responded to your infections by making antibodies that she passed to you in breast milk.
> 
> I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father, or my year at home as a house husband with two young kids. And I credit my own father as the more influential parent in my life. Fathers are of great benefit. But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction.
> 
> If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.
> 
> Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs.
> 
> Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?
> 
> Recently, the geneticist J. Craig Venter showed that the entire genetic material of an organism can be synthesized by a machine and then put into what he called an “artificial cell.” This was actually a bit of press-release hyperbole: Mr. Venter started with a fully functional cell, then swapped out its DNA. In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.
> 
> When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”
> 
> Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough.
> 
> Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project. _



Just admit it jld you wrote the article right? :laugh:

As far as men being obsolete, just wait until the sexbots. Marriage will be for only the very few. Us men are not that complicated (we mostly want sex, and toys). Woman much more so (emotional fulfillment, emotional connection, feelings, emotional reassurement, romance). 

There is a reason why there have been many articles about, where are all the men, why aren't men marrying. Look at the young guys today, for many of them porn is enough. Wait until the porn experience becomes exactly like real life, or even better then real life. I think your article is wishful thinking. 

Besides that you might want to read this. 

Men Will Someday Have Kids Without Women - The Daily Beast

The centerpiece being this line "Surani tells the Guardian that women’s skin cells can only produce eggs because they typically lack a Y chromosome—but that skin tissue from men (who have both X and Y chromosomes) could hypothetically produce both eggs and sperm"

Here is hoping NONE of this happens, but I wouldn't get c0cky about it. When in history have woman ever not gotten screwed over when it comes to both men and woman? Certainly not for long periods. Why would reproductive technology be any different.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Yes. Dug is able to influence me because he has the qualities I respect and admire: intelligence and good character. If he did not have those, I would not trust him, and would therefore not be open to his influence.
> 
> Women who do not value those things, or not in the specific ways that Dug has them, would likely not be influenced by him. That is where natural compatibility comes in.
> 
> It is also possible for influence to be lost. I think that is what happens in a lot of marriages when the man does not do the things Gottman's research has suggested.


The influence comes from "RESPECTING" our men.....we want to RESPECT HIM.. to look up to him..

My husband has very good character, integrity, I've can count on his word (I can only think of 1 area he's let me down)...though he's on the soft side.... with my overall personality.. I could chew him up & spit him out if I didn't RESPECT HIM.. He'd vouch for this...ha ha...

It's very important for our balance I'm sure.. 








....I've mentioned this book earlier I think... 

" Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs ...

One wife said "‘I think that basically, you can’t just be in love with a man. I think you have got to admire him and like him.". I believe that to be very true.


----------



## NotEasy

Blondilocks said:


> Your post makes no sense in response to mine. That said: I wouldn't discount her credentials.
> 
> I have no idea why priests counsel on marriage and birth control. They're hardly qualified.


Not all priests are celibate. Well perhaps the ones called priests are. Our pastor and his wife were sitting behind us in one session of the marriage retreat.

I would have trouble trusting any celibate priest for life advice, not just marriage advice. I have learnt so much from marriage. Celibate priests miss that.

A celibate priest could not have delivered or even followed the central theme of our marriage retreat, which was that the gospel message and features are the same as what is important in marriage. Man is the head of the marriage. Jesus is head of the church. Jesus sacrificed. Ok guys, man up. The wives liked hearing that. I have years of reading (Gottman is only 1), praying, thinking and applying ahead of me.


----------



## sapientia

NotEasy said:


> Not all priests are celibate.


Anglican priests marry, for just one example.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> He says women have to do their part. But his research must have shown that the solution to problems in marriage points more to men.


 maybe a little more emphasis on this would help some.. it's just something the rest of us are trying / pounding even.. to bring home in our posts.. without this co-operation.. his Influence isn't going to amount to much.. We still have our parts to play.. 

If Gottman is coming from a more Traditionally minded side of things ... it would emphasize the man standing taller, being that example before his wife...

I personally don't have any problem with this..


----------



## NotEasy

sapientia said:


> There is another article, can't remember the author, who discusses argument styles. Couples who both argue frequently, the stereotypical fiery Latino or Italian couple, are fine. So are the never argue rugsweepers, so long as they agree to disagree. Problems happen when the styles collide. Certainly was my experience.


One case raised in the marriage retreat was of the traditional wife who continually acquieses to her husband, until finally she gets modern and dumps him. He never saw it coming. It was raised as a problem seen these days in some traditional churches. Gottman would have seen the rug-sweeping (via body language) as a red flag even though there were no/few arguments.


----------



## MEM2020

Sapientia,

The sailing analogy is dead on. The winds and currents reflect external factors. 

The stability thing - is a sort of combo thing: 
- mechanics: Living WAY below our income (no debt)
- emotions: Which is some version of - everything is going to be fine - it is all going to work out - trust me

But here's the - magic - in this puzzle: 

M2 gets anxious - I do this totally dominant - alpha soothing thing. 

But when she isn't - anxious - her baseline is happy. My baseline isn't happy - it's content. So when she's happy - I relax and enjoy the updraft. 




sapientia said:


> This is a fascinating post and I need more time to think about it. The bolded part jumped out at me, however, because it speaks to an observation I've had about marriage for years. The concept of an emotional anchor or ballast. I think certain personalities provide a -- I'm going to use a technical term for now -- damping effect to those who tend to oscillate more emotionally. Like a keel on a sailboat, it keeps the ship from swaying too far to either side and getting swamped. It also allows the boat to move forward in a strong wind, but perhaps I'm leaning too hard on the sailing analogy.
> 
> :grin2:


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I think you had a choice to be married or single. You chose to be married and you show no regret at this point. Of course, it had to be the right partner.
> 
> I think the reasons why you made that choice are why marriage, or rather relationship, won't go out of vogue. Because we choose different partners, but most of us want to be in relationship.


He wanted me, and he was a really good guy. I remember wondering if he were an angel in human form.

Wazza, the relationship was not my idea. And I sat down with him right away after it began and told him everything I could think of about my past that I thought he might not like. That way, if he wanted to end things, it could happen straight off, and we would not waste each other's time.

Dug was worth it. He was worth the risk and all the work with the kids. But I don't think every man is. And I think Gottman is showing how to change that.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Is it just me..I just don't like the article...the subject... for it to even have any truth.. it's rude and offending to speak it.. I even get the idea it's hinting at women hooking up with women -when it compares men to cars (above in blue)...
> 
> JLD , how do you REALLY feel about men ?? I mean I look at my own daughter ..I still hope she marries one day.. and is happy.. I can't imagine a career being enough for her.. or wanting to have kids without a man.. she has enjoyed her father so much.. she would not want her children to not have what she's lived & enjoyed herself...
> 
> Men are so easy going.. they can take this article.. brush it off.. but take a man writing an article similar to this where women's value is -like for ONE USE (compared to the men's just "being entertaining")...and see how offended women get..
> 
> Basically this is what MGTOW is all about.. they have no use for women.. just as articles like these are popping up. Puts a very sour taste in my mouth..


What do you think is offensive about it, SA? Do you not think it is factual?

I did not see anything lesbian about it. Maybe you could explain a bit more how you saw that in it?

I think some men are wonderful. Those are the ones I absolutely adore. And certainly in that group is my own husband. 

Many other men are in desperate need of Gottman's help! 

You know this article was written by a man, right? I think he is a very intelligent and humble man. I bet he is a fabulous husband and father. He does not take women, especially mothers, for granted. He respects them, and is grateful to them. That melts my heart. 

The MGTOW movement does not bother me. As long as it does not advocate violence against women, or exploitation of them, that is. Those guys are better off by themselves. Marriage needs to be a free will decision.


----------



## sapientia

MEM11363 said:


> Sapientia,
> 
> The sailing analogy is dead on. The winds and currents reflect external factors.
> 
> The stability thing - is a sort of combo thing:
> - mechanics: Living WAY below our income (no debt)
> - emotions: Which is some version of - everything is going to be fine - it is all going to work out - trust me
> 
> But here's the - magic - in this puzzle:
> 
> M2 gets anxious - I do this totally dominant - alpha soothing thing.
> 
> But when she isn't - anxious - her baseline is happy. My baseline isn't happy - it's content. So when she's happy - I relax and enjoy the updraft.


How fun! I'm always up for discussing sailing in any form. :grin2:

I agree with you and will extend the analogy from my own experience that too much [emotional] damping isn't good either. It's like a drogue anchor -- suitable for use in heavy seas or storms but can be a real drag on a breezy, fun summer day!

Hard to know early on in a courtship whether that "responsible" personality is masking a wobble toward anxious and over controlling. I've learned to identify the signs of those who have toughed it out through experience not to sweat the small stuff. These people don't just make great spouses, they make great colleagues also.


----------



## jld

NotEasy said:


> Not all priests are celibate. Well perhaps the ones called priests are. Our pastor and his wife were sitting behind us in one session of the marriage retreat.
> 
> I would have trouble trusting any celibate priest for life advice, not just marriage advice. I have learnt so much from marriage. Celibate priests miss that.
> 
> A celibate priest could not have delivered or even followed the central theme of our marriage retreat, which was that the gospel message and features are the same as what is important in marriage. Man is the head of the marriage. Jesus is head of the church. Jesus sacrificed. Ok guys, man up. The wives liked hearing that. I have years of reading (Gottman is only 1), praying, thinking and applying ahead of me.


Wasn't Jesus celibate?


----------



## sapientia

LOL, there was also a series of articles a few years back about how the Y chromosome is evolving itself out of existence. Too funny how that was picked up by the media.

We are such an information bombarded society that too many are desperate to find a way to seem clever these days... sh!t and cream both float to the top. Ha, not my saying btw. I'm not nearly clever enough these days.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I don't think we should push marriage on men. I think we should just continue to help women develop themselves. I think that alone will go a long way towards sorting things out.
> 
> *And I think quality men will always do fine for themselves. They will sense quality in a woman, like a tuning fork*.


So long as they are not too influenced by what modern society is teaching them, that is.. Where do these quality men come from....when good examples are getting harder & harder to find .... Broken homes abound...


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Just admit it jld you wrote the article right? :laugh:
> 
> As far as men being obsolete, just wait until the sexbots. Marriage will be for only the very few. Us men are not that complicated (we mostly want sex, and toys). Woman much more so (emotional fulfillment, emotional connection, feelings, emotional reassurement, romance).
> 
> There is a reason why there have been many articles about, where are all the men, why aren't men marrying. Look at the young guys today, for many of them porn is enough. Wait until the porn experience becomes exactly like real life, or even better then real life. I think your article is wishful thinking.


And then there's this:

Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction (2014) | Your Brain On Porn



> Besides that you might want to read this.
> 
> Men Will Someday Have Kids Without Women - The Daily Beast
> 
> The centerpiece being this line "Surani tells the Guardian that women’s skin cells can only produce eggs because they typically lack a Y chromosome—but that skin tissue from men (who have both X and Y chromosomes) could hypothetically produce both eggs and sperm"
> 
> Here is hoping NONE of this happens, but I wouldn't get c0cky about it. When in history have woman ever not gotten screwed over when it comes to both men and woman? Certainly not for long periods. Why would reproductive technology be any different.


Sounds like exciting times ahead, sokillme!

I think women need to have high expectations of men, and be ready to walk away as soon as possible when men do not meet them, and do not show signs of becoming willing to meet them. Life is just too short to spend with the likes of Livvie's or sapientia's first husbands.

But to be able to do that, women have to become empowered.


----------



## sapientia

SimplyAmorous said:


> Where do these quality men come from....when good examples are getting harder & harder to find ....


You think quality men are harder to find? I respectfully disagree.

You and I may differ in our definition of Quality. How do you define it?


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> I think women need to have high expectations of men, and be ready to walk away as soon as possible when men do not meet them, and do not show signs of becoming willing to meet them. Life is just too short to spend with the likes of Livvie's or sapientia's first husbands.
> 
> But to be able to do that, women have to become empowered.


I agree with you, sort of. 

I don't think the fundamental problem is with women's expectations of men, but of themselves. It's a next level problem. Since you are quoting me as an example, I will tell you I had very high expectations from my first H. That was part of my problem. I didn't have enough experience -- myself -- to recognize he wasn't able to give me what I wanted. It used to infuriate me, until I matured enough to recognize I was asking for something he couldn't give me. Not his problem -- mine.

I took responsibility for my own needs, and my life improved dramatically because of it. My ex is happier now also, btw.

Women, in general, should have a better idea of what they want before they get married. Like men, they shouldn't look to their partners for their primary source of fulfillment. Children, or a career, or both can help put the rough patches with hubby in perspective.

I can't speak for the men, but I will tell you that if I have a rockstar day at work, that balances tremendously any minor irritations I might have when I get home to socks all over the family room or pee on the bathroom floor (I'm outnumbered by guys at home).


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> And then there's this:
> 
> Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction (2014) | Your Brain On Porn
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like exciting times ahead, sokillme!
> 
> I think women need to have high expectations of men, and be ready to walk away as soon as possible when men do not meet them, and do not show signs of becoming willing to meet them. Life is just too short to spend with the likes of Livvie's or sapientia's first husbands.
> 
> But to be able to do that, women have to become empowered.


I would say that about everyone, you chose to say it about men. You really have some brokenness on this subject it seems. So who was the "man" who didn't meet them for you? Or was it your parents? Seriously what is your deal with men? It is like a shadow on all of your posts.

I think it is great that woman are empowered to leave bad men. I don't think his job is to fulfill her life. That is not what marriage is, and frankly he will fail at it. 

--By the way, the way it is going you won't even need erections.


----------



## sokillme

sapientia said:


> I agree with you, sort of.
> 
> I don't think the fundamental problem is with women's expectations of men, but of themselves. It's a next level problem. Since you are quoting me as an example, I will tell you I had very high expectations from my first H. That was part of my problem. I didn't have enough experience -- myself -- to recognize he wasn't able to give me what I wanted. It used to infuriate me, until I matured enough to recognize I was asking for something he couldn't give me. Not his problem -- mine.
> 
> I took responsibility for my own needs, and my life improved dramatically because of it. My ex is happier now also, btw.
> 
> Women, in general, should have a better idea of what they want before they get married. Like men, they shouldn't look to their partners for their primary source of fulfillment. Children, or a career, or both can help put the rough patches with hubby in perspective.
> 
> I can't speak for the men, but I will tell you that if I have a rockstar day at work, that balances tremendously any minor irritations I might have when I get home to socks all over the family room or pee on the bathroom floor (I'm outnumbered by guys at home).


My feeling is you only marry someone because of what you want to give to them, it shouldn't be what they give to you. That is just a bonus.


----------



## sapientia

sokillme said:


> My feeling is you only marry someone because of what you want to give to them, it shouldn't be what they give to you. That is just a bonus.


With respect, this is how I view my relationship with my children, not my spouse. My reasoning for that is they didn't ask me to bring them into this world, so I owe THEM, not the converse. I'm pretty certain my H expects things of me from our marriage, as he should.

It's a lovely sentiment, however, in practice I think marriage is more transactional than Hollywood would have us believe.

My opinion only, of course.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> A further thought. If women simply want to be or stay married, not worrying about happiness, necessarily, they may be able to achieve that by bypassing Gottman's advice to husbands and simply taking charge of the relationship themselves.
> 
> They assume all responsibility, particularly in emotional care of the man, but perhaps in financial matters, physical labor, childcare, as well. They do the active listening, they comfort and support, they soothe his heart and body with their words and ministrations. Nothing is required of him. She is the dominant partner, on whom the stability of the marriage rests.


More black and white thinking, How is any of what you describe here "bypassing Gottmans advice to men?" Where does he say women should take no responsibility in the relationship?


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> I agree with you, sort of.
> 
> I don't think the fundamental problem is with women's expectations of men, but of themselves. It's a next level problem. Since you are quoting me as an example, I will tell you I had very high expectations from my first H. That was part of my problem. I didn't have enough experience -- myself -- to recognize he wasn't able to give me what I wanted. It used to infuriate me, until I matured enough to recognize I was asking for something he couldn't give me. Not his problem -- mine.


Was that when you decided to divorce?

I think some men are just never going to meet expectations. But others might, when exposed to Gottman's teachings, for example. I think it is worth a try.



> I took responsibility for my own needs, and my life improved dramatically because of it. My ex is happier now also, btw.
> 
> Women, in general, should have a better idea of what they want before they get married. Like men, they shouldn't look to their partners for their primary source of fulfillment. Children, or a career, or both can help put the rough patches with hubby in perspective.
> 
> I can't speak for the men, but I will tell you that if I have a rockstar day at work, that balances tremendously any minor irritations I might have when I get home to socks all over the family room or pee on the bathroom floor (I'm outnumbered by guys at home).


Me, too. Dug and our 4 sons. I hold my own, though. 

I think it is hard for young women to know what they want. I certainly was not planning on marrying Dug. I thought we were friends. And then all of a sudden he told me he loved me, and days later told me he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. Life changer.

I used to complain a lot about not enough attention from Dug. Then I went on a long awaited trip to Spain in March with my daughter. It was like a trip to my past, my college days before Dug, and kids, and family responsibilities.

It felt so good to get in touch with those interests, put aside because the family had to come first for all these years. And I realized I did not need Dug's attention like I had been wanting. I could reach into my own interests and find fulfillment.

I still love his attention, of course. But I am not as needy as I used to be. Empowering.


----------



## sokillme

sapientia said:


> With respect, this is how I view my relationship with my children, not my spouse. My reasoning for that is they didn't ask me to bring them into this world, so I owe THEM, not the converse. I'm pretty certain my H expects things of me from our marriage, as he should.
> 
> It's a lovely sentiment, however, in practice I think marriage is more transactional than Hollywood would have us believe.


Maybe I need to give a little context. What I mean is when you choose to marry someone your motives should be "I want to marry this person because I want to help them in their life". Not, "this person completes me". Don't get me wrong I expect stuff from my wife but that was not my motivation in marrying her. I expect mostly her respect, love, commitment and effort. However I am dependent on her for nothing.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> More black and white thinking, How is any of what you describe here "bypassing Gottmans advice to men?" Where does he say women should take no responsibility in the relationship?


It is giving up on men. It is taking the reins themselves, not expecting him to help.

Yes, they are expected to play their part. But again, he focuses specifically on men. Surely for a reason.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> Was that when you decided to divorce?
> 
> I think some men are just never going to meet expectations. But others might, when exposed to Gottman's teachings, for example. I think it is worth a try.


That's a tough question. My decision wasn't a switch so much as a process. I was damned stubborn too. Overachiever here, so divorce = failure in my mind and I don't do failure well at all.

Again, I reached a place where I didn't view our divorce as his failure re: expectations. If that was the metric, then I certainly failed his in a number of areas also. It was more about taking responsibility for meeting my own needs and that we simply weren't compatible. THEN I had to expend the effort to actually do something about it. Address the problem. My ex is a good person, certainly not evil. We did a great thing raising a remarkable child. Without sounding too fatalistic, since I'm not, one could say that our job in that regard was done and it was simply time to move on.

If you are asking how I came to that decision, that is a much longer discussion. In brief, I had to grow up and unwind a whole lot of programming from my parents, who are good people but suffered under the gestalt of the times they grew up in.




> Me, too. Dug and our 4 sons. I hold my own, though.
> 
> *I think it is hard for young women to know what they want.* I certainly was not planning on marrying Dug. I thought we were friends. And then all of a sudden he told me he loved me, and days later told me he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. Life changer.
> 
> I used to complain a lot about not enough attention from Dug. Then I went on a long awaited trip to Spain in March with my daughter. It was like a trip to my past, my college days before Dug, and kids, and family responsibilities.
> 
> It felt so good to get in touch with those interests, put aside because the family had to come first for all these years. And I realized I did not need Dug's attention like I had been wanting. I could reach into my own interests and find fulfillment.
> 
> I still love his attention, of course. But I am not as needy as I used to be. Empowering.


Women need to be encouraged -- by other women AND their male role models -- to explore more of their options before settling down. They also need to be educated. Broaden their intellect and avoid having children too young. Childcare takes up a LOT of mental bandwidth, or it should if done well.


----------



## sapientia

sokillme said:


> Maybe I need to give a little context. What I mean is when you choose to marry someone your motives should be "I want to marry this person because I want to help them in their life". Not, "this person completes me". Don't get me wrong I expect stuff from my wife but that was not my motivation in marrying her. I expect mostly her respect, love, commitment and effort. However I am dependent on her for nothing.


Mutual growth is a great part of my marriage also. That's wonderful you have this with yours also. Congratulations.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> That's a tough question. My decision wasn't a switch so much as a process. I was damned stubborn too. Overachiever here, so divorce = failure in my mind and I don't do failure well at all.
> 
> Again, I reached a place where I didn't view our divorce as his failure re: expectations. If that was the metric, then I certainly failed his in a number of areas also. It was more about taking responsibility for meeting my own needs and that we simply weren't compatible. THEN I had to expend the effort to actually do something about it. Address the problem. My ex is a good person, certainly not evil. We did a great thing raising a remarkable child. Without sounding too fatalistic, since I'm not, *one could say that our job in that regard was done and it was simply time to move on.*


I like that. I wish more people could look at things that way.



> If you are asking how I came to that decision, that is a much longer discussion. In brief, I had to grow up and unwind a whole lot of programming from my parents, who are good people but suffered under the gestalt of the times they grew up in.
> 
> Women need to be encouraged -- by other women AND their male role models -- to explore more of their options before settling down. They also need to be educated. Broaden their intellect and avoid having children too young. Childcare takes up a LOT of mental bandwidth, or it should if done well.


It is a huge commitment. I certainly do not regret it, but it has come at a cost.

At the same time, Dug provided such stability at such a vulnerable time in my life. I will always be grateful to him for that.


----------



## NotEasy

SimplyAmorous said:


> Originally Posted by *jld* View Post
> _He says women have to do their part. But his research must have shown that the solution to problems in marriage points more to men.
> _
> maybe a little more emphasis on this would help some.. it's just something the rest of us are trying / pounding even.. to bring home in our posts.. without this co-operation.. his Influence isn't going to amount to much.. We still have our parts to play..
> 
> If Gottman is coming from a more Traditionally minded side of things ... it would emphasize the man standing taller, being that example before his wife...
> 
> I personally don't have any problem with this..


Agreed, the *more* was in the research, Gottman has lots of numbers often with very fine differences. Sort of like our recent election, if the count is 51-49 then yes one side got more, but it was not all one way. I think the research shows this, probably the reporting of it does not.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> Yes, they are expected to play their part. But again, he focuses specifically on men.* Surely for a reason.*


It may simply be that women are already tuned into the state of their relationships b/c it gets more of their mental bandwidth. That could also explain why the actions of men have more impact - per his research findings.

I suppose the cynical hypothesis could be that the market for marriage self-help books targeted to women is saturated and he's going after the other ~50%. Not a bad business strategy. Someone may have already mentioned this?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> It is giving up on men. It is taking the reins themselves, not expecting him to help.
> *
> Yes, they are expected to play their part*. But again, he focuses specifically on men. Surely for a reason.


What is their part?


----------



## jld

NotEasy said:


> Agreed, the *more* was in the research, Gottman has lots of numbers often with very fine differences. Sort of like our recent election, if the count is 51-49 then yes one side got more, but it was not all one way. I think the research shows this, probably the reporting of it does not.


His research book, _The Marriage Clinic_, may go into more detail. I think the differences were greater than 51-49.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> It may simply be that women are already tuned into the state of their relationships b/c it gets more of their mental bandwidth. That could also explain why the actions of men have more impact - per his research findings.
> 
> I suppose the cynical hypothesis could be that the market for marriage self-help books targeted to women is saturated and he's going after the other ~50%. Not a bad business strategy. Someone may have already mentioned this?


He seems to have had the same message for 20 years. I read that he got a lot of criticism from men in the late 90s. Ha, ha, nothing changes. 

But he had to stick to what his research said. He would do them no favors by trying to water it down, just to make them (temporarily) feel better.

Also totally agree most women are already tuned in to their relationships. I wonder how many could even give more?


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> It is a huge commitment. I certainly do not regret it, but it has come at a cost.
> 
> At the same time, Dug provided such stability at such a vulnerable time in my life. I will always be grateful to him for that.


It honestly sounds like a good balance, if it works for you both and you are happy. 

There is an opportunity cost for everything. I thought my career was over for having a child, even staying in the workforce self-employed how I did for years so I could control my work hours. I didn't regret it, however, b/c our son benefitted immensely from my extra attention. If I had been scrabbling for tenure like my ex, something would have had to give.

I pivoted, used my education to get into consulting, rebuilt a career, did some investing on the side and I'm waaay better off now than if I had spent my days overseeing lab minions, scratching out papers and writing grants.

I'm part of a mentoring group for young women in business. One of the things I tell them is they have NO idea what they can do with their degrees and careers. Network like hell. University career counsellors can't help them b/c that wasn't their experience and you can only teach what you know. One of the keys is to keep driving hard and reinventing yourself. I also only help people when they ask, I never force my opinion on those who aren't ready for it.

What will you do when the kids are grown up, jld?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> What is their part?


Their gender specific part?

To women specifically, he says to avoid a harsh start up when discussing with their husbands. 

Though, even with that, he says that a husband's empathetic response can soften her:

_"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)"_


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> It honestly sounds like a good balance, if it works for you both and you are happy.
> 
> There is an opportunity cost for everything. I thought my career was over for having a child, even staying in the workforce self-employed how I did for years so I could control my work hours. I didn't regret it, however, b/c our son benefitted immensely from my extra attention. If I had been scrabbling for tenure like my ex, something would have had to give.
> 
> I pivoted, used my education to get into consulting, rebuilt a career, did some investing on the side and I'm waaay better off now than if I had spent my days overseeing lab minions, scratching out papers and writing grants.
> 
> I'm part of a mentoring group for young women in business. One of the things I tell them is they have NO idea what they can do with their degrees and careers. University career counsellors can't help them b/c that wasn't their experience and you can only teach what you know. One of the keys is to keep driving hard and reinventing yourself.
> 
> What will you do when the kids are grown up, jld?


Be with Dug full-time. Travel with him when he does business overseas. Just be fully a couple. 

Explore my own interests, too. And help with the grandkids.


----------



## NotEasy

jld said:


> Wasn't Jesus celibate?


Depends on if you believe Dan Brown.>

But slightly more seriously, I give special exemptions to anyone who can walk on water, raise the dead, etc. Haven't personally met a physical priest like that.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I like that. I wish more people could look at things that way.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a huge commitment. I certainly do not regret it, but it has come at a cost.
> 
> At the same time, Dug provided such stability at such a vulnerable time in my life. I will always be grateful to him for that.


Did Dug have any cost jid?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Did Dug have any cost jid?


You can ask him.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> You can ask him.


I am curious what your opinion is?


----------



## MEM2020

Sapientia,

In the beginning - I only provided the mechanics of stability - not the emotions of it. Took me 15 years to realize the latter was often more important than the former.




sapientia said:


> It honestly sounds like a good balance, if it works for you both and you are happy.
> 
> There is an opportunity cost for everything. I thought my career was over for having a child, even staying in the workforce self-employed how I did for years so I could control my work hours. I didn't regret it, however, b/c our son benefitted immensely from my extra attention. If I had been scrabbling for tenure like my ex, something would have had to give.
> 
> I pivoted, used my education to get into consulting, rebuilt a career, did some investing on the side and I'm waaay better off now than if I had spent my days overseeing lab minions, scratching out papers and writing grants.
> 
> I'm part of a mentoring group for young women in business. One of the things I tell them is they have NO idea what they can do with their degrees and careers. Network like hell. University career counsellors can't help them b/c that wasn't their experience and you can only teach what you know. One of the keys is to keep driving hard and reinventing yourself. I also only help people when they ask, I never force my opinion on those who aren't ready for it.
> 
> What will you do when the kids are grown up, jld?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sapientia said:


> You think quality men are harder to find? I respectfully disagree.
> 
> You and I may differ in our definition of Quality. How do you define it?


A quality man , to me, is a more traditional type man who still believes in marriage.. it wouldn't just be a piece of paper to him...creating a life, and a family with a women he adores, commitment , faithfulness.. also not a man who has sex with a variety of women - just cause he is single & free to do so.. if a man can separate love & sex.. I wouldn't see him as the type of man that would understand me or what I am seeking in a life partner....

He'd want to devote himself to someone he loves .... Those are things I highly value in a man, more so than how much money he makes, his ambition.. or financial success.. but being responsible in all things, on the job, a man of his word - being able to live within his means...these too, are essential.... 

I did a thread on these qualities -what I deeply admire ...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html

But it's true.. people will define "quality" or "High quality" in many different ways...


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I am curious what your opinion is?


He gave up his Mustang, cycling, and flying planes.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> He gave up his Mustang, cycling, and flying planes.


What was your cost?


----------



## john117

She got the Mustang 😃


----------



## NotEasy

jld said:


> It is giving up on men. It is taking the reins themselves, not expecting him to help.
> 
> Yes, they are expected to play their part. * But again, he focuses specifically on men*. Surely for a reason.


Again quoting from what I was told about Guttman, but he got couples in and watched their interactions, he watched both, he rated both. To be sexists for a moment, if you look poor personal interactions is seems statistically likely you will find them more in men.

I think the media are probably where this focus on men as the problem comes from. And their reason is more to do with circulation numbers.


----------



## Mr The Other

NotEasy said:


> Again quoting from what I was told about Guttman, but he got couples in and watched their interactions, he watched both, he rated both. To be sexists for a moment, if you look poor personal interactions is seems statistically likely you will find them more in men.
> 
> I think the media are probably where this focus on men as the problem comes from. And their reason is more to do with circulation numbers.


This is central to this whole thread. He did not watch the man interact, but both. This is not to say that the man has no responsibility, more that there is a difference between Gottman's findings and what is being asserted as his conclusions.


----------



## NotEasy

jld said:


> His research book, _The Marriage Clinic_, may go into more detail. I think the differences were greater than 51-49.


51-49 was from during our election count. A commentator talked about a landslide when the two party count was 51-49.

Granted the Guttman stats may not be so close, I saw one table during the marriage retreat that I think went 53-47, but can't remember what it was exactly so didn't use it.

But regardless, this is to do with behaviours, and how bad behaviours badly impact marriage. The focus on which gender is worse is counter-productive, both have issues, both should improve.

As a male, in a church that is taking this seriously and running with it. I expect lots of work will be needed, initially by me, and am fine with that. My wife cheekily seems to think this is only a man thing, again fine for now, I like cheeky. But both sides need to change at some point. And I know her, this will not be a problem, she can change when needed.

But I dislike the overall focus on "it is a man problem" in general. Even if it was 70-30 that is still reason for both sides to improve. Yes the party more at fault works harder, first, more etc, but both sides should improve. It should not be about who is more at fault, but what can we both do to improve.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> 
> I do think the power dynamic in a marriage is VERY important.
> 
> I'm gonna try and keep this as concise as possible.
> 
> 1. Love
> 2. Fear
> 3. Stability
> 4. Excitement
> 
> Before getting into the specifics of each category - I will just say that the more powerful person - is generally the person best able to make the marriage better or worse.
> 
> * 1.** On average - I love M2 more. Consistently put her first. Like it that way. Her feelings fluctuate pretty often. They range from: I love you, to I'm crazily in love with you*.


 there is something I really don't understand.. why do you think you love her more.. it sounds from another post.. she wants MORE TIME with you -than you care to spend with her (her making those apologies cause it's what she wants)... doesn't it about even out.. 

I could say the same for us.. when we met...I was more the one seeking/ hoping to find "the one".... but he was more enthralled with me, he's told me he always felt he loved me more... which I am going to say is hardly true.. just his perception ...

Maybe yours too ! 



> *2*.* Fear - In theory I should be a lot more afraid of M2 than she is of me. The person who loves more - risks more. That's not the case for us.*


 not sure I understand what you mean.. a fear of loosing each other... if one dies.. you'd be a more like a contented @jld (the kids are enough to keep me happy).... and your wife would be more like me (I need my husband, the grieving would be excruciating, might drag on )...



> *3.* *Stability: I provide emotional stability - M2 provides mechanical stability in our life. She makes sure bills are paid - plant and equipment gets maintained. I'm beter at making money - she's better at managing it*.


 sounds like us.. doesn't she provide some emotional stability too.. doesn't this over flow naturally if she feels it from you, it's like a "responding" to the man's care for us, his affection.... 



> 4. Excitemeant: M2 provides emotional excitement - I provide the income to fund our adventures. And I actively encourage her playfulness and adventurousness.
> 
> *So why is it I'm less afraid of losing someone I love more?*
> 
> *Because - I have to make some major sacrifices - for our marriage to work. Sacrifices I wouldn't tolerate in a new relationship*.


 Sometimes your posts require me to read them over & over.. just to get it.. these sacrifices you speak of.. I know you've had your struggles in the past but it sounds it's gotten much better.. as your drive has calmed.. outside of that.. I am not sure what your sacrifices are! I remember you promised her Father something a long long time ago...how you'd always take care of his daughter....

So how do you know you'd have to make them in another relationship. ... maybe -just maybe you wouldn't.. or is that not possible ?

Would be an interesting thread topic.. 

"What sacrifices have you made for your husband / wife / marriage... was it worth it.. and why?"


----------



## sapientia

MEM11363 said:


> Sapientia,
> 
> In the beginning - I only provided the mechanics of stability - not the emotions of it. Took me 15 years to realize the latter was often more important than the former.


I understand. It took me at least that long to appreciate the mechanics of stability are equally as important. You can't eat Love but it keeps you warm on the journey.

You were willing to learn. That makes all the difference. Kudos.

:smile2:


----------



## sapientia

SimplyAmorous said:


> A quality man , to me, is a more traditional type man who still believes in marriage.. it wouldn't just be a piece of paper to him...creating a life, and a family with a women he adores, commitment , faithfulness.. also not a man who has sex with a variety of women - just cause he is single & free to do so.. if a man can separate love & sex.. I wouldn't see him as the type of man that would understand me or what I am seeking in a life partner....
> 
> He'd want to devote himself to someone he loves .... Those are things I highly value in a man, more so than how much money he makes, his ambition.. or financial success.. but being responsible in all things, on the job, a man of his word - being able to live within his means...these too, are essential....
> 
> I did a thread on these qualities -what I deeply admire ...
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html
> 
> But it's true.. people will define "quality" or "High quality" in many different ways...


Thanks for this. I'm going to have to sleep on your post as there are several ideas in here. I also haven't read the thread you link to.

I will say my vision of Husband evolved as I got older. It's now closer to "Beloved Companion and Partner" than some of the ideas you present. I don't know what you mean by words like "adore" and "devote himself". Sounds possibly like you want an emotional slave. "Responsible in al things" also sounds a bit naive. My H is a responsible man by most metrics but not "in all things". It's a good thing I like yard work and fixing stuff around the house. 

I also think that "modern" men might want marriage too, although their expectations of that relationship might differ from your "traditional" man's expectation.

No disrespect, but your post sounds a little young and naive. Romantic without grounding in the realities of the *partnership* that is Marriage. Financial success is a damn good thing to want your spouse to focus on, btw! You as well.

EDIT - Nevermind I've read that thread and some of your others. You are one of those rare souls who seems to have a Laughing Buddha approach to life. Been married longer than I was. Strong in your faith. You remind me of a friend who is an incredible soul -- extreme IQ and huge job -- who still manages to touch the world around her very lightly. I have a lot of admiration for her, but I'm not equipped to view the world through her lens. I'm just not that evolved, I guess. Maybe someday...


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> I like both of you but you don't get to call jld out for snapping. In just 60 posts in this thread along there have been at least 8 posts that were catty and rude to her before she started snapping back. Perhaps she needs to start snapping back sooner and harder?


I don't see the words "moderator" beside you user name. I'll choose to ignore your request until a moderator tells me to knock it off.

If you don't like it, perhaps you should put me and those others on ignore.


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> Very sad .. but you're probably right. I would not enjoy being single.. I just know me.. I literally pray me & hubs lives a long long time so I won't have to face the single scene..
> 
> This has little to do with worrying about money or being taken care of... I'd be OK there... but still.. I'd long to tie myself to a good man & enjoy Romance & togetherness.. I can't relate to women who don't have this desire.. they are foreign to me.


You do realize that if the unfortunate were to happen, you'd have plenty of men from TAM who'd seek you out?

Women like you are very hard to find.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> Be with Dug full-time. Travel with him when he does business overseas. Just be fully a couple.


If you haven't had the opportunity to do it yet, I strongly recommend doing a little of this now. My wife and I have greatly enjoyed having her with me the few times I've been able to bring her with me when traveling.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

@john117
@samyeagar

I am so sorry neither of you heard what you were owed yesterday. I want you both to know Christ saw the pain then... And now. My heart mourns for you both. Yesterday was an injustice. I'm not ok with it.

My time here is done. Won't be coming back.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/341250-my-time-here-done.html


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Nothing to it for me... I've had members of the peanut gallery call me worse three years ago when I joined TAM. At least I'm happy I found TAM.

My two pieces of advice are to (A) think of your marriage as employment. Nobody is guaranteed lifetime employment and no matter how good you are you may get cut. And (B) think ahead, your loving spouse today may be the Chimera of ten years later, so think of a Chimera once in a while.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> What was your cost?


I gave up my life.


----------



## AliceA

jld said:


> He gave up his Mustang, cycling, and flying planes.





jld said:


> I gave up my life.


If his life pretty much consisted of his Mustang, cycling and flying, then you could say he did too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sapientia said:


> Thanks for this. I'm going to have to sleep on your post as there are several ideas in here. I also haven't read the thread you link to.
> 
> I will say my vision of Husband evolved as I got older. It's now closer to "Beloved Companion and Partner" than some of the ideas you present. I don't know what you mean by words like "adore" and "devote himself". Sounds possibly like you want an emotional slave. "Responsible in al things" also sounds a bit naive. My H is a responsible man by most metrics but not "in all things". It's a good thing I like yard work and fixing stuff around the house.
> 
> I also think that "modern" men might want marriage too, although their expectations of that relationship might differ from your "traditional" man's expectation.
> 
> No disrespect, but your post sounds a little young and naive. Romantic without grounding in the realities of the *partnership* that is Marriage. Financial success is a damn good thing to want your spouse to focus on, btw! You as well.
> 
> EDIT - Nevermind I've read that thread and some of your others. You are one of those rare souls who seems to have a Laughing Buddha approach to life. Been married longer than I was. Strong in your faith. You remind me of a friend who is an incredible soul -- extreme IQ and huge job -- who still manages to touch the world around her very lightly. I have a lot of admiration for her, but I'm not equipped to view the world through her lens. I'm just not that evolved, I guess. Maybe someday...


 One can't fit everything we want to say in a post to bring it justice.. you don't like the word "adore" and I sound naive.. I've been with my husband since I was 15.. I've seen a lot of sh** in my time around me in regards to men.. No thank you.. don't want those types....I do think there are GOOD men and there are clearly BAD MEN a woman needs to stay away from...if she wants any form of stability, family or a mutual partnership.. All for an "Interdependent" partnership.. absolutely. 

I realize MOST women want a successful guy.. if this was my particular aim. I'd likely NOT be with my husband.. when we married I made more than him.. but one thing I knew was.. this man would do anything to take care of his family..he'd work 2 jobs if he had to.... even if he wasn't college educated.. (he had some computer schooling but he never got a job from it) so this is not something I would focus on.... He's a blue collar worker who will never come close to making 6 figures... 

This would only matter to me if we couldn't make it on our own, paying our bills... We are hugely responsible with money.... we've never taken out a loan in our marriage outside our house/ property ...even with that.. we cut our payments in half - paying it off in 7 yrs.. we have 6 kids.. we know plenty of people who make more than us.. yet never seem to have any money.. they are in debt... they may have nicer cars, high priced cell phone pans, pay for the highest cable channels, taking lavish vacations...but they have a lot more stress too.. I've stayed home raising our children throughout the yrs.. very thankful he's wanted me to..

I'm not one who feels even if you marry a blue collar worker..this is a pipe dream, if a couple manages well...it's still possible to live on one income.. or the wife work smaller side Jobs.. this has been us - most of our marriage.. 

I emphasized what I did.. because I don't think it's the norm today... women DO look for big ambition & successful men thinking he's got it ALL.... if he's not a good charactered person, he's more likely to be screwing his Secretary too. 

I don't get why "responsible in all things" would sound naive.. When I said this.. I was meaning - in whatever he takes on, puts his hands to.. not necessarily handling everything in our home.. I handle all the mundane stuff ... but yes.. he's the mechanic and handy man.. I've never had to NAG him to get things done.. and we will work together on bigger projects around the house, I've helped him change transmissions, did body work on the vehicles along side of him.. 

We are also very dependable people... he's someone I've always been able to TRUST.. just his word is generally enough.. He's let me down in 1 area he struggles with.. we're not all perfect.. but take this away.. he's pretty amazing.. this is what I've always known. 

Too often we see men who blow off their girlfriends, you can't trust what they say.. some may be high ambition, to the point of being a workaholic.. but then others may be too lazy... I wouldn't want either of those...

You see "emotional slave....I was just trying to describe a "family man" -or a man devoted to his family.. 

Would I want a man sensitive to my emotional needs. Of course !! this doesn't make him an emotional slave though... but it sure helps if we're compatible in what what we love & enjoy in life.. like raising that family together..

The laughing Buddha







just curious.. I looked this up, don't know a whole lot about Buddhism ...though true.. I consider myself a more sensitive /spiritually minded person... romantically inclined -hence my username.

The Laughing Buddha has come to represent several beneficial attributes such as happiness, prosperity, contentment , joy..and serenity.. he is there to remind us not to work too hard or become greedy.. (I'll agree!)

I care more about the Simple life.. this is true..

According to Legend -if you rub the Buddha's great belly...it brings forth wealth, good luck and prosperity...he could be looked upon as a symbol of contentment and abundance...

I'm a bit of an "old soul"... some may appreciate that, others feel I am out of touch.. Like Jld.. I often bring another perspective too.. 

Generally the more Romantic one - what can I [email protected]#


----------



## jld

breeze said:


> If his life pretty much consisted of his Mustang, cycling and flying, then you could say he did too.


He would not say that. 

And he agrees with my statement.


----------



## AliceA

jld said:


> He would not say that.
> 
> And he agrees with my statement.


That one obviously missed the funny bone. Lol, oh well.


----------



## jld

breeze said:


> That one obviously missed the funny bone. Lol, oh well.


Oh, sorry.


----------



## AliceA

jld said:


> Oh, sorry.


S'all good. It wasn't all that funny.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> He would not say that.
> 
> And he agrees with my statement.


Except you didn't give up your life. You chose the life you have, and have absolutely no way of knowing what different life you would have had, had you chose differently...no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse...only different.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Except you didn't give up your life. You chose the life you have, and have absolutely no way of knowing what different life you would have had, had you chose differently...no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse...only different.


I accepted the life he offered.

We may not necessarily have the same structure many other marriages have. Not sure how much I really want to get into that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I gave up my life.*


 This response sounds so "sacrificial"... how are we to read this @jld? 

What would your life have looked like had you not married... I am guessing, due to your intelligence, impressive grades in college..you would have went on to be a Successful career woman...gained the respect of others, self confidence soared.. 

I can always tell from your praising posts to other financially independent women ... you look up to them very very highly....

Do you envy them? I have always felt what we ENVY -is what we REALLY WANT IN LIFE... I've never personally envied the career woman, but I have envied the Mother in the home with her children...so I always knew this is where my







was at. 

I can't think of anything I gave up.. (is this not normal??)....I have seen it as all gain.. Getting married has been the beginning...really the foundation for all of my dreams to come to fruition... common as they may be to other women.. just being a devoted Wife..and Mother.. 

I probably sound like a Pollyanna saying this (I've been called this on TAM before too).... the only thing I can think that I gave up.. was experiencing more men / relationships.. but I honestly do not feel I would have found another as compatible for who I am, what I wanted in life, over my husband anyway.


----------



## jld

Sapi and SA, I think it is great that you both share your honest perspectives, not only on your own marriages, but on each other's. 

We do not have to all agree on anything. Getting exposed to different viewpoints, even ones that offend or shock us, as with that NYT piece, is what makes a forum valuable.


----------



## Duguesclin

samyeagar said:


> Except you didn't give up your life. You chose the life you have, and have absolutely no way of knowing what different life you would have had, had you chose differently...no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse...only different.


She cannot come out of the marriage without some significant financial consequences. 

Also 5 kids take a large toll on the body, especially when the smallest was 10+ lbs. And she breastfed for 15+ years.

She gave up her life.

I, on the other hand, could walk away with limited financial consequences. My health is very good, thanks to the good care of my wife.


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> One can't fit everything we want to say in a post to bring it justice.. you don't like the word "adore" and I sound naive.. I've been with my husband since I was 15.. I've seen a lot of sh** in my time around me in regards to men.. No thank you.. don't want those types....I do think there are GOOD men and there are clearly BAD MEN a woman needs to stay away from...if she wants any form of stability, family or a mutual partnership.. All for an "Interdependent" partnership.. absolutely.
> 
> I realize MOST women want a successful guy.. if this was my particular aim. I'd likely NOT be with my husband.. when we married I made more than him.. but one thing I knew was.. this man would do anything to take care of his family..he'd work 2 jobs if he had to.... even if he wasn't college educated.. (he had some computer schooling but he never got a job from it) so this is not something I would focus on.... He's a blue collar worker who will never come close to making 6 figures...
> 
> This would only matter to me if we couldn't make it on our own, paying our bills... We are hugely responsible with money.... we've never taken out a loan in our marriage outside our house/ property ...even with that.. we cut our payments in half - paying it off in 7 yrs.. we have 6 kids.. we know plenty of people who make more than us.. yet never seem to have any money.. they are in debt... they may have nicer cars, high priced cell phone pans, pay for the highest cable channels, taking lavish vacations...but they have a lot more stress too.. I've stayed home raising our children throughout the yrs.. very thankful he's wanted me to..
> 
> I'm not one who feels even if you marry a blue collar worker..this is a pipe dream, if a couple manages well...it's still possible to live on one income.. or the wife work smaller side Jobs.. this has been us - most of our marriage..
> 
> I emphasized what I did.. because I don't think it's the norm today... women DO look for big ambition & successful men thinking he's got it ALL.... if he's not a good charactered person, he's more likely to be screwing his Secretary too.
> 
> I don't get why "responsible in all things" would sound naive.. When I said this.. I was meaning - in whatever he takes on, puts his hands to.. not necessarily handling everything in our home.. I handle all the mundane stuff ... but yes.. he's the mechanic and handy man.. I've never had to NAG him to get things done.. and we will work together on bigger projects around the house, I've helped him change transmissions, did body work on the vehicles along side of him..
> 
> We are also very dependable people... he's someone I've always been able to TRUST.. just his word is generally enough.. He's let me down in 1 area he struggles with.. we're not all perfect.. but take this away.. he's pretty amazing.. this is what I've always known.
> 
> Too often we see men who blow off their girlfriends, you can't trust what they say.. some may be high ambition, to the point of being a workaholic.. but then others may be too lazy... I wouldn't want either of those...
> 
> You see "emotional slave....I was just trying to describe a "family man" -or a man devoted to his family..
> 
> Would I want a man sensitive to my emotional needs. Of course !! this doesn't make him an emotional slave though... but it sure helps if we're compatible in what what we love & enjoy in life.. like raising that family together..
> 
> The laughing Buddha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just curious.. I looked this up, don't know a whole lot about Buddhism ...though true.. I consider myself a more sensitive /spiritually minded person... romantically inclined -hence my username.
> 
> The Laughing Buddha has come to represent several beneficial attributes such as happiness, prosperity, contentment , joy..and serenity.. he is there to remind us not to work too hard or become greedy.. (I'll agree!)
> 
> I care more about the Simple life.. this is true..
> 
> According to Legend -if you rub the Buddha's great belly...it brings forth wealth, good luck and prosperity...he could be looked upon as a symbol of contentment and abundance...
> 
> I'm a bit of an "old soul"... some may appreciate that, others feel I am out of touch.. Like Jld.. I often bring another perspective too..
> 
> Generally the more Romantic one - what can I [email protected]#


SA:

Responsible does not equal sexy to many women.

When I was stationed in Germany, my roommate and best friend was sleeping with a married woman with her husband's consent. They had an open marriage because her husband liked guys too. The three (my friend, other guys wife) of us spent a lot of time together going out to clubs, where I would strike out with the ladies; constantly. I will never forget her telling me that I was a "good provider" but that I would not land sexy because I was just that; a good provider. I think that was her sort of polite way of saying "beta".

At any rate, my whole life I have never been the guy that turned heads when I walked into a room, except for a 15 month period after my ex wife split where I was mad at the world and had a IDGAF attitude.

I am sort of rambling, but what I am getting at is responsible is not sexy in the eyes of most. I mean, how many men do we see on here that are responsible, yet get cheated on by their wives with some guy in a black leather jacket but still lives with his mom (euphamism).

I know the answer is to be principled and the right one will come to you, but when a guy sees himself getting passed up for a moral loser, or worse, cheated on with one (happened to me with my first love), it is incredibly frustrating. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous

larry.gray said:


> You do realize that if the unfortunate were to happen, you'd have plenty of men from TAM who'd seek you out?
> 
> Women like you are very hard to find.


This is very nice of you to say @larry.gray..

I'm a realist...I tend to look at myself through the eyes of modern men... I'll never be a higher income woman- if this is what they respect.. I'm out... I'm too old fashioned for many, growing older isn't a plus, also I have too many children (though they are easy & incredibly well mannered)...these 4 things would put a fork into even considering someone like me... 

Between their expectations and how high of a bar my husband has set in some areas I hold dear .... I think I'd have a hell of a time...so yeah.. I dearly hope we make it to our rocking chairs together....


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> This response sounds so "sacrificial"... how are we to read this @jld?
> 
> What would your life have looked like had you not married... I am guessing, due to your intelligence, impressive grades in college..you would have went on to be a Successful career woman...gained the respect of others, self confidence soared..
> 
> I can always tell from your praising posts to other financially independent women ... you look up to them very very highly....
> 
> Do you envy them? I have always felt what we ENVY -is what we REALLY WANT IN LIFE... I've never personally envied the career woman, but I have envied the Mother in the home with her children...so I always knew this is where my
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was at.
> 
> I can't think of anything I gave up.. (is this not normal??)....I have seen it as all gain.. Getting married has been the beginning...really the foundation for all of my dreams to come to fruition... common as they may be to other women.. just being a devoted Wife..and Mother..
> 
> I probably sound like a Pollyanna saying this (I've been called this on TAM before too).... the only thing I can think that I gave up.. was experiencing more men / relationships.. but I honestly do not feel I would have found another as compatible for who I am, what I wanted in life, over my husband anyway.


SA, I think you and I occupy different positions in our marriages. You are the clear leader in your family. You chose your husband, you had the plan for the family, you found him his job. You take responsibility for his happiness, emotionally, sexually, in whatever way is needed. He has fit into your life plan, and you are both happy with your leadership.

I fit into Dug's life plan. He chose me. I followed him to Europe and Asia. I give in to him. Resistance for very long is unlikely from me. He is very _persuasive._

I am not the leader that you are. 

Do you remember telling me once that you think men are the weaker sex? And I told you I think women are the weaker sex?

I think our philosophies are reflected in our responses here. You feel sorry for men, want to protect them, do not want to see them hurt by women. You see them as vulnerable to the stronger sex, which you see as women. And that makes sense given your fundamental feeling about men.

I see men as powerful. I see women as yielding to men. And to that end, I think Gottman is right on with his research findings. 

I am not a bit surprised that he found women accept the influence of men, but men have a much harder time accepting the influence of women. I have seen it all my life. It is all over this thread. 

And it does not serve those men one bit. And Gottman patiently, patiently, patiently, and consistently, over decades, has been trying to tell them that.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> SA:
> 
> Responsible does not equal sexy to many women.
> 
> When I was stationed in Germany, my roommate and best friend was sleeping with a married woman with her husband's consent. They had an open marriage because her husband liked guys too. The three (my friend, other guys wife) of us spent a lot of time together going out to clubs, where I would strike out with the ladies; constantly. I will never forget her telling me that I was a "good provider" but that I would not land sexy because I was just that; a good provider. I think that was her sort of polite way of saying "beta".
> 
> At any rate, my whole life I have never been the guy that turned heads when I walked into a room, except for a 15 month period after my ex wife split where I was mad at the world and had a IDGAF attitude.
> 
> I am sort of rambling, but what I am getting at is responsible is not sexy in the eyes of most. I mean, how many men do we see on here that are responsible, yet get cheated on by their wives with some guy in a black leather jacket but still lives with his mom (euphamism).
> 
> I know the answer is to be principled and the right one will come to you, but when a guy sees himself getting passed up for a moral loser, or worse, cheated on with one (happened to me with my first love), it is incredibly frustrating.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Do you think you were looking for women in the wrong places, far? And looking for the wrong things in them?


----------



## samyeagar

Duguesclin said:


> She cannot come out of the marriage without some significant financial consequences.
> 
> Also 5 kids take a large toll on the body, especially when the smallest was 10+ lbs. And she breastfed for 15+ years.
> 
> She gave up her life.
> 
> I, on the other hand, could walk away with limited financial consequences. My health is very good, thanks to the good care of my wife.


She "gave up" other possible lives by choosing the one she did. Some of the others could have been better, some of them could have been worse, all subjectively of course, but using the phrase "gave up" in this context is implying that she knows the unknown in that she would have had a better life had she not given it up for the one she has.

As to you walking away with limited financial consequences...well, that is simply because of who you married. Educated stay at home mom, five kids, long term marriage...she has the legal power to destroy you financially for quite a long time, you are just counting on her not exercising that power. The legal fight she could mount and win would take a huge toll on your health, and likely your job performance too. With your travelling, good luck seeing your kids very much...she has you over a barrel if she ever decided to roll you.


----------



## jld

Perhaps "I gave my life to him" would have been clearer.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is very nice of you to say @larry.gray..
> 
> I'm a realist...I tend to look at myself through the eyes of modern men... I'll never be a higher income woman- if this is what they respect.. I'm out... I'm too old fashioned for many, growing older isn't a plus, also I have too many children (though they are easy & incredibly well mannered)...these 4 things would put a fork into even considering someone like me...
> 
> Between their expectations and how high of a bar my husband has set in some areas I hold dear .... I think I'd have a hell of a time...so yeah.. I dearly hope we make it to our rocking chairs together....


Not that I'm answering your dating ad here @SimplyAmorous 

There are men out there that might be able to come close. Myself, income of my partner has never mattered at all to me. Hell, not even being employed isn't an issue as long as I am able to cover the living expenses in a way that my wife would be OK with.

The kids thing...I have no desire what so ever to be involved with young kids, like pre teen, but grandkids are totally fine.

Given the hypothetical of your husband passing, and me ending up single...Honestly, at this point in my life, I think the thing that would be the absolute deal breaker for me, making a relationship with you a non starter is that I would not want to even try to compete with the ghost that would be your husband...now if somewhere down the line, my wife were to have passed on, that would level the playing field of sorts, and that kind of relationship...a widow and widower from good marriages...while not the typical marriage, lots of possibilities...could be a very good, happy and exciting one.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Do you think you were looking for women in the wrong places, far? And looking for the wrong things in them?


Absolutely at that time.

However, even when I was looking for the right type of woman in the right type of environment, it was much the same.

I suspect confidence had a huge part to play, and to the unknowing, anger and indifference can pass for confidence. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Given the hypothetical of your husband passing, and me ending up single...Honestly, at this point in my life, I think the thing that would be the absolute deal breaker for me, making a relationship with you a non starter is that *I would not want to even try to compete with the ghost that would be your husband...*now if somewhere down the line, my wife were to have passed on, that would level the playing field of sorts, and that kind of relationship...*a widow and widower from good marriages...while not the typical marriage, lots of possibilities...could be a very good, happy and exciting one*.


That ghost line is cute. 

Widow/widower combo sounds perfect.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Absolutely at that time.
> 
> However, even when I was looking for the right type of woman in the right type of environment, it was much the same.
> 
> I suspect confidence had a huge part to play, and to the unknowing, anger and indifference can pass for confidence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Lots of nice girls in churches, far.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

farsidejunky said:


> SA:
> 
> Responsible does not equal sexy to many women.
> 
> When I was stationed in Germany, my roommate and best friend was sleeping with a married woman with her husband's consent. They had an open marriage because her husband liked guys too. The three (my friend, other guys wife) of us spent a lot of time together going out to clubs, where I would strike out with the ladies; constantly. I will never forget her telling me that I was a "good provider" but that I would not land sexy because I was just that; a good provider. I think that was her sort of polite way of saying "beta".
> 
> At any rate, my whole life I have never been the guy that turned heads when I walked into a room, except for a 15 month period after my ex wife split where I was mad at the world and had a IDGAF attitude.
> 
> I am sort of rambling, but what I am getting at is responsible is not sexy in the eyes of most. I mean, how many men do we see on here that are responsible, yet get cheated on by their wives with some guy in a black leather jacket but still lives with his mom (euphamism).
> 
> I know the answer is to be principled and the right one will come to you, but when a guy sees himself getting passed up for a moral loser, or worse, cheated on with one (happened to me with my first love), it is incredibly frustrating.


 Thank you for pointing this out.. this is probably why I can easily sympathize with some of the men here ...they are likely my type..and I feel a strong sense of injustice towards them... 

I am not the norm.. this is true...but hey.. a Good Beta needs lovin' too!! 

When it comes to attraction... I DO CARE about looks..I think this is the divide for me... . I have to think he is at least CUTE, a little HOT.. some physical chemistry going on... I always went for the cute SHY GUYS growing up, the ones girls didn't really notice.... to me unearthing their mystery was enjoyable.. I've found introverted men more devoted, deeper thinkers, more faithful... this combined with responsibility....committing to 1 woman... his loving sex/ romance.....







... that's the whole package.. are you kidding!! 

Why the hell would I need a bad boy to get my juices flowing?

ME & an irresponsible man .. ha ha ha.. You would have to know me.. we'd never get along...I'd loose my cool with him..(example.. coming home Drunk, getting a DUI... having to nag because he's too busy playing video games to fix a fuel line leak on a car we need... blowing our money on frivolous things , then debt collectors call)...

You speak of frustrating.. I'm not a woman who holds her anger In.. I let it out.. I don't respect those things.. I'd slice & dice him into the ground...(I realize you think I am sweet.. I wouldn't have patience with any of those scenarios -no matter how Hot he was or good in bed)...

Believe me.. he wouldn't want me either riding his a$$ ! 

You mention going to clubs... I think of drinking/ parties.. loose sex...Not my lifestyle.. 

I have strong feelings on it seeing what happened to my own mother- in relation to philandering men, who get women EASY.... some things from our childhood (as we see with jld) never die in us..

But yes.. Responsibility doesn't equate - not sexy to me.. not at all.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
My favorite scene in Titanic is when Decaprio gets invited to join the rich folks at dinner. 

He says a bunch of stuff that is - just - true.

Your post reminded me of that.




Duguesclin said:


> She cannot come out of the marriage without some significant financial consequences.
> 
> Also 5 kids take a large toll on the body, especially when the smallest was 10+ lbs. And she breastfed for 15+ years.
> 
> She gave up her life.
> 
> I, on the other hand, could walk away with limited financial consequences. My health is very good, thanks to the good care of my wife.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> My favorite scene in Titanic is when Decaprio gets invited to join the rich folks at dinner.
> 
> He says a bunch of stuff that is - just - true.
> 
> Your post reminded me of that.


We have never seen that movie. Maybe I can find the scene on YouTube, though . . .


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> We have never seen that movie. Maybe I can find the scene on YouTube, though . . .


Don't bother, the ship sinks :laugh:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> SA, I think you and I occupy different positions in our marriages. You are the clear leader in your family. You chose your husband, you had the plan for the family, you found him his job. You take responsibility for his happiness, emotionally, sexually, in whatever way is needed. He has fit into your life plan, and you are both happy with your leadership.


 but we are equals.. he's the breadwinner.. his role in our life has allowed us our larger family.. this is no small thing... this is EVERYTHING.. he's a hard worker (he worked 16 hrs yesterday).. he carries a heavy load of responsibility.. far more than I... even if I am not exactly a "little woman" with no voice...

What I wanted in life though.. he was all in.. I never had to twist his arm.. if I did.. I would have felt he was wrong for me.. I need his "want" too. 



> I fit into Dug's life plan. He chose me. I followed him to Europe and Asia. I give in to him. Resistance for very long is unlikely from me. He is very _persuasive._
> 
> I am not the leader that you are.


 Yes.. I remember you landing here.. your 1st thread... something was said.. then I realized the contrast in our beginnings ..even if we had a lot in common...it was a "Wow moment" then I went on to explain ... I am more the "persuasive" between us.. this is true. 



> Do you remember telling me once that you think men are the weaker sex? And I told you I think women are the weaker sex?


 I feel men are the weaker sex - SEXUALLY speaking.... it depends on what it is -really.. I don't feel we have power over all men.. I remember you're speaking of this on Holland's thread a while back.... http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/251081-power-sex.html

But yes.. I much appreciate and am more attracted to men who I can "get under their skin"...in more ways than one.. if this makes him kinda Beta.. that works for me... I don't think it's a big deal. Unless I wasn't into pleasing him too..then things could get really lopsided.. but they do the other way around too [email protected]# 



> I think our philosophies are reflected in our responses here. You feel sorry for men, want to protect them, do not want to see them hurt by women. You see them as vulnerable to the stronger sex, which you see as women. And that makes sense given your fundamental feeling about men.


 It's not at all black & White to me.. there are clearly very ALPHA males who take strong leadership in their homes - over their wives ...in these cases... the woman may feel she has no power, or influence over him. 

I clearly "get this'.. it can be a temperament thing.. we can't help how we are wired.. and true....opposites often attract.. I would even go as far as to say.. there are plenty MORE relationships like this.. over the dynamics of ours.. so I can surely agree with you .... it's a case by case basis... 



> I see men as powerful. I see women as yielding to men. And to that end, I think Gottman is right on with his research findings.


 I yield to my husband too.. there are times I wanted something else.. but listened to him, oh I may have argued a bit.. but because I know he has our best interests at heart... this is what I needed to do.. 



> I am not a bit surprised that he found women accept the influence of men, but men have a much harder time accepting the influence of women. I have seen it all my life. It is all over this thread.


 but I say.. a sensitive husband (opposite of insensitive ) will deeply care about the needs & wants of his wife.. and want to grow together..isn't this a part of influencing too?? 



> And it does not serve those men one bit. And Gottman patiently, patiently, patiently, and consistently, over decades, has been trying to tell them that.


 although I haven't read these things to my husband... (your post #26 laying these out)....I am just about 100% sure he would agree with all that Gottman says.. yet he's tipped higher on those beta scales.. go figure..


----------



## MEM2020

Yes

It's only 4:31 in duration. 





jld said:


> We have never seen that movie. Maybe I can find the scene on YouTube, though . . .


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
You would have a long long line of suitors. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> This is very nice of you to say @larry.gray..
> 
> I'm a realist...I tend to look at myself through the eyes of modern men... I'll never be a higher income woman- if this is what they respect.. I'm out... I'm too old fashioned for many, growing older isn't a plus, also I have too many children (though they are easy & incredibly well mannered)...these 4 things would put a fork into even considering someone like me...
> 
> Between their expectations and how high of a bar my husband has set in some areas I hold dear .... I think I'd have a hell of a time...so yeah.. I dearly hope we make it to our rocking chairs together....


----------



## john117

"limited financial consequences"... what part of Saudi Arabia do you live in? 😂 With a bunch of kids you aren't walking in the expected manner... not in USA Midwestern states at least.


----------



## EllisRedding

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> You would have a long long line of suitors.


:scratchhead: Oh geez, I read you post as "You would have a long line of sailors" lol. Wasn't sure if there was a different SA lurking around TAM :grin2:


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> "limited financial consequences"... what part of Saudi Arabia do you live in? 😂 With a bunch of kids you aren't walking in the expected manner... not in USA Midwestern states at least.


He is likely right that it would be limited, but only because it is unlikely that jld would push for what the law says she is entitled to.

I have seen what dug has said about men supporting their ex wives and children, but I think even he would balk a bit if he got hit with the full force of the law.

I think one of the biggest catch 22's would be a job with significant travel time. If he's lucky, his employer would cut the travel way down for him, otherwise he'd likely rarely see his kids, and unless he'd be able to at least laterally change job's to keep his income where it is, he'd be stuck with no options there...that whole pesky earning potential thing versus actual earning.

Oh yeah, if it were to come down to a divorce, he'd be completely powerless and at jld's mercy.


----------



## Blondilocks

Listen up fellas, SA is not available! Roll your tongues up and stop the flirting.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Lots of nice girls in churches, far.


I'll remember that if I ever find myself back on the market.

:wink2:


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> I'll remember that if I ever find myself back on the market.
> 
> :wink2:


Lol, was kinda wondering if I had missed something!


----------



## sapientia

samyeagar said:


> Except you didn't give up your life. *You chose the life you have.*


 @jld - I have to agree with this comment. Unless Dug held a gun to your head and locked you up for the last 15 years, and raped you each time so you bore your 5 (? wow!) children, you CHOSE your life. Same as I did for 20 years. Like it or not, the sole responsibility for where you are in life is your own.

As I said in another post, it sounds like the two of you have come to a nice understanding in your marriage. What is it you think you "gave up", exactly?


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> Sapi and SA, I think it is great that you both share your honest perspectives, not only on your own marriages, but on each other's.
> 
> We do not have to all agree on anything. Getting exposed to different viewpoints, even ones that offend or shock us, as with that NYT piece, is what makes a forum valuable.


Thanks, @jld. My perspective is that it really comes down to knowing your own mind and needs. Which is another way of restating what SA posted about recognizing the source of any "envy" one might feel. Like her, I moved past those kinds of feelings some time ago since I'm now doing exactly what I want. As I've said, it took me some concerted effort to get here, though, and some appetite for managed risk. I had to step out of my comfort zone quite a bit to get where I am now, but I'm so glad I did.

My H is also very different from yours and SA. He wasn't looking for a SAHM, I wouldn't be happy as one, so we were simpatico. Also, his mother had a career and held a public office. My father worked 60+ hours a week. In my observation, we tend to seek out spouses like our parents, particularly if the home experience was a successful one.


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> @jld - I have to agree with this comment. Unless Dug held a gun to your head and locked you up for the last 15 years, and raped you each time so you bore your 5 (? wow!) children, you CHOSE your life. Same as I did for 20 years. Like it or not, the sole responsibility for where you are in life is your own.
> 
> As I said in another post, it sounds like the two of you have come to a nice understanding in your marriage. What is it you think you "gave up", exactly?


My own self-determination. Dug had a plan, and I accepted it. I did not craft it. 

Not that it was a bad plan. And I am grateful for it now. But I would not have come up with it on my own, like SA did. 

The point of telling people they chose something is to empower them. If they did not like the choice they made, owning it can help them make a different choice next time.

But that is a somewhat simplistic frame. We are all influenced by outside forces and circumstances, plus powerful inner forces. I am not sure all choices are truly free choices.

At 23, vulnerable, just coming out of some difficult circumstances, I was not in the same fully empowered position I might have been at an older, more life-experienced age.

Nevertheless, it all worked out okay. Really well, actually. And that is thanks to Dug's leadership.

But I will say, I did know a good deal when I saw it.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> My own self-determination. Dug had a plan, and I accepted it. I did not craft it.
> 
> Not that it was a bad plan. And I am grateful for it now. But I would not have come up with it on my own, like SA did.
> 
> The point of telling people they chose something is to empower them. If they did not like the choice they made, owning it can help them make a different choice next time.
> 
> But that is a somewhat simplistic frame. We are all influenced by outside forces and circumstances, plus powerful inner forces. *I am not sure all choices are truly free choices.*
> 
> At 23, vulnerable, just coming out of some difficult circumstances, I was not in the same fully empowered position I might have been at an older, more life-experienced age.
> 
> Nevertheless, it all worked out okay. Really well, actually. And that is thanks to Dug's leadership.
> 
> But I will say, I did know a good deal when I saw it.


Short of a gun to ones head, yes they are. Some choices have less than desirable options, some may not even have any options that we like at all. There rarely is a black and white choice...it's almost always grey.

At 23, you were still empowered, just as you are completely empowered today, you may just have been lacking in life wisdom to actually wield the power you had.

And you didn't give up your self determination, you actually exercised it. You had no plan, and you chose to follow his plan. You made that choice, that determination all on your own.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> *Short of a gun to ones head, yes they are. * Some choices have less than desirable options, some may not even have any options that we like at all. There rarely is a black and white choice...it's almost always grey.
> 
> At 23, you were still empowered, just as you are completely empowered today, you may just have been lacking in life wisdom to actually wield the power you had.
> 
> And you didn't give up your self determination, you actually exercised it. You had no plan, and you chose to follow his plan. You made that choice, that determination all on your own.


Was someone talking about black and white thinking before? 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the simplicity/complexity of "choice."


----------



## ButtPunch

MEM11363 said:


> Women initiat divorce in the US at about double the rate men do.
> 
> That's a very objective measure of unhappiness.


I agree.

Women are also twice as likely to suffer bouts of major depression and three times more likely to suffer from anxiety disorders and attempt suicide.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> SA, I think you and I occupy different positions in our marriages. You are the clear leader in your family. You chose your husband, you had the plan for the family, you found him his job. You take responsibility for his happiness, emotionally, sexually, in whatever way is needed. He has fit into your life plan, and you are both happy with your leadership.
> 
> I fit into Dug's life plan. He chose me. I followed him to Europe and Asia. I give in to him. Resistance for very long is unlikely from me. He is very _persuasive._
> 
> I am not the leader that you are.
> 
> Do you remember telling me once that you think men are the weaker sex? And I told you I think women are the weaker sex?
> 
> I think our philosophies are reflected in our responses here. You feel sorry for men, want to protect them, do not want to see them hurt by women. You see them as vulnerable to the stronger sex, which you see as women. And that makes sense given your fundamental feeling about men.
> 
> I see men as powerful. I see women as yielding to men. And to that end, I think Gottman is right on with his research findings.
> 
> I am not a bit surprised that he found women accept the influence of men, but men have a much harder time accepting the influence of women. I have seen it all my life. It is all over this thread.
> 
> And it does not serve those men one bit. And Gottman patiently, patiently, patiently, and consistently, over decades, has been trying to tell them that.


This is an amazing post, @jld. I'm certainly amazed to read it. I guess my question to you would be:

*Are you happy with your choices, or do you resent them?* There isn't anything inherently wrong or right about your choices, only how you perceive them. Also, I don't believe you aren't powerful. You may have chosen to give your power away, but your posts don't read as a weak woman.

And I hear you on the comment about influence, and Gottman's goals. I also think there is something of a selection happening today, where the increased divorce rate -- with a majority started by women -- is a predictable outcome for women who marry men who "fail" in this regard. Gone are the days of Mastadon Dinner and the June Cleaver wife (for those who remember Gray's MMWV). Women in the workforce are more empowered than ever to walk away from unsatisfying marriages.

The flip side, of course, is so are the men. As I said, in my own case I insisted we both waive maintenance but if I hadn't I'm sure my ex's lawyer would have argued "Hey, Dr. Sapi is just as qualified as my client... maybe SHE should pay HIM maintenance."

I suppose my point is that women aren't nearly as repressed as they used to be. Most SAHMs I know are college educated and there by choice, and could very quickly get back into the workforce in their own careers or by retraining (<5 years) if they really wanted it. Nursing, accounting, administration... there are lots of opportunities in these fields and more to come in the next decade or so.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I agree.
> 
> Women are also twice as likely to suffer bouts of major depression and three times more likely to suffer from anxiety disorders and attempt suicide.


During marriage?


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> During marriage?


LOL! :grin2:


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> During marriage?


That made me laugh.

No....in general. Married or single.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the simplicity/complexity of "choice."


 @jld. Really? You are far too intelligent to buy into this blameshifting. I understand very well this mental contortion because I lived it-- not your exact story b/c each life is unique-- but the core story is the same. When I was ready, and it took me years, I changed my life. Of course I'm not recommending divorce, there are lots of other options. 

It's an insult to your own intellect you are willing to put this on Dug, your kids, your family, or whomever. You are where you are by your choice, and noone else. Short of coercion, which is clearly not your situation. Even Bountiful, BC wives manage to escape and your situation is not nearly so dire.

If change is what you want, it can't happen instantly, of course. It's a journey by necessity now b/c you have responsibilities and you are a responsible person. This is true for everyone. You, Dug, me, my ex, my H... everyone. Decision making 101 holds true in life as much as business:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost


----------



## sapientia

This thread made me think of this song. I'm appalled I think of this as "an oldie" but a goodie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2u5uUu3DE


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> @jld. Really? You are far too intelligent to buy into this blameshifting. I understand very well this mental contortion because I lived it-- not your exact story b/c each life is unique-- but the core story is the same. When I was ready, and it took me years, I changed my life. Of course I'm not recommending divorce, there are lots of other options.
> 
> It's an insult to your own intellect you are willing to put this on Dug, your kids, your family, or whomever. You are where you are by your choice, and noone else. Short of coercion, which is clearly not your situation. Even Bountiful, BC wives manage to escape and your situation is not nearly so dire.
> 
> If change is what you want, it can't happen instantly, of course. It's a journey by necessity now b/c you have responsibilities and you are a responsible person. This is true for everyone. You, Dug, me, my ex, my H... everyone. Decision making 101 holds true in life as much as business:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost


Who says it is "blame" shifting? I think it might be "credit" shifting. 

No, I do not want to leave. I have a good life, and I am very grateful to Dug for it.

But I absolutely believe our "choices" may not be as "free" as we might think. Could be a good philosophical conversation.

I am very glad you joined this thread, sapi. I don't get a chance to talk to academics very often, and I enjoy the intellectual stimulation.


----------



## samyeagar

samyeagar said:


> Over the course of her posting on TAM, there have been bits and pieces of jld's past. Not a whole lot of detail, but one of the most telling things was how she grew up very afraid of her father.
> 
> It is entirely possible that her views of marriage and relationships, which are very much parent/child like, her rigid black and white thinking all stem from unresolved childhood trauma. That issues in her past have caused her to in some ways never progress past that childhood stage, and perhaps viewing her input here as coming from an unhealed trauma victim would provide a more understandable context to view it in.





jld said:


> My own self-determination. Dug had a plan, and I accepted it. I did not craft it.
> 
> Not that it was a bad plan. And I am grateful for it now. But I would not have come up with it on my own, like SA did.
> 
> The point of telling people they chose something is to empower them. If they did not like the choice they made, owning it can help them make a different choice next time.
> 
> But that is a somewhat simplistic frame. We are all influenced by outside forces and circumstances, plus powerful inner forces. I am not sure all choices are truly free choices.
> 
> At 23, vulnerable, just coming out of some difficult circumstances, I was not in the same fully empowered position I might have been at an older, more life-experienced age.
> 
> Nevertheless, it all worked out okay. Really well, actually. And that is thanks to Dug's leadership.
> 
> But I will say, I did know a good deal when I saw it.





sapientia said:


> @jld. Really? You are far too intelligent to buy into this blameshifting. I understand very well this mental contortion because I lived it-- not your exact story b/c each life is unique-- but the core story is the same. When I was ready, and it took me years, I changed my life. Of course I'm not recommending divorce, there are lots of other options.
> 
> It's an insult to your own intellect you are willing to put this on Dug, your kids, your family, or whomever. You are where you are by your choice, and noone else. Short of coercion, which is clearly not your situation. Even Bountiful, BC wives manage to escape and your situation is not nearly so dire.
> 
> If change is what you want, it can't happen instantly, of course. It's a journey by necessity now b/c you have responsibilities and you are a responsible person. This is true for everyone. You, Dug, me, my ex, my H... everyone. Decision making 101 holds true in life as much as business:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost


I really think that there is something to what I posted back on page 10 or so, and only seems to be reinforced.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> Who says it is "blame" shifting? I think it might be "credit" shifting.


That's a super point, and a much better turn of phrase.

I don't believe in free choice either, btw, but I do believe in personal responsibility and that we have influence over our decisions. If I had a battle cry it would be something like "Death to Learned Helplessness!".

I'm not really an academic, even though I teach at a university. Consultant and occasional mentor/investor, about sums it up without getting boring. Keeps the neurons firing.

I also love talking to academics, btw.


----------



## sapientia

samyeagar said:


> I really think that there is something to what I posted back on page 10 or so, and only seems to be reinforced.


Hey Sam, yah, except I said it better, eh?

j/k :x


----------



## jld

sapientia said:


> That's a super point, and a much better turn of phrase.
> 
> I don't believe in free choice either, btw, but I do believe in personal responsibility and that we have influence over our decisions. If I had a battle cry it would be something like "Death to Learned Helplessness!".
> 
> I'm not really an academic, even though I teach at a university. Consultant and occasional mentor/investor, about sums it up without getting boring. Keeps the neurons firing.
> 
> I also love talking to academics, btw.




I certainly think we can only help ourselves by taking as much responsibility as possible for our personal choices.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> SA, I think you and I occupy different positions in our marriages. You are the clear leader in your family. You chose your husband, you had the plan for the family, you found him his job. You take responsibility for his happiness, emotionally, sexually, in whatever way is needed. He has fit into your life plan, and you are both happy with your leadership.
> 
> I fit into Dug's life plan. He chose me. I followed him to Europe and Asia. I give in to him. Resistance for very long is unlikely from me. He is very _persuasive._
> 
> I am not the leader that you are.
> 
> Do you remember telling me once that you think men are the weaker sex? And I told you I think women are the weaker sex?
> 
> I think our philosophies are reflected in our responses here. You feel sorry for men, want to protect them, do not want to see them hurt by women. You see them as vulnerable to the stronger sex, which you see as women. And that makes sense given your fundamental feeling about men.
> 
> I see men as powerful. I see women as yielding to men. And to that end, I think Gottman is right on with his research findings.
> 
> I am not a bit surprised that he found women accept the influence of men, but men have a much harder time accepting the influence of women. I have seen it all my life. It is all over this thread.
> 
> And it does not serve those men one bit. And Gottman patiently, patiently, patiently, and consistently, over decades, has been trying to tell them that.


And yet you are both happy.

There is no "one size fits all" answer. Every couple is different. We can learn from each other, but it all has to be tailored.


----------



## samyeagar

sapientia said:


> That's a super point, and a much better turn of phrase.
> 
> *I don't believe in free choice either,* btw, but I do believe in personal responsibility and that we have influence over our decisions. If I had a battle cry it would be something like "Death to Learned Helplessness!".
> 
> I'm not really an academic, even though I teach at a university. Consultant and occasional mentor/investor, about sums it up without getting boring. Keeps the neurons firing.
> 
> I also love talking to academics, btw.


I'll parse words with you a bit here 

I suppose it depends on what one considers free to begin with. Every choice is framed with certain constraints, limitations on possible decisions. The closer a choice gets to the core of a person, the more limited the options because of tighter constraints, thus limiting the "freeness" of a choice, yet it remains a choice none the less.

Perhaps free choice in this context would be better phrased...self determination.


----------



## sapientia

jld said:


> I certainly think we can only help ourselves by taking as much responsibility as possible for our personal choices.


I've been reading a lot of Roger Martin (again) recently. He writes for the business audience, but I think a lot of his stuff also applies to relationships. To extend your point, I think there are two parts to personal decision making: the mental setup/prep and the execution. I "accepted" my own "responsibility" for my choices quite early in my married life. I'm referring to my first marriage. What I didn't understand was the "execution" part of acting on those choices in satisfactory ways that got my needs met. I've reached a place in life where the first part without the second, is just wasted mental energy.

Meh, Gottman and I should go have coffee sometime and thrash out some new ideas.

https://hbr.org/2016/01/strategy-and-execution-are-the-same-thing

Anyway, cheers all. Thanks for the discussion. Gotta go.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> That made me laugh.
> 
> No....in general. Married or single.


Tbh, I was totally serious.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I certainly think we can only help ourselves by taking as much responsibility as possible for our personal choices.


I'll go one step further and say we should all, including dug, strive to take absolute responsibility for our personal choices and actions.


----------



## sapientia

samyeagar said:


> I'll parse words with you a bit here
> 
> I suppose it depends on what one considers free to begin with. Every choice is framed with certain constraints, limitations on possible decisions. The closer a choice gets to the core of a person, the more limited the options because of tighter constraints, thus limiting the "freeness" of a choice, yet it remains a choice none the less.
> 
> Perhaps free choice in this context would be better phrased...self determination.


Yes, I'd accept this as an alternative.

Apologies for the terse reply; I'm just heading out so will add more to the discussion later. Cheers.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I'll go one step further and say we should all, including dug, strive to take absolute responsibility for our personal choices and actions.


Are you still mad at him from the other day?

He did not know your first girlfriend died. His point was that while you seemed, at least to him, to be saying you were an expert on LTR because you had 3, that to him having 3 does not make you an expert on LTR. To him, it just makes you an expert on serial relationships.


----------



## Blondilocks

Let's say that a 23 year old woman had just come out of a very bad relationship. She was broken emotionally and along comes a guy who sees this vulnerable young woman and decides he can mold her into who and what he desires. He is very persuasive and convinces her to follow his life plan. Was her decision to cast her fate with his a true choice on her part? Or, was she essentially bullied into it? One could argue that she didn't have the presence of mind to make that decision.


----------



## samyeagar

Blondilocks said:


> Let's say that a 23 year old woman had just come out of a very bad relationship. She was broken emotionally and along comes a guy who sees this vulnerable young woman and decides he can mold her into who and what he desires. He is very persuasive and convinces her to follow his life plan. Was her decision to cast her fate with his a true choice on her part? Or, was she essentially bullied into it? One could argue that she didn't have the presence of mind to make that decision.


One could, but then knowing that vulnerability...that wouldn't make him much of a prince now would it?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Are you still mad at him from the other day?
> 
> He did not know your first girlfriend died. His point was that while you seemed, at least to him, to be saying you were an expert on LTR because you had 3, that to him having 3 does not make you an expert on LTR. To him, it just makes you an expert on serial relationships.


Nah, I'm not mad at him.

See, that's just it though...his actions here go contrary to some of the things you say about him. He made an assumption without knowing all the facts, facts I may add that are known to people of TAM, so nothing was hidden...said something that was highly inappropriate given the facts that he didn't know that were available to him, yet he still chose to speak offensively, then claim to be speaking on facts when it was clear he didn't know the facts.

No, dug screwed up, yet despite all the lip service you and him give about being responsible, being a man, being strong, and all that, he chose not to take responsibility for his actions, and then you ran to his defense by pointing out my name calling...which I might add, I did take responsibility for, and made it right.

And as was pointed out, I wasn't the first he did that to on this thread.


----------



## Blondilocks

samyeagar said:


> One could, but then knowing that vulnerability...that wouldn't make him much of a prince now would it?


Not in my opinion, but I'm not married to him. It might explain the undercurrent of resentment I pick up on from the lady, though. She seems to be chafing at the ties that bind.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Tbh, I was totally serious.


Yes in marriage too.

My point to MEM was with statistics like these of course women are filing more.

Not to mention the beating men used to take and still take in some areas in divorce court.


----------



## EllisRedding

Is there a definition of what qualifies as an LTR? I mean, how many years do you have to be in a relationship for it to be an LTR? Is there a limit to how many relationships you can be in before you are disqualified from being considered in an LTR?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Nah, I'm not mad at him.
> 
> See, that's just it though...his actions here go contrary to some of the things you say about him. He made an assumption without knowing all the facts, facts I may add that are known to people of TAM, so nothing was hidden...said something that was highly inappropriate given the facts that he didn't know that were available to him, yet he still chose to speak offensively, then claim to be speaking on facts when it was clear he didn't know the facts.
> 
> No, dug screwed up, yet despite all the lip service you and him give about being responsible, being a man, being strong, and all that, he chose not to take responsibility for his actions, and then you ran to his defense by pointing out my name calling...which I might add, I did take responsibility for, and made it right.
> 
> And as was pointed out, I wasn't the first he did that to on this thread.


How was it offensive? 

Is it the part that he did not know your first girlfriend had died? 

He does not spend much time here, Sam. I did not know you had a gf who had died, either, and I have been here 2 1/2 years.

I am sure he thinks it is sad that she died. I think so, too.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> How was it offensive?
> 
> Is it the part that he did not know your first girlfriend had died?
> 
> He does not spend much time here, Sam. I did not know you had a gf who had died, either, and I have been here 2 1/2 years.
> 
> I am sure he thinks it is sad that she died. I think so, too.


Not just that, but also my NPD diagnosed ex wife, and somehow implying responsibility for the failure was mine and could have been avoided by following Gottman.

Dug claimed to work on facts, yet makes snap judgments and comments in cases where it is very obvious that there are not enough facts to make the assumptions and statements that he made. He was reckless and jumped to a conclusion without considering his own fallibility in not knowing everything.

A wise man would have asked for more information before arriving at a conclusion, and a humble man would acknowledge when he was wrong and take responsibility for his actions, sort of like I did after you came to his defense.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Gottman has been leading research on marriage for decades, and has been consistent in his recommendations. I think his research book is called _The Marriage Clinic._





jld said:


> I really do not understand why you seem to be trying to fight the research of a man who has spent more time studying marriage than you may have been alive. Gottman is certainly not an amateur in this field.


Gottman may be an authority on marriage, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

A conservative could ask why liberals get defensive when presented with the work of Milton Friedman (a Nobel award winning economist) when his ideas could help solve important economic problems.

A liberal could ask why conservatives get defensive when presented with the work of Paul Krugman (a Nobel award winning economist) when his ideas could help solve important economic problems.

This is simple Appeal to Authority. This only works if both sides agree on who is an authority. It's like using the Bible to argue with an atheist.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Not just that, but also my NPD diagnosed ex wife, and somehow implying responsibility for the failure was mine and could have been avoided by following Gottman.
> 
> Dug claimed to work on facts, yet makes snap judgments and comments in cases where it is very obvious that there are not enough facts to make the assumptions and statements that he made. He was reckless and jumped to a conclusion without considering his own fallibility in not knowing everything.
> 
> A wise man would have asked for more information before arriving at a conclusion, and a humble man would acknowledge when he was wrong and take responsibility for his actions.


We are all making judgments and assumptions, Sam. A message board is a limited medium. You and MTO and Blondi made several about me.

But I don't sweat it. I read, smile, and move on to the next post. No big deal. Again, a message board is a limited medium.

Sam, is what really hurts is the idea that maybe if you had done something different, something like what Gottman suggests, things could have been different?

I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question.


----------



## ABHale

Let me ask something jld. 

Have you cheated on you H, Doug I think I have heard is his name?

Do you believe that you would have the right to if he was not meeting your needs?

Or

If he was not there for you when you needed him to be, is it ok to make a mistake if another guy was there for you?

You are a hypocrite if you say no to these. This is what you have been saying on here ever sense I saw your post for the first time. 


Sense you didn't answer in our other "talk" I moved it here.


----------



## jld

ABHale said:


> Let me ask something jld.
> 
> Have you cheated on you H, Doug I think I have heard is his name?
> 
> Do you believe that you would have the right to if he was not meeting your needs?
> 
> Or
> 
> If he was not there for you when you needed him to be, is it ok to make a mistake if another guy was there for you?
> 
> You are a hypocrite if you say no to these. This is what you have been saying on here ever sense I saw your post for the first time.
> 
> 
> Sense you didn't answer in our other "talk" I moved it here.


Just responded over there. 

No cheating in our marriage. None is going to happen, either.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Sam, is what really hurts is the idea that maybe if you had done something different, something like what Gottman suggests, things could have been different?


The ability to throw a knife at someone (even if it's a bit dull and blunt) while wearing an empathetic expression is a pretty remarkable skill.


----------



## ABHale

jld said:


> Just responded over there.
> 
> No cheating in our marriage. None is going to happen, either.


Still not a answer to my question.


----------



## turnera

Mr The Other said:


> Sweet Lord!
> 
> The scales have fallen from my eyes!
> 
> Men are meant to be strong and powerful, but are cold and indifferent. Marries a man who seems cold and indifferent, gets him to listen and thinks it is a revelation that the world has to know! But how could they
> 
> A man that seems soft would be making an error to Jld, not man enough. If he is man enough and empathetic, all would work well.
> 
> When we say that it is possible for the man to be strong, empathetic and it to still not work, we are basically saying directly the Jld's sub-conscious "Maybe some lonely little girls do not deserve to be loved".
> 
> I do not feel that Jld is particularly empathetic. I do believe she can project her own feelings onto women in troubled relationships and feels them acutely. If you see all women having the same fears and feelings in struggling relationships, then what the man should do will always be the same. The difference with empathy is to understand people have different emotions, fears and motives.
> 
> Dug may come across as a jackass to some, but that his way made him perfect for Jld to relate to as a man, husband and father figure. Then, when Dug learned to listen to her, all her dreams fell into place.
> 
> I do not want to say "Maybe some lonely little girls do not deserve to be loved", so I will stop the conversation.


Every time they post together, all I can think of is 50 Shades of Grey, Mental Version.


----------



## jld

ABHale said:


> Still not a answer to my question.


I responded over there. But I will not participate in a further t/j.


----------



## jld

GorillaT said:


> The ability to throw a knife at someone (even if it's a bit dull and blunt) while wearing an empathetic expression is a pretty remarkable skill.


I guess we see my question differently.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I guess we see my question differently.


Perhaps, but I suspect not.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> We are all making judgments and assumptions, Sam. A message board is a limited medium. You and MTO and Blondi made several about me.
> 
> But I don't sweat it. I read, smile, and move on to the next post. No big deal. Again, a message board is a limited medium.
> *
> Sam, is what really hurts is the idea that maybe if you had done something different, something like what Gottman suggests, things could have been different?*
> 
> I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question.


Really? I'm having trouble finding the disconnect here jld. Again, what could I have done differently? My first one died two years into a great relationship. My second one was diagnosed NPD. How on earth would anything he says apply in those situations? No, there is nothing that Gottman suggests that is in the slightest bit hurtful to me.

How would Gottmans advice prevented a car wreck?

What does Gottman say about a man speaking and acting authoritatively without knowing all the facts? And what does he suggest when the man has been proven to be in the wrong?


----------



## ABHale

jld you will tell all this people you know best but won't answer a simple question.

No one goes into a relationship thinking the other will cheat, as you said. But it happens everyday.

JLD If you found yourself Cheating on your H, would YOU blame him for it?


----------



## larry.gray

Blondilocks said:


> Listen up fellas, SA is not available! Roll your tongues up and stop the flirting.


Well neither am I....

Which is why I hesitated to say anything. But my point remains, there are a lot of men who seek out a woman with her viewpoint life. And the demand certainly exceeds the supply.


----------



## ABHale

JLD it is easy to get on here and run that pie hole of yours to give everyone "your" opinion. 

You are a hypocrite, you give your crap out then refuse to stand behind it.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Really? I'm having trouble finding the disconnect here jld. Again, what could I have done differently? My first one died two years into a great relationship. My second one was diagnosed NPD. How on earth would anything he says apply in those situations? No, there is nothing that Gottman suggests that is in the slightest bit hurtful to me.
> 
> How would Gottmans advice prevented a car wreck?
> 
> What does Gottman say about a man speaking and acting authoritatively without knowing all the facts? And what does he suggest when the man has been proven to be in the wrong?


I am just surprised it brings out such emotion in you. But Gottman's advice seems to do that to other people, too. 

Anyway, it was just a question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

jld said:


> How was it offensive?
> 
> Is it the part that he did not know your first girlfriend had died?
> 
> He does not spend much time here, Sam. I did not know you had a gf who had died, either, and I have been here 2 1/2 years.
> 
> I am sure he thinks it is sad that she died. I think so, too.


I feel he spends enough time here to know that I'm definitely NOT dealing with Hi-BPD 

As I said, I don't wish my fate on anyone else, but this is one of these cases that "unless you're there, you just don't know what it feels like". 

Blaming the "victim" is not a very workable strategy in general. Maybe I should play the villain part and do something awful for my 30th anniversary in August, maybe flowers, the Brevile toaster oven (still unopened), and a loving note taking a bet to see if we'll have sex first or if the oven will be used first.

I'm rooting for the toaster oven personally.


----------



## ABHale

Just a example

Re: Only 1 Mind Movie remains: sex in public places 




Quote:

Originally Posted by jld View Post 

Really? You have never eaten a cookie when you knew an apple was a healthier choice?

I think they are both working this out very well. It just takes time.



ABHale posted

What the hell does this even mean. Are you really comparing eating a cookie over an apple to cheating. One eat the cookie run a mile, no problems. F**K SOMEONE OTHER THEN YOUR SO, DESTROY YOUR RELATIONSHIP!!

Reality to jld, get a clue.


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> Gottman may be an authority on marriage, but that doesn't mean he's always right.
> 
> A conservative could ask why liberals get defensive when presented with the work of Milton Friedman (a Nobel award winning economist) when his ideas could help solve important economic problems.
> 
> A liberal could ask why conservatives get defensive when presented with the work of Paul Krugman (a Nobel award winning economist) when his ideas could help solve important economic problems.
> 
> This is simple Appeal to Authority. This only works if both sides agree on who is an authority. It's like using the Bible to argue with an atheist.


I was just thinking, could you imagine if, based on my relationship with my Wife as the "role model" along with some marriage books I read, I (as a male) decided I knew exactly how women needed to act, what makes them strong or weak. When women repeatedly told me my viewpoints were wrong or didn't always apply, I just simply rehashed the same information, quoting authors as the basis for this. I would probably get skinned alive here :grin2:


----------



## ABHale

I really believe jld has cheated on her husband. This is the only reason I can come up with for her way of thinking. She has to make the argument that it is not her fault through all this other post. 

So, jld how many has it really been for you?


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I am just surprised it brings out such emotion in you. But Gottman's advice seems to do that to other people, too.
> 
> Anyway, it was just a question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Jesus. It's like you can't help yourself.


----------



## Hope1964

ABHale said:


> JLD it is easy to get on here and run that pie hole of yours to give everyone "your" opinion.
> 
> You are a hypocrite, you give your crap out then refuse to stand behind it.





ABHale said:


> jld you will tell all this people you know best but won't answer a simple question.
> 
> No one goes into a relationship thinking the other will cheat, as you said. But it happens everyday.
> 
> JLD If you found yourself Cheating on your H, would YOU blame him for it?


Don't let her get to you. It's her standard MO. She posts things that she knows are going to rile people up, always keeping just below the threshold of being outright nasty, and couching it in language that makes her sound empathetic. She waits till someone calls her out, then pretends to answer whatever charges people level at her, all the while doing the typical politician thing of providing a lot of verbiage that means absolutely nothing. Then, when you call her out with a simple black and white question, she 'refuses to participate' any more. 

You'll never get more than that from her.


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> I am just surprised it brings out such emotion in you. But Gottman's advice seems to do that to other people, too.
> 
> Anyway, it was just a question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, it wasn't just a question. It was a back-handed way to get a rise out of sam. Passive-aggressive does not suit you, jld.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> Sam, is what really hurts is the idea that maybe if you had done something different, something like what Gottman suggests, things could have been different?


Which one is different?

Had he taken his GF on a trip together she'd be alive? That's consequentialism. It is incredibly rude and hurtful to go down that road with anyone who has lost love that way.

Or are we talking the NPD wife? Your dad was probably NPD. He could no more make his wife non-disordered than you could fix your dad by being a good kid.


----------



## turnera

jld said:


> Anyway, it was just a question.


How much studying have you done on passive aggressiveness? Can you recognize it?

ETA: Ha! Blondi beat me to it, lol!


----------



## larry.gray

ABHale said:


> I really believe jld has cheated on her husband. This is the only reason I can come up with for her way of thinking. She has to make the argument that it is not her fault through all this other post.
> 
> So, jld how many has it really been for you?


Hey, i'm still waiting for her to answer this one. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...handed-my-bf-now-its-over-2.html#post15829753


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I am just surprised it brings out such emotion in you. But Gottman's advice seems to do that to other people, too.
> 
> Anyway, it was just a question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And what about this part of my question for you...



> What does Gottman say about a man speaking and acting authoritatively without knowing all the facts? And what does he suggest when the man has been proven to be in the wrong?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And what about this part of my question for you...


Depends. Are you married to him? 

J/k 

Sam, Dug does not see it the way you do. He just expressed his opinion, same as you and everyone else here.

We are not all going to see things the same way here. That is life on a message board.


----------



## ABHale

Hypocrite o jld, sense your husband has already taken himself out of the question by already say he is responsible for your cheating. So how about it, how many times have you cheated?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Depends. Are you married to him?
> 
> J/k
> 
> Sam, Dug does not see it the way you do. He just expressed his opinion, same as you and everyone else here.
> 
> We are not all going to see things the same way here. That is life on a message board.


It was an opinion, stated as fact, based on incomplete and incorrect data, that has been shown to be objectively incorrect. He acted without enough information to act. Since he sees things differently, does he still stand by his assertion that if I had done things differently, perhaps followed Gottmans advice, I would have only had one relationship? Does he acknowledge that his assertion was objectively incorrect?

What this is demonstrating here is completely counter to the responsibility, humble mantra that you and he have professed, and behaviors like this don't typically happen in a vacuum, so is this type of behavior normal for him?


----------



## samyeagar

ABHale said:


> Hypocrite o jld, sense your husband has already taken himself out of the question by already say he is responsible for your cheating. So how about it, how many times have you cheated?


I'm not really sure where this idea of her cheating has come from. Is it something she has eluded to? It's not a nice thing to hit on things so sensitive without something to back it up.


----------



## Blondilocks

ABHale said:


> Hypocrite o jld, sense your husband has already taken himself out of the question by already say he is responsible for your cheating. So how about it, how many times have you cheated?


Please stop this badgering. It is no one's business if she has or hasn't unless she decides to share the info. And, she would be stupid to post any info on a public forum without first talking to her husband.

I personally don't think she has ever cheated.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Are you still mad at him from the other day?
> 
> He did not know your first girlfriend died. His point was that while you seemed, at least to him, to be saying you were an expert on LTR because you had 3, that to him having 3 does not make you an expert on LTR. To him, it just makes you an expert on serial relationships.


I note he thinks, not he thought. Does he still think that? 

He was wrong and he was offensive about it. You saw Blossoms post....lots of us thought he was out of line.

His refusal to acknowledge and apologise is out of sync with the strong character you say he is. He either doesn't get what he did, or he doesn't have the strength to admit a mistake. 

The fact that he got it so wrong in this case might indicate that he has done so in other cases. 

None of this is about being mad at him. It's about the level of respect his views deserve, when he is held up as the man many of us should emulate. Is this what other men should try to be? The longer he leaves it the weaker it looks.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I am just surprised it brings out such emotion in you. But Gottman's advice seems to do that to other people, too.
> 
> Anyway, it was just a question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are surprised being told it was his fault that his wife's mental illness ended a relationship was hurtful?


----------



## Blondilocks

We would do well to remember that Dug only posts here because jld wants him to. It is something he can do with her that doesn't take too much time and lets her believe that he is taking an interest in her interest.

I don't think he gives a rat's ass if he offends anyone, here. So, don't look for an apology anytime soon, if ever.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> It was an opinion, stated as fact, based on incomplete and incorrect data, that has been shown to be objectively incorrect. He acted without enough information to act. Since he sees things differently, does he still stand by his assertion that if I had done things differently, perhaps followed Gottmans advice, I would have only had one relationship? Does he acknowledge that his assertion was objectively incorrect?
> 
> What this is demonstrating here is completely counter to the responsibility, humble mantra that you and he have professed, and behaviors like this don't typically happen in a vacuum, so is this type of behavior normal for him?


You will have to ask him. 

Dug is very intelligent, very logical and analytical. A very strong T on the MBTI. To someone who may be a strong F, his T may be challenging . . . and frustrating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> You will have to ask him.
> 
> Dug is very intelligent, very logical and analytical. A very strong T on the MBTI. To someone who may be a strong F, his T may be challenging . . . and frustrating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So? Why do you feel the need to excuse and defend him? Does he need you to defend him?

What is your opinion of his remark? Not necessarily the offensiveness of it, becaue that is subjective, rather his saying something without knowing what he was talking about, being proven incorrect, and being unable to acknowledge he was wrong. How do the objective parts of this make you feel jld?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> So? Why do you feel the need to excuse and defend him? Does he need you to defend him?
> 
> What is your opinion of his remark? Not necessarily the offensiveness of it, becaue that is subjective, rather his saying something without knowing what he was talking about, being proven incorrect, and being unable to acknowledge he was wrong. How do the objective parts of this make you feel jld?


I did not have any particular feeling about it. It was his opinion, nothing more.

We were both surprised at the reaction. Never saw that coming.

Again, what do you think he is wrong about? The only thing I see is that he did not know the first gf died. 

Honestly, Sam, I think you are arguing something different than Dug was saying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I note he thinks, not he thought. Does he still think that?
> 
> He was wrong and he was offensive about it. You saw Blossoms post....lots of us thought he was out of line.
> 
> His refusal to acknowledge and apologise is out of sync with the strong character you say he is. He either doesn't get what he did, or he doesn't have the strength to admit a mistake.
> 
> The fact that he got it so wrong in this case might indicate that he has done so in other cases.
> 
> None of this is about being mad at him. It's about the level of respect his views deserve, when he is held up as the man many of us should emulate. Is this what other men should try to be? The longer he leaves it the weaker it looks.


Why do you think you should emulate him? Because I think he is a fine man?

I absolutely think Dug is a fabulous guy. But you are welcome to have a different opinion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Blondilocks said:


> It is interesting that Gottman was not able to apply his research to his first two marriages. Obviously, he was unable to influence his first two wives.


By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Damn auto correct!


I see auto-correct is your worst enema too. :grin2:


----------



## tech-novelist

I believe Gottman's research has been debunked sufficiently by this report:

"For the 1998 study, which focused on videotapes of 57 newlywed couples, I assumed that Gottman had, in the first instance, sorted them into three groups—will divorce, will be happy, will be unhappy but still married—based on the conflict-variables he believed distinguished marriages that last from those that don't (contempt, little positive affect, elevated male heart rate, etc.). Then, at six years, he'd checked to see how right, or wrong, his predictions had been. That isn't how it worked. He knew the marital status of his subjects at six years, and he fed that information into a computer along with the communication patterns turned up on the videos. Then he asked the computer, in effect: Create an equation that maximizes the ability of my chosen variables to distinguish among the divorced, happy, and unhappy."

A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.

In other words, it was data mining, not prediction. Not very useful (other than for selling books) and not at all scientific.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I did not have any particular feeling about it. It was his opinion, nothing more.
> 
> We were both surprised at the reaction. Never saw that coming.
> *
> Again, what do you think he is wrong about?* The only thing I see is that he did not know the first gf died.
> 
> Honestly, Sam, I think you are arguing something different than Dug was saying.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He told me that if I had followed Gottmans advice, that my failed relationship might have turned out differently, a suggestion you inexplicably reiterated again this evening. Do you think you and dug were incorrect in your assessment?

I know this may seem as if I am nitpicking here, but this really does illustrate the huge disconnect you and dug seem to be fostering with many, if not most posters on this forum, and why many completely dismiss you and dug out of hand. This has been pointed out to you many times in many different ways.

I understand you and dug are very resistant to doing things in any way that deviates from your narrow track of behavior. I also understand that you and dug really don't care either, and that lack of caring, lack of desire to communicate in a way that is actually received...it comes through in many ways, including the advice you and dug try to give, and belies your claim that you and dug actually want to help anyone.


----------



## EllisRedding

Hope everyone had a good 4th ...


----------



## sapientia

GorillaT said:


> Jesus. It's like you can't help yourself.


ffs. This is the THIRD post where you're wanting to teach a lesson to jld and her posts aren't even directed at you. She isn't responding to you. If Sam has an issue with jld's posts, he can dialogue with her.

Post reported. Good luck with your Mod application.


----------



## Wazza

tech-novelist said:


> I believe Gottman's research has been debunked sufficiently by this report:
> 
> "For the 1998 study, which focused on videotapes of 57 newlywed couples, I assumed that Gottman had, in the first instance, sorted them into three groups—will divorce, will be happy, will be unhappy but still married—based on the conflict-variables he believed distinguished marriages that last from those that don't (contempt, little positive affect, elevated male heart rate, etc.). Then, at six years, he'd checked to see how right, or wrong, his predictions had been. That isn't how it worked. He knew the marital status of his subjects at six years, and he fed that information into a computer along with the communication patterns turned up on the videos. Then he asked the computer, in effect: Create an equation that maximizes the ability of my chosen variables to distinguish among the divorced, happy, and unhappy."
> 
> A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.
> 
> In other words, it was data mining, not prediction. Not very useful (other than for selling books) and not at all scientific.


If the equations can then be tested for predictive power and refined, it could be a very useful step in a larger picture.


----------



## pidge70

sapientia said:


> ffs. This is the THIRD post where you're wanting to teach a lesson to jld and her posts aren't even directed at you. She isn't responding to you. If Sam has an issue with jld's posts, he can dialogue with her.
> 
> Post reported. Good luck with your Mod application.


I fail to see how this post in any way violates forum rules. Then again, I'm not a mod.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sapientia

samyeagar said:


> He told me that if I had followed Gottmans advice, that my failed relationship might have turned out differently, a suggestion you inexplicably reiterated again this evening. Do you think you and dug were incorrect in your assessment?
> 
> I know this may seem as if I am nitpicking here, but this really does illustrate the huge disconnect you and dug seem to be fostering with many, if not most posters on this forum, and why many completely dismiss you and dug out of hand. This has been pointed out to you many times in many different ways.
> 
> I understand you and dug are very resistant to doing things in any way that deviates from your narrow track of behavior. I also understand that you and dug really don't care either, and that lack of caring, lack of desire to communicate in a way that is actually received...it comes through in many ways, including the advice you and dug try to give, and belies your claim that you and dug actually want to help anyone.


Sam, what happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry to learn this.
I've been here a while and I had no idea about this tragedy.

Perhaps you are being a bit unreasonable, however, to expect everyone to know this information from your previous posts on TAM. I certainly don't have time or inclination to go read up on every poster I dialogue with on the site. I would suggest you communicate your history next time, especially a topic so raw.


----------



## sapientia

pidge70 said:


> I fail to see how this post in any way violates forum rules. Then again, I'm not a mod.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is some rule about baiting, etc. Once, twice.. god, three times? Point made already! After that, it feels like someone playing "Yes Teacher." Anyway, I'll leave it to the mods. For me, it's unhelpful and irritating by making the discussion thread harder to catch up on.


----------



## Blondilocks

pidge70 said:


> I fail to see how this post in any way violates forum rules. Then again, I'm not a mod.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If I were a mod, I might be thinking of taking away someone's report button. Beginning to sound like an old fashioned tattletale.


----------



## tech-novelist

Wazza said:


> If the equations can then be tested for predictive power and refined, it could be a very useful step in a larger picture.


Yes, but that is a very big "if". I have seen no indication that Gottman (or anyone else) has done that experiment, and the article I just cited says he hadn't done so up until that publication date at least:

"The upshot? What Gottman did wasn't really a prediction of the future but a formula built after the couples' outcomes were already known. This isn't to say that developing such formulas isn't a valuable—indeed, a critical—first step in being able to make a prediction. The next step, however—one absolutely required by the scientific method—is to apply your equation to a fresh sample to see whether it actually works. That is especially necessary with small data slices (such as 57 couples), because patterns that appear important are more likely to be mere flukes. But Gottman never did that. Each paper he's published heralding so-called predictions is based on a new equation created after the fact by a computer model."

And without such an experiment, the equations are worthless, because (in the social sciences particularly) you can *always *find equations that fit the past if you don't care whether they have any predictive power in the future. That is an elementary scientific error.


----------



## pidge70

sapientia said:


> There is some rule about baiting, etc. Once, twice.. god, three times? Point made already! After that, it feels like someone playing "Yes Teacher." Anyway, I'll leave it to the mods. For me, it's unhelpful and irritating by making the discussion thread harder to catch up on.


Plenty of baiting going on in this thread. I hope all of them were reported.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> He told me that if I had followed Gottmans advice, that my failed relationship might have turned out differently, a suggestion you inexplicably reiterated again this evening. Do you think you and dug were incorrect in your assessment?


No, he did not say that. He said that having 3 LTRs does not make you a LTR expert. 

Where did I say if you had followed Gottman's advice, you would not have gotten divorced? Please quote.



> I know this may seem as if I am nitpicking here, but this really does illustrate the huge disconnect you and dug seem to be fostering with many, if not most posters on this forum, and why many completely dismiss you and dug out of hand. This has been pointed out to you many times in many different ways.


Anyone is welcome to completely disregard anything we or anyone else says on this forum. It is just a collection of views, nothing binding.



> I understand you and dug are very resistant to doing things in any way that deviates from your narrow track of behavior. I also understand that you and dug really don't care either, and that lack of caring, lack of desire to communicate in a way that is actually received...it comes through in many ways, including the advice you and dug try to give, and belies your claim that you and dug actually want to help anyone.


Sam, you sound hurt. I know it was never Dug's intention to hurt you. He really is a strong T. He is very low affect. He may just not be someone you want to interact with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sapientia

tech-novelist said:


> I believe Gottman's research has been debunked sufficiently by this report:
> 
> "For the 1998 study, which focused on videotapes of 57 newlywed couples, I assumed that Gottman had, in the first instance, sorted them into three groups—will divorce, will be happy, will be unhappy but still married—based on the conflict-variables he believed distinguished marriages that last from those that don't (contempt, little positive affect, elevated male heart rate, etc.). Then, at six years, he'd checked to see how right, or wrong, his predictions had been. That isn't how it worked. He knew the marital status of his subjects at six years, and he fed that information into a computer along with the communication patterns turned up on the videos. Then he asked the computer, in effect: Create an equation that maximizes the ability of my chosen variables to distinguish among the divorced, happy, and unhappy."
> 
> A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.
> 
> In other words, it was data mining, not prediction. Not very useful (other than for selling books) and not at all scientific.


No. Below is the authors bio. She is a journalist with a law degree. As I said in another post, this sort get the conclusions wrong all the time. She's in the business of selling her own articles and books. Not even close to Gottman's training and research history. There are also a couple errors in logic in that piece that I found with just a cursory skim, particularly the analogy about the janitor and the physicist. I don't think there is a particularly large population of "extremely educated" (her words) janitors. I also wouldn't say that data mining is "not at all scientific", although I agree it's not how I would have treated the data myself. Anyway:

_Laurie Abraham is a freelance writer and senior editor of Elle magazine and the author of Mama Might Be Better Off Dead: The Failure of Health Care in Urban America (University of Chicago Press). Formerly the executive editor of Elle, she’s written for New York Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, Mother Jones, and many other publications. Her work is also included in Best American Essays 2006, as well as the original collections The ***** in the House (2001), Maybe Baby (2006), and The Secret Currency of Love (2008). *Laurie has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in journalism from Northwestern University and a master’s in law from Yale University.*_


----------



## ABHale

Blondilocks said:


> Please stop this badgering. It is no one's business if she has or hasn't unless she decides to share the info. And, she would be stupid to post any info on a public forum without first talking to her husband.
> 
> I personally don't think she has ever cheated.


I am just using her own thought process on her. Pulling bs out of nowhere and posting it. Just like it is not right for me to do this, it is not right for her. 

The difference being i know what I have said is wrong. Where she doesn't see herself at fault.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

sapientia said:


> Sam, what happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry to learn this.
> I've been here a while and I had no idea about this tragedy.
> 
> Perhaps you are being a bit unreasonable, however, to expect everyone to know this information from your previous posts on TAM. I certainly don't have time or inclination to go read up on every poster I dialogue with on the site. I would suggest you communicate your history next time, especially a topic so raw.


The issue isn't not knowing, it is continuing to be obtuse in light of the facts.


----------



## sapientia

larry.gray said:


> The issue isn't not knowing, it is continuing to be obtuse in light of the facts.


I'm bowing out here. No judgement either way. Don't know the history and don't care, except the thread is now f-d. The mods know, they will do their jobs eventually. Anything else is just axe grinding and mob-think. I'll come back when the discussion returns to the thread topic.

Cheers.


----------



## ABHale

With that said jld is a hypocrite.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ABHale

jld said:


> I did not have any particular feeling about it. It was his opinion, nothing more.
> 
> We were both surprised at the reaction. Never saw that coming.
> 
> Again, what do you think he is wrong about? The only thing I see is that he did not know the first gf died.
> 
> Honestly, Sam, I think you are arguing something different than Dug was saying.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am guessing then Doug is like you then. Putting stuff out here with out knowing the facts. At least when I do this I apologize.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

samyeagar said:


> As to what Gottman says, and I have read a lot of his stuff...there are some tidbits here and there that are good, common sense advice in the context of being gender neutral. I have been in three exclusive, long term, committed relationships in my life, and I can honestly say that most of what he says does not apply at best, or would have been actively destructive at worst to my personal experience.





samyeagar said:


> Disagreement does not equal defensiveness. I suspect that for many men, as with me, it simply doesn't apply to, or reflect our life experiences.





Duguesclin said:


> This is why you had 3 long term relationships and not just one.





jld said:


> No, he did not say that. He said that having 3 LTRs does not make you a LTR expert.


That's not at all what he said.



> Where did I say if you had followed Gottman's advice, you would not have gotten divorced? Please quote.





jld said:


> We are all making judgments and assumptions, Sam. A message board is a limited medium. You and MTO and Blondi made several about me.
> 
> But I don't sweat it. I read, smile, and move on to the next post. No big deal. Again, a message board is a limited medium.
> *
> Sam, is what really hurts is the idea that maybe if you had done something different, something like what Gottman suggests, things could have been different?*
> 
> I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question.


There you go.



> Anyone is welcome to completely disregard anything we or anyone else says on this forum. It is just a collection of views, nothing binding.
> 
> 
> 
> Sam, you sound hurt. I know it was never Dug's intention to hurt you. He really is a strong T. He is very low affect. He may just not be someone you want to interact with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Celes

Is this forum filled with high schoolers or something? Jld posted an article. Not everyone has to agree with it. Not sure why people feel the need to get their panties in a twist over it and personally attack her. 

IMO I do agree with the article in the case of traditional marriages where the man takes the lead. Being in charge means more responsibility. Which means if things fail, the leader bears more responsibility. Of course not all marriages are set up with the man being the lead, but I've also found that many women are quite unhappy being the leader in the relationship and are disappointed the husband doesn't take charge more. Of course plenty of marriages are between people who share leadership equally, so the article probably doesn't apply to them.


----------



## jld

Did you miss this part, Sam?

*"I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question."*


----------



## ABHale

Blondilocks said:


> Please stop this badgering. It is no one's business if she has or hasn't unless she decides to share the info. And, she would be stupid to post any info on a public forum without first talking to her husband.
> 
> I personally don't think she has ever cheated.


BL I was going to pm you but didn't see the button on your profile. 

Please don't think this is who I am. Was just making a point about how jld pulls thing unrelated to one another and post it. Has jld cheat probably not only she knows. But me saying that is just like the crazy crap she pulls out of her bags of tricks on any day. 

So please, do not think this is who I really am when it comes to what I posted with her. Yes it was uncalled for and insensitive just like what she post every day on others posts. Again was just trying to make a point. 

She can try and defend what she says but she still comes down as being at times a heartless hypocrite.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Did you miss this part, Sam?
> 
> *"I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question."*


No I didn't miss it, but that statement does not change the fact that it was still a suggestion on your part. In the context I provided regarding my relationships, the question you asked made absolutely no sense, and showed you had zero consideration for what I said...it was as if you completely ignored it to try and continue to drive your incorrect point home...that somehow Gottman would have helped.


----------



## john117

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*

Gottman's method is useful, heck we use similar high speed recordings at work to observe and classify user reaction to our products. (Look Ma, it's my lab  )

The analysis part I have more difficulty with. I assume he's doing QDA (qualitative data analysis, a subject I'm well versed in). Plenty of techniques there. My only concern would be sample size, I have a hard time with n=57... if you use grouping things get ugly in a hurry with very small sizes. Some ethnicities are expressive some are not, etc. Likewise ages, length in relationship, etc.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> No I didn't miss it, but that statement does not change the fact that it was still a suggestion on your part. In the context I provided regarding my relationships, the question you asked made absolutely no sense, and showed you had zero consideration for what I said...it was as if you completely ignored it to try and continue to drive your incorrect point home...that somehow Gottman would have helped.


It seemed like you were triggering, and I was trying to figure out what the trigger was. I thought the best thing to do was ask if that was it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> *My favorite scene in Titanic is when Decaprio gets invited to join the rich folks at dinner.
> 
> He says a bunch of stuff that is - just - true.*
> 
> Your post reminded me of that.


 Had to look that up.. starting at 2:40...  Titanic Dinner scene Yep.. he sums it up pretty nicely near the end ! 



samyeagar said:


> Given the hypothetical of your husband passing, and me ending up single...Honestly, at this point in my life, I think the thing that would be the absolute deal breaker for me, making a relationship with you a non starter is that I would not want to even try to compete with the ghost that would be your husband...now if somewhere down the line, my wife were to have passed on, that would level the playing field of sorts, and that kind of relationship...*a widow and widower from good marriages...while not the typical marriage, lots of possibilities...could be a very good, happy and exciting one.*


 Also just reading here..one thing has become very clear ....when someone had a BAD marriage/ one too many bad experiences with the opposite sex.... it has the ability to change a person in a fundamental way...many closing themselves off in areas they were OPEN to before the fall.. 

The 2 widowers would have a very different thing to deal with... living in another's shadow... but still.. finding each other / wading through their grief together.. at least they understand what the other is going through like no other.. almost seems an ideal pairing to me... supporting each other through.. that's some emotional bonding right there... 

I am thinking of a man my husband went to school with...he married his high school sweetheart.. we all went to the same church, same ages.. they had 5 kids.. he recently lost his wife to cancer, much too early....they were each others's one & only.. A happy couple -always.... he is still posting pics of them on Facebook.. he's missing his soul mate, his beloved wife... he writes about her like this..maybe a way to deal with his grief.... I've read these posts .. you just feel for him so strongly...

Will he ever be open to another.. maybe someday... some can never go there with another though...I've seen that too... Everyone is different...


----------



## tech-novelist

sapientia said:


> No. Below is the authors bio. She is a journalist with a law degree. As I said in another post, this sort get the conclusions wrong all the time. She's in the business of selling her own articles and books. Not even close to Gottman's training and research history. There are also a couple errors in logic in that piece that I found with just a cursory skim, particularly the analogy about the janitor and the physicist. I don't think there is a particularly large population of "extremely educated" (her words) janitors. I also wouldn't say that data mining is "not at all scientific", although I agree it's not how I would have treated the data myself. Anyway:
> 
> _Laurie Abraham is a freelance writer and senior editor of Elle magazine and the author of Mama Might Be Better Off Dead: The Failure of Health Care in Urban America (University of Chicago Press). Formerly the executive editor of Elle, she’s written for New York Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, Mother Jones, and many other publications. Her work is also included in Best American Essays 2006, as well as the original collections The ***** in the House (2001), Maybe Baby (2006), and The Secret Currency of Love (2008). *Laurie has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in journalism from Northwestern University and a master’s in law from Yale University.*_


The question is not the relative credentials of the article author and Gottman. The question is whether she is correct in her claim that he never tested his hypothesis on independent data. If that claim is correct, then his conclusions are scientifically unsupported.

Here's another example of the same approach:

Suppose that I claim to have found a moving average or some other indicator that will "infallibly predict" a market crash. Then when someone asks how I found this "infallible" indicator, I say "I ran all the different moving average times (or the like), and this is the one that has always worked in the past."

Of course if I don't test this "infallible indicator" with an independent sample, it is meaningless data mining. And in fact this is exactly how people create these "infallible" indicators. Clearly there is no reason that they should continue to be "infallible" in the future, and they generally aren't. But they can absolutely be infallible in the *past*, just like his "postdiction" of divorce rates.


----------



## sapientia

tech-novelist said:


> Here's another example of the same approach:
> 
> Suppose that I claim to have found a moving average or some other indicator that will "infallibly predict" a market crash. Then when someone asks how I found this "infallible" indicator, I say "I ran all the different moving average times (or the like), and this is the one that has always worked in the past."
> 
> Of course if I don't test this "infallible indicator" with an independent sample, it is meaningless data mining. And in fact this is exactly how people create these "infallible" indicators. Clearly there is no reason that they should continue to be "infallible" in the future, and they generally aren't. But they can absolutely be infallible in the *past*, just like his "postdiction" of divorce rates.


I found this^ particular example lacking clarity and full of bamboozling jargon, which is generally unnecessary if a strong point is being made.

You claimed the author made a compelling argument in her article that debunks Gottman, posting supporting quotes. I disagree based on what I read in her article, which contained faulty logic, which makes me suspect the rest or her analysis. While not proof on it's own, it is consistent with her lack of a research background.


----------



## farsidejunky

This thread started with some compelling dialogue. Now?


----------



## jld

Just put it back on topic, far. Sapientia and I are ready.


----------



## sapientia

Actually, I have to go Home soon...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blondilocks said:


> If I were a mod, I might be thinking of taking away someone's report button. Beginning to sound like an old fashioned tattletale.


I really have no desire to make waves.. but there are 2 things that irritate me... those who are "sue happy".. and those who report every little thing on a forum.. it's like "SO WHAT" [email protected]# 

Jld and Dug , for one can surely handle anything thrown at them.. they are UP for the exchanges.. 

I have been here 8 yrs (Gawd something is wrong with me!).. never reported a soul... I have surely thought some people are horribly RUDE ... I might even TRY (in vain) to appeal to some sense of decency in them... which probably makes me a fool.. I guess I like that way of dealing better..

Once this male poster was giving me grief.. he ticked a bunch of people off.. wanted to have it out with me on a thread -tailored to ME... it was about religion.... I had the mods pming me -asking if I wanted him banned... I said "NO!!.. let him go on!.. I was good.. enjoying his obnoxiousness.... Funny thing was... I ended up winning him over -in the end.. it was a great debate really... That likely doesn't happen often. 

Just my 2 cents... some of these things seem very small in the scheme of things.


----------



## john117

Online life success is to not get offended easily. The internet is all about learning new points of view, not pushing your point of view on others.


----------



## Buddy400

sapientia said:


> I also wouldn't say that data mining is "not at all scientific"


Data Mining is most certainly "not at all scientific" when correlation is presented as causation.

Maybe if the Data Mining is used to identify correlations which will then be tested for causation. But that's not what she's saying Gottman did. He predicted the past accurately (no big trick), is there any evidence that he can predict the future? I think the scientific method requires that to be done successfully.

Are you one of those academics that believe that only people with PhDs after their name are qualified to have opinions?

This is all a little disappointing since I've generally thought that your posts (those that I remember) were well thought out.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Did you miss this part, Sam?
> 
> *"I am not saying I believe that, btw. It is just a question."*


Are you planning on addressing the quotes about Dug and LTRs? Are are you going to hope we get distracted on this topic?


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> Are you planning on addressing the quotes about Dug and LTRs? Are are you going to hope we get distracted on this topic?


I don't have any plans to, Buddy. I do hope to see the thread return to the topic.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> I don't have any plans to, Buddy. I do hope to see the thread return to the topic.


You claimed that Dug did not say what Sam said he did.

Sam presented a quote showing that Dug did, indeed, say what Sam said he did.

And you aren't going to address being proven wrong?!!!


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Sam, you sound hurt.


You seem to have an obsession with thinking that people are being "hurt" by you, Dug, Gottman, whoever.

Maybe they aren't hurt.

Maybe they're just pissed off.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> You seem to have an obsession with thinking that people are being "hurt" by you, Dug, Gottman, whoever.
> 
> Maybe they aren't hurt.
> 
> Maybe they're just pissed off.


Anger is a cover for hurt or fear, Buddy.


----------



## jld

jld said:


> No, he did not say that. He said that having 3 LTRs does not make you a LTR expert.





Duguesclin said:


> I just look at data. 3 long term relationships only makes you an expert on how you go to the next one, not at sticking with one.


This is the quote I was referring to earlier, the second one that Dug wrote. It is the one Dug thought everyone was talking about.

Dug's earlier quote, the one Sam quoted, Dug looked up when he caught up on the thread tonight. In Dug's opinion, Gottman's advice could have indeed been helpful to Sam.

I understand Sam disagrees. 

I personally have no opinion one way or the other. If Sam says there is no way Gottman could have helped him in any of his relationships, good enough.


----------



## john117

Awesome. How about the rather unfortunate and likewise uncalled-for husband induced BPD?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Awesome. How about the rather unfortunate and likewise uncalled-for husband induced BPD?


He is asleep, John. You can ask him tomorrow.


----------



## john117

Did you feel the terminology was called for or not? I don't mind either answer and truth be told i can be pretty ugly if needed, but this was not my making. 

If it were I could undo it.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Did you feel the terminology was called for or not? I don't mind either answer and truth be told i can be pretty ugly if needed, but this was not my making.
> 
> If it were I could undo it.


That will be 5 cents, please. 

Jokes aside, at this point in the discussion, John, I think it is best to just let you and Sam and anyone else say how they believe things to be in their relationships, and leave it at that.


----------



## EleGirl

*This thread has gone off the deep end. Please return the discussion to the topic addressed in the OP. Any other discussion will lead to the poster being banned.

The personal attacks WILL STOP. I'm talking about on all sides.

Do keep in mind that different opinions are allowed on TAM. There is no one TAM point of view.


{speaking as a moderator}*


----------



## optimalprimus

*Re: &amp;quot;How to Stay Married&amp;quot;*



Celes said:


> Is this forum filled with high schoolers or something? Jld posted an article. Not everyone has to agree with it. Not sure why people feel the need to get their panties in a twist over it and personally attack her.
> 
> IMO I do agree with the article in the case of traditional marriages where the man takes the lead. Being in charge means more responsibility. Which means if things fail, the leader bears more responsibility. Of course not all marriages are set up with the man being the lead, but I've also found that many women are quite unhappy being the leader in the relationship and are disappointed the husband doesn't take charge more. Of course plenty of marriages are between people who share leadership equally, so the article probably doesn't apply to them.


Not to pick on you specifically - but have you read the entire thread? I have and it contains some very unpleasant statements that have gone unretracted, followed by a number of insinuations along similar lines. 

That may explain why the thread is in this state.

I'm more an occasional reader who picks a thread then follows the argument looking for insights into having the super marriage my wife and I both want. I'm equally disappointed but someone reaching a conclusion without reading the thread isn't helpful to any of us.

By the way, I found the Gottman research very insightful. The hackneyed interpretation that came after it a little less so.

It feels like marriage is changing as gender roles in society are being removed, but like all change this does bring growing pains.

I have definitely been working on really listening to my wife, and maximising my influence over her. Exactly how to influence her in a way that is not manipulative or controling is very difficult, given she struggles herself with being a 'modern' woman yet feeling the need to be cherished in a way that I do not.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## NotEasy

Ok, trying to get back on the topic and to the part I am most interested in:

Would you agree with Gottman's research if it wasn't prefixed by "men get this wrong.."? 

I have no problems with any of what little I have seen of his research (apart from the magnitude of work it suggests). 

He said men are important, well, duh, marriages takes two, a man and a women (well at least in current marriages here). So of course men are important. 

He said certain behaviours are destructive of marriage. This is the most useful part as it suggests possible areas of improvement.

He said there are some differences in rates of certain behaviours between men and women, which I see as like saying men on average are taller. I don't see it as anti men. I gather later reports of his work twist this into "men do this wrong".

But I only have heard others talk about him and have read a few pages. So I may have it wrong. It seems like much of his research is that the failures of interactions are very important and destroy marriages. Problems may not be with the words that are said but in the way they are said. So much so that I gather he might be able to predict divorce by watching body language, without hearing what is said.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really have no desire to make waves.. but there are 2 things that irritate me... those who are "sue happy".. and those who report every little thing on a forum.. it's like "SO WHAT" [email protected]#
> 
> Jld and Dug , for one can surely handle anything thrown at them.. they are UP for the exchanges..
> 
> I have been here 8 yrs (Gawd something is wrong with me!).. never reported a soul... I have surely thought some people are horribly RUDE ... I might even TRY (in vain) to appeal to some sense of decency in them... which probably makes me a fool.. I guess I like that way of dealing better..
> 
> Once this male poster was giving me grief.. he ticked a bunch of people off.. wanted to have it out with me on a thread -tailored to ME... it was about religion.... I had the mods pming me -asking if I wanted him banned... I said "NO!!.. let him go on!.. I was good.. enjoying his obnoxiousness.... Funny thing was... I ended up winning him over -in the end.. it was a great debate really... That likely doesn't happen often.
> 
> Just my 2 cents... some of these things seem very small in the scheme of things.


Likewise...I enjoy a good debate. I have no one on my ignore list, never have, and the only posts I report are the obvious troll ones such as link spamming.


----------



## samyeagar

NotEasy said:


> Ok, trying to get back on the topic and to the part I am most interested in:
> 
> Would you agree with Gottman's research if it wasn't prefixed by "men get this wrong.."?
> 
> I have no problems with any of what little I have seen of his research (apart from the magnitude of work it suggests).
> 
> He said men are important, well, duh, marriages takes two, a man and a women (well at least in current marriages here). So of course men are important.
> 
> He said certain behaviours are destructive of marriage. This is the most useful part as it suggests possible areas of improvement.
> 
> He said there are some differences in rates of certain behaviours between men and women, which I see as like saying men on average are taller. I don't see it as anti men. I gather later reports of his work twist this into "men do this wrong".
> 
> But I only have heard others talk about him and have read a few pages. So I may have it wrong. It seems like much of his research is that the failures of interactions are very important and destroy marriages. Problems may not be with the words that are said but in the way they are said. So much so that I gather he might be able to predict divorce by watching body language, without hearing what is said.


This is where things get interesting with the things he says, and where some of the contention comes from.

In a gender neutral context, applying the overall strategies he suggests, it all seems pretty ...well, duh...common sense to me. Hardly earth shattering that ignoring your partner, missing bids, and such is detrimental to a relationship. Using your strengths, being receptive to their influence, as in actually listening to them and considering them is good for the relationship...that's basic relationship 101, and these strategies apply to both genders. The only difference is a tactical one...how men and omen actually do these things can be different.

His research has been conducted over the past 40 years, and coincides with social movement towards gender equality...men and women changing what they are wanting out of a marriage, what they will tolerate in a marriage....the past 40 years have not been steady state, so that needs to be strongly considered when applying this general research to a specific relationship.

As with anything else scientific, one has to be very careful with how the data and conclusions are applied by non experts in the field...to provide the findings, and present them in such a ay as to be understandable and useful, while at the same time, no so simplified as to no longer resemble the original conclusion.

In the case of Gottman, much of what he says seems directed at men, and empowering men, but the message seems to be geared towards men who desire the power position in their relationship, want to know of some great power they have to ensure success, hence the nebulous term "influence" which in this conetxt is rendered essentially useless since it is never really defined in any meaningful manner.

It also appeals to the woman who feels as if she is ignored, marginalized, not heard, not understood...with the added benefit for some women of not really addressing the things women should be doing...it almost seems to assume that women are just simply doing it right.

Which leads me to my point of disagreement...just because Gottman directs his message to men, while largely not addressing women at all does not mean he is saying men have all the responsibility, while women have minimal responsibility...it simply means he is not addressing women, and to present it as anything other than that, I feel is a dramatic misinterpretation of his message.


----------



## turnera

never mind


----------



## ButtPunch

I just read the author Gottman is on his 3rd marriage.

LOL! We should probably dismiss his thoughts as well.


----------



## samyeagar

> Maybe that's why you're so at odds with so many people. You DON'T see the reaction coming when your remarks - that so many found offensive - are called out.
> 
> That would be a good thing to work on next. You know, since you say you're all about the journey and learning and growing.
> 
> When 99 people see a purple elephant and 1 sees a gray one, it's a fair chance it's really purple.





> I just read the author Gottman is on his 3rd marriage.
> 
> LOL! Dug should probably dismiss his thoughts as well.


Seriously guys, while you make valid points, we were directed to stop anything that could possibly be construed as a personal attack. I expect that it will be quickly, broadly and fairly applied to all posters regardless of who they are, and I am not really wanting to see any bans from this...


----------



## ButtPunch

samyeagar said:


> Seriously guys, while you make valid points, we were directed to stop anything that could possibly be construed as a personal attack. I expect that it will be quickly, broadly and fairly applied to all posters regardless of who they are, and I am not really wanting to see any bans from this...


Duly noted

Please remove the name from your quote in my post


----------



## Celes

optimalprimus said:


> Not to pick on you specifically - but have you read the entire thread? I have and it contains some very unpleasant statements that have gone unretracted, followed by a number of insinuations along similar lines.
> 
> That may explain why the thread is in this state.
> 
> I'm more an occasional reader who picks a thread then follows the argument looking for insights into having the super marriage my wife and I both want. I'm equally disappointed but someone reaching a conclusion without reading the thread isn't helpful to any of us.
> 
> By the way, I found the Gottman research very insightful. The hackneyed interpretation that came after it a little less so.
> 
> It feels like marriage is changing as gender roles in society are being removed, but like all change this does bring growing pains.
> 
> I have definitely been working on really listening to my wife, and maximising my influence over her. Exactly how to influence her in a way that is not manipulative or controling is very difficult, given she struggles herself with being a 'modern' woman yet feeling the need to be cherished in a way that I do not.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


I have read the entire thread. And I think some people were just looking for ways to derail it. 

I do agree that a change in gender roles brings growing pains. The women's movement has brought the unfortunate consequence of feminized men. Men who take advice about how to be men from women, mostly due to the rise of single moms. Those are the ones who often become so called "nice guys". Then when women marry them, they end up frustrated he isn't "man enough". 

As for Gottman. My marriage is a traditional one, in the sense that I consider my husband the lead. Head of the household. He is a natural leader and very responsible so he has my utmost trust. He is not some dictator though and he values my input. He doesn't make any major decisions without me but ultimately he'll be the one to make the call. I think that's what jld means about allowing the woman to influence as well. He takes my opinions seriously. And he himself puts more responsibility on his shoulders. He has told me that if things fail, the blame will be on him more than me. I tried to argue that but he insisted it was true. That is why I think Gottman's advice might be true with traditional marriages where men take the lead. Thats just my opinion anyway.


----------



## MEM2020

Sapi,

I've only gone sailing a few times, but I loved it. And life IS like sailing, you've got wind and currents swirling around you and can either harness or fight them. 





sapientia said:


> How fun! I'm always up for discussing sailing in any form. :grin2:
> 
> I agree with you and will extend the analogy from my own experience that too much [emotional] damping isn't good either. It's like a drogue anchor -- suitable for use in heavy seas or storms but can be a real drag on a breezy, fun summer day!
> 
> Hard to know early on in a courtship whether that "responsible" personality is masking a wobble toward anxious and over controlling. I've learned to identify the signs of those who have toughed it out through experience not to sweat the small stuff. These people don't just make great spouses, they make great colleagues also.


----------



## samyeagar

Celes said:


> I have read the entire thread. And I think some people were just looking for ways to derail it.
> 
> I do agree that a change in gender roles brings growing pains. The women's movement has brought the unfortunate consequence of feminized men. Men who take advice about how to be men from women, mostly due to the rise of single moms. Those are the ones who often become so called "nice guys". Then when women marry them, they end up frustrated he isn't "man enough".
> 
> As for Gottman. My marriage is a traditional one, in the sense that I consider my husband the lead. Head of the household. He is a natural leader and very responsible so he has my utmost trust. He is not some dictator though and he values my input. He doesn't make any major decisions without me but ultimately he'll be the one to make the call. I think that's what jld means about allowing the woman to influence as well. He takes my opinions seriously. And he himself puts more responsibility on his shoulders. He has told me that if things fail, the blame will be on him more than me. I tried to argue that but he insisted it was true. *That is why I think Gottman's advice might be true with traditional marriages where men take the lead. Thats just my opinion anyway*.


I think that is some pretty solid reasoning, and a correct application of his findings.

I do think that society has moved at a much more rapid pace than his finding allow for in a broad sense...what I mean by that, is that the traditional marriage you describe, in the strictest sense is a dying breed, and has been for a while. With increased gender equality, not just in things like earnings, or practical matters, things like leadership roles, sexuality, child rearing, advice that once seemed to apply mainly to men, now more appropriately applies to all people in relationships...men and women as those roles become more blurred.

In my initial posts on this thread, I acknowledged that there are bits and pieces of his advice that are very good in a gender neutral, common sense sort of way, but to be applied in a dogmatic, single track way...it's just not going to work for very many modern relationships to the point of actually being detrimental.

Again, where I see the biggest failure in how some seek to apply this...Gottman spoke to men and their responsibilities. He was largely silent about women's responsibilities. It does not mean women have lesser or no responsibility, yet some chose to interpret that silence as an indication that the relationship is solely the responsibility of the man. All it means is he was speaking to men.


----------



## Wolf1974

Celes said:


> I have read the entire thread. And I think some people were just looking for ways to derail it.
> 
> I do agree that a change in gender roles brings growing pains. The women's movement has brought the unfortunate consequence of feminized men. Men who take advice about how to be men from women, mostly due to the rise of single moms. Those are the ones who often become so called "nice guys". Then when women marry them, they end up frustrated he isn't "man enough".
> 
> As for Gottman. My marriage is a traditional one, in the sense that I consider my husband the lead. Head of the household. He is a natural leader and very responsible so he has my utmost trust. He is not some dictator though and he values my input. He doesn't make any major decisions without me but ultimately he'll be the one to make the call. I think that's what jld means about allowing the woman to influence as well. He takes my opinions seriously. And he himself puts more responsibility on his shoulders. He has told me that if things fail, the blame will be on him more than me. I tried to argue that but he insisted it was true. *That is why I think Gottman's advice might be true with traditional marriages where men take the lead. Thats just my opinion anyway.*




Here is the thing that you already recognize that JLD doesn't. This philosophy probably does apply to this subset of marriage. Thing is many of us never see this kind of traditional marriage. You do and this works for you so great. My marriage was nothing like this. My X was not interested in being influenced she was interested in running the show and living the happy wife happy life dream.

Problem becomes when she posts that all people should do what her and dug do when most of us don't have her kind of marriage. I think that's why people get spun up about JLD as a poster because what she advocates for most of us never experience and she implies that's a failure on our part. For me I won't debate an opinion with anyone who isn't going to listen to the opinion of others. That's just a waste of time but I do see how many feel her posts are basic underhanded attacks that because you can't apply this philosophy your marriage failed. 

That's is ridiculous and disingenuous at best.


----------



## turnera

samyeagar said:


> I think that is some pretty solid reasoning, and a correct application of his findings.
> 
> I do think that society has moved at a much more rapid pace than his finding allow for in a broad sense...what I mean by that, is that the traditional marriage you describe, in the strictest sense is a dying breed, and has been for a while. With increased gender equality, not just in things like earnings, or practical matters, things like leadership roles, sexuality, child rearing, advice that once seemed to apply mainly to men, now more appropriately applies to all people in relationships...men and women as those roles become more blurred.


This is so true. Fifty years ago, women made the best of what they had. Back then, if they divorced, they were lucky to get child support. So most unhappy women just settled for what they had and found other ways to find happiness. Kind of like it's been for thousands of years. This new equality thing is upending everything we've known since, well, caveman days, when women depended on men for survival. I suspect it will take a few centuries at least before we get the DNA out of our system where women 'need' strong men (physically and emotionally). Science fiction books cover this pretty well, I think - showing the gender equality as a stabilizing force. I imagine this period in humanity's history will be the craziest, until it finds a way to even out.


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> Likewise...I enjoy a good debate. I have no one on my ignore list, never have, and the only posts I report are the obvious troll ones such as link spamming.


I actually just placed myself on the ignore list. I will let you know how that goes, or will I


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
While I believe your post below is sincere, you recently said that you wouldn't have married someone who wasn't able to enable you to be a stay at home mom.

The average man is unable to be the sole breadwinner for an American family. Especially 5 kids. 





jld said:


> He wanted me, and he was a really good guy. I remember wondering if he were an angel in human form.
> 
> Wazza, the relationship was not my idea. And I sat down with him right away after it began and told him everything I could think of about my past that I thought he might not like. That way, if he wanted to end things, it could happen straight off, and we would not waste each other's time.
> 
> Dug was worth it. He was worth the risk and all the work with the kids. But I don't think every man is. And I think Gottman is showing how to change that.


----------



## GTdad

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> While I believe your post below is sincere, you recently said that you wouldn't have married someone who wasn't able to enable you to be a stay at home mom.
> 
> The average man is unable to be the sole breadwinner for an American family. Especially 5 kids.


It's possible that I would be considered to be a success story as far as JLD is concerned: we've been married nearly 33 years, my wife is a SAHM, and we have 8 kids (4 of whom are adults). It hasn't always been easy, needless to say, but one of the many hard lessons I learned fairly early on is to be very wary of a dogmatic approach to life and relationships. Life and circumstances are too fluid to be so easily grasped.

I'm sure Gottman has his points. But a possibly helpful guidebook is all they are.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> While I believe your post below is sincere, you recently said that you wouldn't have married someone who wasn't able to enable you to be a stay at home mom.
> 
> The average man is unable to be the sole breadwinner for an American family. Especially 5 kids.


No, I would not marry a man who expected several kids, breastfed and homeschooled, but could not afford it.

The whole marriage/family project was his idea. And he has never expected me to fund it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> [/B]
> 
> Here is the thing that you already recognize that JLD doesn't. This philosophy probably does apply to this subset of marriage. Thing is many of us never see this kind of traditional marriage. You do and this works for you so great. My marriage was nothing like this. My X was not interested in being influenced she was interested in running the show and living the happy wife happy life dream.
> 
> Problem becomes when she posts that all people should do what her and dug do when most of us don't have her kind of marriage. I think that's why people get spun up about JLD as a poster because what she advocates for most of us never experience and she implies that's a failure on our part. For me I won't debate an opinion with anyone who isn't going to listen to the opinion of others. That's just a waste of time but I do see how many feel her posts are basic underhanded attacks that because you can't apply this philosophy your marriage failed.
> 
> That's is ridiculous and disingenuous at best.



There is some measure of truth in even the greatest lie.


When I had my first baby my father warned me to be careful with parenting models. "Read them all but only keep what makes sense to you." I've found this to be true in just about everything from pets to parenting to marriages and even cooking. A recipe calls for unsalted butter then calls for 1/8 tsp of salt....pfft, makes no sense.

Your second paragraph is kind of short sighted. How can not following advice that doesn't make sense to you, doesn't fit your situation, comes from a completely different culture make you feel like a failure? If someone is advocating you do something that simply doesn't fit your situation why bother even attempting a dialogue? 

When I encounter bible thumpers I couldnt care less how vehemently they insist I follow Christ. I don't at all discount the very real positives Christ brough to this world and as such I sometimes actually contemplate the meaning behind His message. IOW I don't allow my personal dislike of bible thumpers to prevent meaning from soaking in. It is absolutely impossible to make me feel like a failure because I'm a bad Christian. I'm not a Christian so.....doesn't fit.


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> I think that is some pretty solid reasoning, and a correct application of his findings.
> 
> I do think that society has moved at a much more rapid pace than his finding allow for in a broad sense...what I mean by that, is that the traditional marriage you describe, in the strictest sense is a dying breed, and has been for a while. With increased gender equality, not just in things like earnings, or practical matters, things like leadership roles, sexuality, child rearing, advice that once seemed to apply mainly to men, now more appropriately applies to all people in relationships...men and women as those roles become more blurred.
> 
> In my initial posts on this thread, I acknowledged that there are bits and pieces of his advice that are very good in a gender neutral, common sense sort of way, but to be applied in a dogmatic, single track way...it's just not going to work for very many modern relationships to the point of actually being detrimental.
> 
> Again, where I see the biggest failure in how some seek to apply this...Gottman spoke to men and their responsibilities. He was largely silent about women's responsibilities. It does not mean women have lesser or no responsibility, yet some chose to interpret that silence as an indication that the relationship is solely the responsibility of the man. All it means is he was speaking to men.



I agree that gender neutral is a very very tricky lense to navigate. As you know I have a lesbian daughter and we frequently discuss gender roles and heteronormative thinking in marriage. There are just too many innate differences between men and women, IMO, to fully integrate gender neutral but the feminist in me screams at the inequity of that very thought.

I am conflicted to say the least.

Having grown up in a changing time, the 60's and 70's yeah baby, I feel like gender equality has reached critical mass, so to speak. We are now down to nitpicking the nuanced details of what gender equality means and in the process we are attempting to exclude the very real and very relevant ways we differ. 

Gender neutral can't always be achieved. Heteronormative can't always be excluded. 

As you may also know, I'm a kinky woman who digs the power play. So a lot of what the feminist in me find abhorrent, the kinkster in me screams bring it on! Of course I can't actually go there in gender equality discussions with my daughter. 

Gottman spoke to men, specifically about their role in their marriage. On the whole, I don't think what he had to say was ineffective or inappropriate for all men in general. 

I am reminded of the many women's magazines that enumerate ways for women to land her man, or keep her man, or sex up her man, or feed her man. I am thinking of how well those publications sell and compare them to anything relevant directed to men and how well they sell and I conclude that on the whole women "buy" into their role in their relationships a lot better than men do and I further conclude that that needs to change that. Gottman is one way to change that. So is NMMNG.


----------



## Buddy400

turnera2 said:


> This new equality thing is upending everything we've known since, well, caveman days, when women depended on men for survival. I suspect it will take a few centuries at least before we get the DNA out of our system where women 'need' strong men (physically and emotionally)......... I imagine this period in humanity's history will be the craziest, until it finds a way to even out.


This is what fascinates me the most.

For tens of thousands of years our DNA has evolved to make men and women desire different things in the opposite sex.

It used to be that men had no problem with casual sex and women were wise to avoid it. This was because the guy would have no responsibilities for the child and the woman would bear the entire burden (not to mention hurting her chances of finding a future husband). Now, it ought to be the guys avoiding casual sex since tests can prove that they're the father and they can be on the hook for child support even if they never see the kid. On the other hand, the woman can be on birth control, get an abortion or go ahead and have the kid knowing that she'll be getting child support. Even though it would now be rational for guys to avoid casual sex and women to not avoid it, our DNA hasn't caught up.

Things have changed so much and what we consciously want is now often in conflict with what our subconscious desires.

Most people seem to think that it's the men that are having the hardest time adjusting. I disagree. What men always wanted was women who looked healthy and fertile. They still do. What women want has changed drastically. It's got to be a problem for a feminist to reconcile desiring a man who "just takes her". Now women often want a man be dominant in the bedroom but not outside of it. I'm not sure that's possible.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> I am conflicted to say the least.
> 
> Having grown up in a changing time, the 60's and 70's yeah baby, I feel like gender equality has reached critical mass, so to speak. We are now down to nitpicking the nuanced details of what gender equality means and in the process we are attempting to exclude the very real and very relevant ways we differ.
> 
> Gender neutral can't always be achieved. Heteronormative can't always be excluded.
> 
> As you may also know, I'm a kinky woman who digs the power play. So a lot of what the feminist in me find abhorrent, the kinkster in me screams bring it on! Of course I can't actually go there in gender equality discussions with my daughter.


As I was saying............


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> I agree that gender neutral is a very very tricky lense to navigate. As you know I have a lesbian daughter and we frequently discuss gender roles and heteronormative thinking in marriage. There are just too many innate differences between men and women, IMO, to fully integrate gender neutral but the feminist in me screams at the inequity of that very thought.
> 
> I am conflicted to say the least.
> 
> Having grown up in a changing time, the 60's and 70's yeah baby, I feel like gender equality has reached critical mass, so to speak. We are now down to nitpicking the nuanced details of what gender equality means and in the process we are attempting to exclude the very real and very relevant ways we differ.
> 
> Gender neutral can't always be achieved. Heteronormative can't always be excluded.
> 
> As you may also know, I'm a kinky woman who digs the power play. So a lot of what the feminist in me find abhorrent, the kinkster in me screams bring it on! Of course I can't actually go there in gender equality discussions with my daughter.
> 
> Gottman spoke to men, specifically about their role in their marriage. On the whole, I don't think what he had to say was ineffective or inappropriate for all men in general.
> 
> I am reminded of the many women's magazines that enumerate ways for women to land her man, or keep her man, or sex up her man, or feed her man. I am thinking of how well those publications sell and compare them to anything relevant directed to men and how well they sell and I conclude that on the whole women "buy" into their role in their relationships a lot better than men do and I further conclude that that needs to change that. Gottman is one way to change that. So is NMMNG.


I pretty much agree with this...equality has enabled men and women to more closely align their relationship goals, goals which have changed over the past 40 years. I think gender neutrality applies to the end goal in the strategic sense, but men and women are still going to employ different tactics because well...they are different.


----------



## Anon Pink

Buddy400 said:


> This is what fascinates me the most.
> 
> For tens of thousands of years our DNA has evolved to make men and women desire different things in the opposite sex.
> 
> It used to be that men had no problem with casual sex and women were wise to avoid it. This was because the guy would have no responsibilities for the child and the woman would bear the entire burden (not to mention hurting her chances of finding a future husband). Now, it ought to be the guys avoiding casual sex since tests can prove that they're the father and they can be on the hook for child support even if they never see the kid. On the other hand, the woman can be on birth control, get an abortion or go ahead and have the kid knowing that she'll be getting child support. Even though it would now be rational for guys to avoid casual sex and women to not avoid it, our DNA hasn't caught up.
> 
> Things have changed so much and what we consciously want is now often in conflict with what our subconscious desires.
> 
> Most people seem to think that it's the men that are having the hardest time adjusting. I disagree. What men always wanted was women who looked healthy and fertile. They still do. *What women want has changed drastically. *It's got to be a problem for a feminist to reconcile desiring a man who "just takes her". Now women often want a man be dominant in the bedroom but not outside of it. I'm not sure that's possible.


Valid points.

Bolded: hold on there buddy. What women want hasn't changed either; to feel safe with our partner. What women CAN aspire to has drastically changed but we no longer want to feel safe, we demand it.

You're way over simplifying the "just take me" thing. Ask 10 women who admit they want that to describe exactly what it looks like and you will get 10 different answers with one thing remaining consistent through out: passionate confidence. 

Back when women were sexually ignorant, sexually uneducated and sexually untried, feeling safe meant little to no bruising after sex. Now feeling safe also means safe to not be judged for desires previously explored.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> Valid points.
> 
> Bolded: hold on there buddy. What women want hasn't changed either; to feel safe with our partner. What women CAN aspire to has drastically changed but we no longer want to feel safe, we demand it.
> 
> You're way over simplifying the "just take me" thing. Ask 10 women who admit they want that to describe exactly what it looks like and you will get 10 different answers with one thing remaining consistent through out: passionate confidence.
> 
> Back when women were sexually ignorant, sexually uneducated and sexually untried, feeling safe meant little to no bruising after sex. Now feeling safe also means safe to not be judged for desires previously explored.


Well, obviously, I'm going to have to defer to you when it comes to "what women want". 

I would have thought that women wanted a strong man to physically protect her. That seems less important these days.

I would have thought that women wanted a man who had the ability to support her. That seems less important these days.

I would have thought that women wanted a man who had high status in the group so that that status could be conveyed to her and their children. These days, the woman could supply the status themselves.

The modern idea seems to call for man and wife to be equal in a relationship. But many women, as seen in this thread, still seem to think that it is the man's job to be the leader.

Physical dominance of women by men in relationships is rightly seen as problematic. However, in the bedroom, many women seem to want a guy who pulls their hair, spanks them and "ragdolls" them.

Many woman seem to be uncomfortable in a relationship where they make more money than their husband. They often have problems respecting them. It would seem as though a marriage between a high achieving woman lawyer and a man who is a part-time carpenter would be a nice fit, but I haven't heard many stories where that works.

Modern culture tells us that men should be more open with their feelings, but there still seem to be a lot of women who look to their husband to be the "emotional rock".

Girls in high school are dressing for maximum sex appeal at proms and expected to be playing a sport and competing like men the next day.

I suspect many women must be very confused.

How many of these am I missing the boat on?

I often hear that it's the men who are having the most trouble adapting. But I think it's the women who are having a harder time. 

I welcome these changes and have no interest in returning to the bad old days.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> There is some measure of truth in even the greatest lie.
> 
> 
> When I had my first baby my father warned me to be careful with parenting models. "Read them all but only keep what makes sense to you." I've found this to be true in just about everything from pets to parenting to marriages and even cooking. A recipe calls for unsalted butter then calls for 1/8 tsp of salt....pfft, makes no sense.
> 
> Your second paragraph is kind of short sighted. How can not following advice that doesn't make sense to you, doesn't fit your situation, comes from a completely different culture make you feel like a failure? If someone is advocating you do something that simply doesn't fit your situation why *bother even attempting a dialogue*?
> 
> When I encounter bible thumpers I couldnt care less how vehemently they insist I follow Christ. I don't at all discount the very real positives Christ brough to this world and as such I sometimes actually contemplate the meaning behind His message. IOW I don't allow my personal dislike of bible thumpers to prevent meaning from soaking in. It is absolutely impossible to make me feel like a failure because I'm a bad Christian. I'm not a Christian so.....doesn't fit.


i don't that's what I said. I am up for open communication with anyone but when someone accounts men as little boys with capes they show they aren't serious in dialog. Why anyone takes her seriously after comments such as this is really beyond me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

Blossom Leigh said:


> Exactly. My husband just said, "so, what she's saying is a bunch of guys got together, circle jerked and agreed he was right."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The only thing worse than biased peer reviewed research are people who dismiss peer reviewed research simply because they don't like the conclusion. 

In other words, the earth really is getting warmer, whether or not a bunch of climatologists got together in a room to circle jerk in agreement.


----------



## Anon Pink

You're not wrong but again you've over simplified a bit. Allow me to tweak?




Buddy400 said:


> Well, obviously, I'm going to have to defer to you when it comes to "what women want".
> 
> I would have thought that women wanted a strong man to physically protect her. That seems less important these days.


Pre 19th century? Physical strength in a man was vital for a number of reasons chiefly to be able to work the fields day in and day out.

Prehistoric? A mate had to be strong to hunt for assets and protect those assets.



> I would have thought that women wanted a man who had the ability to support her. That seems less important these days.


Depends on who you're talking to and what they expect from life. My two younger daughters want to be able to stay home to take care of their kids when the kids are young so yes they want to marry a man (presumably) who can and is willing to support that. 




> I would have thought that women wanted a man who had high status in the group so that that status could be conveyed to her and their children. These days, the woman could supply the status themselves.


Status is highly subjective and relative. The essential message for men is don't be a pvssy and don't be a d!ck relative to what they actually do to earn a living.  Be good at what you do. Have ambition to be better at what you do. Be willing to collaborate. Don't be a suck up.




> The modern idea seems to call for man and wife to be equal in a relationship. But many women, as seen in this thread, still seem to think that it is the man's job to be the leader.


I think this is where a lot of people are misunderstanding the difference between equality between the sexes and playing to each person's individual strength.

I've had this conversation with JLD a few times so I hope she's okay with me repeating some of the things we've discussed.

I think JLD doesn't see her own strength and power in her marriage. 
If the power to have influence and impact on your spouse is how you define leadership, it's a pretty narrow view, IMO. 

If we agree that men tend to be less emotionally inconstant, and women tend to be more emotionally inconstant, and we define leadership as being emotionally constant, then we have arrived at the same conclusion JLD has. Men are the natural leaders in a marriage.

But emotional constancy is only one aspect of leadership.



> Physical dominance of women by men in relationships is rightly seen as problematic. However, in the bedroom, many women seem to want a guy who pulls their hair, spanks them and "ragdolls" them.


I trust you are being tongue in cheek on this. Might does not make right. Someone women would hate everything you've listed. Someone would be totally down with it. But I think it's safe to assume that no woman would welcome any of that in a relationship in which they felt essentially powerless in general.

Yes I love to be rag dolled but I reserve the right to punch you in the face if you don't first ascertain my consent.




> Many woman seem to be uncomfortable in a relationship where they make more money than their husband. They often have problems respecting them. It would seem as though a marriage between a high achieving woman lawyer and a man who is a part-time carpenter would be a nice fit, but I haven't heard many stories where that works.


Again, there is much more to it than that. The lawyer might not have too much in common with the carpenter. Lawyers don't tend to have much in common with anyone not in the legal community in my experience.

A woman who earns more than her husband may see him as less ambitious, less "good" at what he does. She may resent that her higher income means that she cannot stay home to care for her young ones. She may resent that she feels more responsible for the overall care of the family than her husband does and she'll be royally pissed off if she also has the lions share of childcare and home care burden. Take you pick.




> Modern culture tells us that men should be more open with their feelings, but there still seem to be a lot of women who look to their husband to be the "emotional rock".



See emotional constancy and recognize the difference between emotionally constant and emotionally constipated. 




> Girls in high school are dressing for maximum sex appeal at proms and expected to be playing a sport and competing like men the next day.


Yes...and? Being athletic doesn't mean a girl no longer wants to be a girl. She can put on her cleats and kick some ass, then curl her hair and shake that ass. She can do both, or one, or none and she is still a girl.




> I suspect many women must be very confused.
> 
> How many of these am I missing the boat on?
> 
> I often hear that it's the men who are having the most trouble adapting. But I think it's the women who are having a harder time.
> 
> I welcome these changes and have no interest in returning to the bad old days.



I think you're half in and half out of the boat. I think you're trying to row when moving on the water means you have to hoist a sail. 

Women have to own what they want, not what they should want. And men have to own their side of the street and not point to their testicles as an excuse not to know how to nurture a relationship.

My husband's passivity doesn't work for me. He thought happy wife happy life meant he could passively wait to be told what to do. I thought telling him meant I would get what I want. We weren't doing this marriage very well. 

The pendulum swings...


----------



## MEM2020

Anon,
Size matters. When M2 and I are being playful - maybe I'm teasing her - she smacks me. Worst thing that happens to her is being restrained - so she can't continue doing that. The ONLY scenario she gets smacked (and only open hand and only on the butt) is a foreplay thing - we've been wrestling - she lost and CHOOSES not to say 'Uncle'. 

So that's the extreme - but - it's all part of a spectrum:
- Striking
- Pushing
- Physically intimidating via body language - either getting in close
- Breaking stuff punching walls
- Yelling 

It's not symmetric. 





Anon Pink said:


> I agree that gender neutral is a very very tricky lense to navigate. As you know I have a lesbian daughter and we frequently discuss gender roles and heteronormative thinking in marriage. There are just too many innate differences between men and women, IMO, to fully integrate gender neutral but the feminist in me screams at the inequity of that very thought.
> 
> I am conflicted to say the least.
> 
> Having grown up in a changing time, the 60's and 70's yeah baby, I feel like gender equality has reached critical mass, so to speak. We are now down to nitpicking the nuanced details of what gender equality means and in the process we are attempting to exclude the very real and very relevant ways we differ.
> 
> Gender neutral can't always be achieved. Heteronormative can't always be excluded.
> 
> As you may also know, I'm a kinky woman who digs the power play. So a lot of what the feminist in me find abhorrent, the kinkster in me screams bring it on! Of course I can't actually go there in gender equality discussions with my daughter.
> 
> Gottman spoke to men, specifically about their role in their marriage. On the whole, I don't think what he had to say was ineffective or inappropriate for all men in general.
> 
> I am reminded of the many women's magazines that enumerate ways for women to land her man, or keep her man, or sex up her man, or feed her man. I am thinking of how well those publications sell and compare them to anything relevant directed to men and how well they sell and I conclude that on the whole women "buy" into their role in their relationships a lot better than men do and I further conclude that that needs to change that. Gottman is one way to change that. So is NMMNG.


----------



## Anon Pink

MEM11363 said:


> Anon,
> Size matters. When M2 and I are being playful - maybe I'm teasing her - she smacks me. Worst thing that happens to her is being restrained - so she can't continue doing that. The ONLY scenario she gets smacked (and only open hand and only on the butt) is a foreplay thing - we've been wrestling - she lost and CHOOSES not to say 'Uncle'.



1. Be still my beating heart! >
2. If I smacked my husband I'd hurt my hand, not worth it.
3. I bet she initiates this kind of play more often than not. Physical dominance in sex play, as you've mentioned before, takes extraordinary trust on both your parts. She has to trust you and you have to trust you and you have to trust her and she has to trust herself.





> So that's the extreme - but - it's all part of a spectrum:
> - Striking
> - Pushing
> - Physically intimidating via body language - either getting in close
> - Breaking stuff punching walls
> - Yelling
> 
> It's not symmetric.



The opposit end of the spectrum...meh depends on the kink and the level of trust. My H has gotten in my space a time or two, during an argument too. Kinda hard to argue when you've just gone from spitting mad to totally aroused.

Here's why I know staying married is and will work out. I could never ever ever trust any other man to get in my space during an argument. Just trying to picture it with some nameless faceless person frightens me.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> I think you're half in and half out of the boat. I think you're trying to row when moving on the water means you have to hoist a sail.
> 
> Women have to own what they want, not what they should want. And men have to own their side of the street and not point to their testicles as an excuse not to know how to nurture a relationship.
> 
> My husband's passivity doesn't work for me. He thought happy wife happy life meant he could passively wait to be told what to do. I thought telling him meant I would get what I want. We weren't doing this marriage very well.
> 
> The pendulum swings...


I'll settle for being half in the boat. :smile2:

I also think that woman have to own what they really want, not what they're being told they should want. I think this is key. 

It sounds like you thought that a marriage where your husband passively waited to be told what you want would make you happy.

Your husband thought the same. You were both wrong because you were both listening to what the current culture was telling you you should want. 

I think it's more true of women that they don't know what would really make them happy than it is of men. 

I was at the grocery store the other day. The cashier (a woman) was talking to someone else about a couple that she had just finished with where the man was clearly pu**y whipped. She said "Happy wife, happy life" and turned to me and said "Right?". I said "absolutely not". She was surprised and said that she'd never heard anyone disagree before. I think she wanted me >


----------



## jld

_"But emotional constancy is only one aspect of leadership."_

Would you like to elaborate on this, AP?


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> The opposite end of the spectrum...meh depends on the kink and the level of trust. My H has gotten in my space a time or two, during an argument too. Kinda hard to argue when you've just gone from spitting mad to* totally aroused.
> *
> Here's why I know staying married is and will work out. I could never ever ever trust any other man to get in my space during an argument. Just trying to picture it with some nameless faceless person frightens me.


Obviously I understand about permission, trust and all that and have no problem with it.

But this is why it's tricky these days being a guy. You just do what you've always been told not to do and your wife gets *hot*???


----------



## Anon Pink

Buddy400 said:


> I'll settle for being half in the boat. :smile2:
> 
> I also think that woman have to own what they really want, not what they're being told they should want. I think this is key.
> 
> It sounds like you thought that a marriage where your husband passively waited to be told what you want would make you happy.
> 
> Your husband thought the same. You were both wrong because you were both listening to what the current culture was telling you you should want.
> 
> I think it's more true of women that they don't know what would really make them happy than it is of men.
> 
> I was at the grocery store the other day. The cashier (a woman) was talking to someone else about a couple that she had just finished with where the man was clearly pu**y whipped. She said "Happy wife, happy life" and turned to me and said "Right?". I said "absolutely not". She was surprised and said that she'd never heard anyone disagree before. I think she wanted me >


Yea she was totally gellin on you! But I want to know how old that cashier was. Some people might look at that couple and think the man was a pvssy and those are the people who place the burden of leadership on the man. Some people, myself included, would have thought the man's wife was a B!tch, meaning I take and place too much burden on women. 

I also have to laugh because I am of the opinion that men are easy and women are complicated. That's been my experience but I'm sure it's lopsided.

I think you're right about my marriage. I know I had a lot of issues to deal with and when I got to the end (as if that point exists) everything would be better and was very surprised that the healthier I got the worse my marriage felt. I knew there was something wrong with me I sought to fix it. My H.....took some time, and threats, and refusals etc etc before he would look at his side of the street. Which is why I keep singing about owning your role in your relationship.


----------



## GuyInColorado

Why would you want to stay married? I feel bad for people married now... never again. I'm free!


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> Yea she was totally gellin on you! But I want to know how old that cashier was. Some people might look at that couple and think the man was a pvssy and those are the people who place the burden of leadership on the man. Some people, myself included, would have thought the man's wife was a B!tch, meaning I take and place too much burden on women.
> 
> I also have to laugh because I am of the opinion that men are easy and women are complicated. That's been my experience but I'm sure it's lopsided.
> 
> I think you're right about my marriage. I know I had a lot of issues to deal with and when I got to the end (as if that point exists) everything would be better and was very surprised that the healthier I got the worse my marriage felt. I knew there was something wrong with me I sought to fix it. My H.....took some time, and threats, and refusals etc etc before he would look at his side of the street. Which is why I keep singing about owning your role in your relationship.


She looked like she was in her 50's. I also got the feeling that she didn't believe the saying either and was surprised to hear someone actually say it out loud.

Absolutely agree that men are easy and women are complicated.

That's why I think the changing gender roles are harder for women.


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> _"But emotional constancy is only one aspect of leadership."_
> 
> Would you like to elaborate on this, AP?


We've had this discussion before and I'm not sure I'm the best person to describe the aspects of leadership in marriage. I honestly think individual personalities and needs play a larger role in defining leadership in marriage.

My dad used to say marriage is never 50/50. It's 90/10. Sometimes you're the 90 and sometimes you're the 10. If we apply this to the burden of leadership it means that sometimes you're 90% responsible and sometimes you're only 10%. 

Leadership must include nurturing, right? 

Leadership must include foresight, right?

The ability to respond in crisis. The ability to place others needs before your own when the situation calls for it. The strength to set the tone socially, morally, materially...

Maybe emotional constancy plays a key role in leadership because it provides the other person the freedom to not be constant and to react in the moment. So that would make providing emotional safety part of leadership. 

That's off the top of my head and I have to get off TAM now. If I come back today somebody shoot me!


----------



## samyeagar

Buddy400 said:


> She looked like she was in her 50's. I also got the feeling that she didn't believe the saying either and was surprised to hear someone actually say it out loud.
> 
> Absolutely agree that men are easy and women are complicated.
> 
> That's why I think the changing gender roles are harder for women.


The first time my wife brought up the Happy Wife, Happy Life thing, I told her I thought it was a load of crap, and not even remotely conducive to a good relationship. What she did learn about what I thought was that I'm not going to placate her, I'm not going to subvert myself to her whim simply because it is her whim. What this demonstrated to her is that I am someone to be deeply trusted. I am steadfast and can relied upon, that I am her rock, her lighthouse in the storm.


----------



## Maricha75

Anon Pink said:


> That's off the top of my head and I have to get off TAM now. *If I come back today somebody shoot me!*


PICK ME! PICK ME! :rofl:

Seriously, though, Anon. You're scaring me. Found another post I agreed with. This is getting out of hand, now... 😛

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Anders

Celes said:


> I do agree that a change in gender roles brings growing pains. The women's movement has brought the unfortunate consequence of feminized men. *Men who take advice about how to be men from women*


Something to bear in mind when evaluating the assertions made here?


----------



## Anon Pink

Maricha75 said:


> PICK ME! PICK ME! :rofl:
> 
> Seriously, though, Anon. You're scaring me. Found another post I agreed with. This is getting out of hand, now... 😛
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Did you miss me? :lol:

Dammit Maricha I came back and saw your post and HAD to laugh back and so this is entirely your damn fault!

I always assume your likes are errors.


----------



## Mr The Other

Anon Pink said:


> We've had this discussion before and I'm not sure I'm the best person to describe the aspects of leadership in marriage. I honestly think individual personalities and needs play a larger role in defining leadership in marriage.
> 
> My dad used to say marriage is never 50/50. It's 90/10. Sometimes you're the 90 and sometimes you're the 10. If we apply this to the burden of leadership it means that sometimes you're 90% responsible and sometimes you're only 10%.
> 
> Leadership must include nurturing, right?
> 
> Leadership must include foresight, right?
> 
> The ability to respond in crisis. The ability to place others needs before your own when the situation calls for it. The strength to set the tone socially, morally, materially...
> 
> Maybe emotional constancy plays a key role in leadership because it provides the other person the freedom to not be constant and to react in the moment. So that would make providing emotional safety part of leadership.
> 
> That's off the top of my head and I have to get off TAM now. If I come back today somebody shoot me!





Anon Pink said:


> I agree that gender neutral is a very very tricky lense to navigate. As you know I have a lesbian daughter and we frequently discuss gender roles and heteronormative thinking in marriage. There are just too many innate differences between men and women, IMO, to fully integrate gender neutral but the feminist in me screams at the inequity of that very thought.
> 
> I am conflicted to say the least.
> 
> Having grown up in a changing time, the 60's and 70's yeah baby, I feel like gender equality has reached critical mass, so to speak. We are now down to nitpicking the nuanced details of what gender equality means and in the process we are attempting to exclude the very real and very relevant ways we differ.
> 
> Gender neutral can't always be achieved. Heteronormative can't always be excluded.
> 
> As you may also know, I'm a kinky woman who digs the power play. So a lot of what the feminist in me find abhorrent, the kinkster in me screams bring it on! Of course I can't actually go there in gender equality discussions with my daughter.
> 
> Gottman spoke to men, specifically about their role in their marriage. On the whole, I don't think what he had to say was ineffective or inappropriate for all men in general.
> 
> I am reminded of the many women's magazines that enumerate ways for women to land her man, or keep her man, or sex up her man, or feed her man. I am thinking of how well those publications sell and compare them to anything relevant directed to men and how well they sell and I conclude that on the whole women "buy" into their role in their relationships a lot better than men do and I further conclude that that needs to change that. Gottman is one way to change that. So is NMMNG.





Buddy400 said:


> I'll settle for being half in the boat. :smile2:
> 
> I also think that woman have to own what they really want, not what they're being told they should want. I think this is key.
> 
> It sounds like you thought that a marriage where your husband passively waited to be told what you want would make you happy.
> 
> Your husband thought the same. You were both wrong because you were both listening to what the current culture was telling you you should want.
> 
> I think it's more true of women that they don't know what would really make them happy than it is of men.
> 
> I was at the grocery store the other day. The cashier (a woman) was talking to someone else about a couple that she had just finished with where the man was clearly pu**y whipped. She said "Happy wife, happy life" and turned to me and said "Right?". I said "absolutely not". She was surprised and said that she'd never heard anyone disagree before. I think she wanted me >


A series of wonderful posts.

There was a time, perhaps forty years ago (according to my Mum), when a divorce was blamed on the woman without regard to the situation. My Grandad (a kind man in a long and happy marriage) could not see why a women who had enough materially and a husband who did not abuse her could possibly be unhappy in a marriage. Thankfully, Gottman etc do show that is not enough. The orthodoxy has changed and rightly so. There is a pendulum that has swung and in reality the 50:50 ethos is stronger on TAM than most internet forums. The like the 90:10 rule though. And, as a man, I would expect to generally provide more emotional strength and stability and to take most responsibility. However, not all of it all of the time. 

Furthermore, I remember a friend of mine whose brother committed suicide and he cancelled a weekend away with his girlfriend to be with his family. Rather than complain, this lady traveled with him and helped take care of the him and his family. She was the emotionally strong one and no wonder that he married her. That was role-reversal, but in a wonderful way.

I will also defend that "Happy wife, happy life" assertion, as I believe it to be true. It is not the same as being ***** whipped, as I do not believe that is the route to a happy wife. Responding passively to a wife's requests is likely to be an example of extreme insensitivity. Understanding your wife's wants, and also what makes her happy (which might contradict) is the key and that involves empathy as opposed to just trying to be the good guy (which is selfish and the 'nice guy' syndrome). Again, the 90:10 rules applies, the man can do his best to listen and understand his partner, however, is she will not act or understand her own happiness, there is not much he can to beyond trying to supply the right causes and conditions for her happiness.

I want to get a line in about the 'nice guy' thing. It annoys me. Being touchy is not the same as being sensitive, thinking your emotions are the most important thing is the world is being self-centered rather than sensitive. The reason that these men tend not to have male friends is not because they are too sensitive, but because they are *******s. I have a disabled friend who a 'nice guy' would sympathize with, I judge her harshly. That is because she thrives on it and does not want pity, that is the difference between being a 'nice guy' and being decent. When men complain about being in the friendzone (what sort of friend feigns freindship for the hope of getting some sex?), I offer the solution - be more sexually attractive. That sounds like an angry rant, so I will add a smiley face => :grin2:

There is a problem when the responsibility goes to 100:0. That is that one partner is expecting the other to complete them. This is likely to be the result of some trauma (possibly non-dramatic). It might lead to an extremely tight relationship, but one of neediness and the individuality being lost. It is where one partner takes role of the adult and the other the child.

Regarding your feminist dilemma, I think society moves slower that we realize. I can see the difference between the UK and Scandinavia, in the former, women immediately look to men to take charge whenever they are uncertain. That it how men learn to do so and women do not. That is perhaps more to do with culture rather than biology, but regardless, it is the reality. Regardless, people are the way they are because of the way they were made, what they have been through and how they see things as individuals.


----------



## Duguesclin

On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.

I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands. 

What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.

I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great. 

But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.

I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.

I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


----------



## SunnyT

I always heard that marriage was 100:100.... because you have to give this relationship 100% and if you were giving less then you better figure out how to get it back up there! 

I think I still believe this. You have to be "all in".... or you are just spinning wheels. But I get that sometimes we are not at 100%... but then I see that as an example/scenario of "the love bucket" where you keep filling up your spouse's bucket and they will keep yours full too. So if your spouse has to give more at some times, if you need more help than you are able to offer....it's ok because you've built up this overflowing bucket. And you'll be back up at 100% when you can. Sounds kind of mushy or juvenile or something. 

But then, this can only apply if both spouses but into the 100:100 theory. From experience, it blows when you give 100 (or 110)% and your spouse is pretty much a taker.


----------



## Anon Pink

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.



What you saw is what educators have been worrying over for 20 years now. It grows more and more difficult to engage young men. They are disengaged, lagging behind in graduation rates and test scores and we can't seem to accurately understand what can be done to renegage them. 

I think it's a multifaceted problem beginning with reliance on electronic entertainment, lack of familial connection, over scheduled or under scheduled and helicopter parenting. I think the schools are fighting a battle without the most vital tools to win; parental accountability.

Is that the moms fault? The dads fault? Fractured families? I don't think we can point the finger at any demographic to blame. But we know that accountability and resilience are key traits of engaged young men.


----------



## Anon Pink

SunnyT said:


> I always heard that marriage was 100:100.... because you have to give this relationship 100% and if you were giving less then you better figure out how to get it back up there!
> 
> I think I still believe this. You have to be "all in".... or you are just spinning wheels. But I get that sometimes we are not at 100%... but then I see that as an example/scenario of "the love bucket" where you keep filling up your spouse's bucket and they will keep yours full too. So if your spouse has to give more at some times, if you need more help than you are able to offer....it's ok because you've built up this overflowing bucket. And you'll be back up at 100% when you can. Sounds kind of mushy or juvenile or something.
> 
> But then, this can only apply if both spouses but into the 100:100 theory. From experience, it blows when you give 100 (or 110)% and your spouse is pretty much a taker.



Sunny, what you describe is kind of like Marxism. Sounds good on paper but practicals reveal it's unworkable.

I am friends with some nurses and teachers, only two of them have good marriages. They spend their days nurturing and caring then come home to do more of it. If their husbands are needy, they grow pretty disgusted by what they see as an unequal level of care and concern. The two with good marriages have husbands who, IMO are the perfect blend of stable, strong and nurturing. This doesn't mean those other husband are lousy men, it just means those husbands couldn't adjust their need for their wives need. No one has a bottomless well of nurture.


----------



## Celes

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


I think there are a couple of major reasons for this. First is the lack of a strong and positive male influence in their lives. With divorce rates up and the rise of single moms, young boys are losing out on having solid male role models. I really do not think a woman is fully equipped to raise a boy on her own. Boys need male influence. Even if it's not their father, they need a strong male presence somehow. Step father, uncle, etc. But ideally women need to be very selective with the men they choose to have children with. 

Second, I believe that with the rise of feminism, girls are being taught early on to be what they want to be. That they can have it all. Kids, career, independence, achieve their dreams. "You go girl" and what not. Nothing wrong with that. But boys don't get the same kind of encouragement. All you have to do is watch any TV family to see that most have a father who is doofus while the mom is superwoman. 

I've also read some articles a while back that the way school is taught now doesn't speak to boys the same way it does girl. I don't remember the specifics though.


----------



## Anon Pink

Mr The Other said:


> A series of wonderful posts.
> 
> There was a time, perhaps forty years ago (according to my Mum), when a divorce was blamed on the woman without regard to the situation. My Grandad (a kind man in a long and happy marriage) could not see why a women who had enough materially and a husband who did not abuse her could possibly be unhappy in a marriage. Thankfully, Gottman etc do show that is not enough. The orthodoxy has changed and rightly so. There is a pendulum that has swung and in reality the 50:50 ethos is stronger on TAM than most internet forums. The like the 90:10 rule though. And, as a man, I would expect to generally provide more emotional strength and stability and to take most responsibility. However, not all of it all of the time.



My mother used to say exactly that if I ever complained about my marriage. "What do you want? He doesn't drink or beat you! What have you got to complain about?" 

I don't think anyone can be ON all the time. Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan demonstrated what I think may be the most realistic picture of a leader. But even his character showed clear signs of distress and trauma.



> Furthermore, I remember a friend of mine whose brother committed suicide and he cancelled a weekend away with his girlfriend to be with his family. Rather than complain, this lady traveled with him and helped take care of the him and his family. She was the emotionally strong one and no wonder that he married her. That was role-reversal, but in a wonderful way.


Now see I don't see that girlfriends action as being emotionally strong. It was the right thing to do, and to do anything else would have been the wrong thing and revealed her selfishness.



> I will also defend that "Happy wife, happy life" assertion, as I believe it to be true. It is not the same as being ***** whipped, as I do not believe that is the route to a happy wife. Responding passively to a wife's requests is likely to be an example of extreme insensitivity. Understanding your wife's wants, and also what makes her happy (which might contradict) is the key and that involves empathy as opposed to just trying to be the good guy (which is selfish and the 'nice guy' syndrome). Again, the 90:10 rules applies, the man can do his best to listen and understand his partner, however, is she will not act or understand her own happiness, there is not much he can to beyond trying to supply the right causes and conditions for her happiness.


Completely agree.



> I want to get a line in about the 'nice guy' thing. It annoys me. Being touchy is not the same as being sensitive, thinking your emotions are the most important thing is the world is being self-centered rather than sensitive. The reason that these men tend not to have male friends is not because they are too sensitive, but because they are *******s. I have a disabled friend who a 'nice guy' would sympathize with, I judge her harshly. That is because she thrives on it and does not want pity, that is the difference between being a 'nice guy' and being decent. When men complain about being in the friendzone (what sort of friend feigns freindship for the hope of getting some sex?), I offer the solution - be more sexually attractive. That sounds like an angry rant, so I will add a smiley face => :grin2:


If I was a nice guy I'd feel much better since you smiled.

The true NG is the guy who NEEDS external validation or at a minimum needs to not be challenged over much. This guys is only nice because he wants/needs to be liked but is quite capable of being mean. He shows his meanness through passive aggressive retaliation. My own husband has made solid progress in seeing this about himself and taking steps to alter it.



> There is a problem when the responsibility goes to 100:0. That is that one partner is expecting the other to complete them. This is likely to be the result of some trauma (possibly non-dramatic). It might lead to an extremely tight relationship, but one of neediness and the individuality being lost. It is where one partner takes role of the adult and the other the child.


This is a dynamic that works for some people. Going back to my dads pearls of wisdom, read it all but take what makes sense for you. The read it all thing means learn new ways, don't stop growing. 




> Regarding your feminist dilemma, I think society moves slower that we realize. I can see the difference between the UK and Scandinavia, in the former, women immediately look to men to take charge whenever they are uncertain. That it how men learn to do so and women do not. That is perhaps more to do with culture rather than biology, but regardless, it is the reality. Regardless, people are the way they are because of the way they were made, what they have been through and how they see things as individuals.



Sports for girls is the answer. Teach a girl to block a pass, defend a goal, and talk smack with the best and you've got a young woman who knows how to compete with the resilience to overcome a loss...eventually.


----------



## happy as a clam

Duguesclin said:


> *What struck me is the number of young girls* involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> *I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls* working hard to show their skills, doing great.


Just out of curiosity dug, why so much focus and observation on young girls? I wouldn't like this if I were your wife. Especially after your comments that birthing five children is HARD on a woman's body .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

All,

This is my very first hybrid post - I am speaking both as a mod - and a fellow contributor. 

I am absolutely appalled by the post below. It is the cheapest of cheap shots. 

If this is how you folks want to treat each other - to quote Edward Murrow - Good night and good luck 

--------------




happy as a clam said:


> Just out of curiosity dug, why so much focus and observation on young girls? I wouldn't like this if I were your wife. Especially after your comments that birthing five children is HARD on a woman's body .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three

happy as a clam said:


> Just out of curiosity dug, why so much focus and observation on young girls? I wouldn't like this if I were your wife. Especially after your comments that birthing five children is HARD on a woman's body .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




Oh FFS.


----------



## john117

Allow me to shed some light into the July 4 parade issue.. 

The band girls and guys are performing and doing an excellent job of it. The basketball and football team kids are along for the ride. They're props. Take the girls swim team and they'll be right there with the guys. 

Don't fall for the man bad girl good part...


----------



## soccermom2three

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> 
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> 
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.




At my son's high school awards ceremony I would say probably 70-75% of the recipients were girls.


----------



## NotEasy

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


Wish I could think of an Australian equivalent of the 4th of July parade and so note the Australian trend. 

We have Australia day, but most of us just go off for a barbeque.

We have ANZAC day marches, with mostly veterans marching, some with their children or grandchildren.

Perhaps sport is the equivalent here. It is the one place where many young boys show dedication. But again, the sport with the most participants is netball, mainly female. And our Aussie rules football has just aimed to make it equally easy for females and males to compete, and in just a few years females players already outnumber males in several clubs. 

There are certainly reports that boys are doing increasingly worse in school. The state government gives awards for the best in each subject on ending year 12 high school. Well over half are female.

I wouldn't care if the difference was ability, but I think it is dedication and commitment. It is sad that this is the pool my daughter will probably pick her husband from. Apathy and happy marriage don't go together.

We need to get back to the country. At least they still have marching bands (I hope). I wonder how many band members are male now.


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


Huh? So you are saying in a parade, the people who were there to perform (as you pointed out, mostly the female band members and cheerleaders) performed while the football/basketball players (guys) goofed off somehow shows that girls will do all/most of the work 

What would you have liked the guys to do, as @john117 stated, they were there for nothing more then props. What would have happened if the girls sports teams were in the parade? Based on your "analysis" you don't think they would have acted similar? How about in the band, were there any guys? If so, were they actually performing (i.e. the reason why they were in the parade) or were they goofing off as well???

How any of this then translates into not having strong male role models, single moms, parent accountability, etc... is beyond me  I am not saying any of this stuff is not a problem, just question how these conclusions can be made based on a parade (i.e. you know, something that is supposed to be fun)


----------



## Rowan

EllisRedding said:


> Huh? So you are saying in a parade, the people who were there to perform (as you pointed out, mostly the female band members and cheerleaders) performed while the football/basketball players (guys) goofed off somehow shows that girls will do all/most of the work
> 
> What would you have liked the guys to do, as @john117 stated, they were there for nothing more then props. What would have happened if the girls sports teams were in the parade? Based on your "analysis" you don't think they would have acted similar? How about in the band, were there any guys? If so, were they actually performing (i.e. the reason why they were in the parade) or were they goofing off as well???
> 
> How any of this then translates into not having strong male role models, single moms, parent accountability, etc... is beyond me  I am not saying any of this stuff is not a problem, just question how these conclusions can be made based on a parade (i.e. you know, something that is supposed to be fun)


:iagree:

I've managed to accumulate an appalling amount of experience organizing parades here in my small town. And all of that experience assures me that if you want any parade participants - male or female - to act like they're paying attention during the parade, you have to give them something to do. Of course the cheer leaders and band members were more engaged. Just walking in the parade is boring. There's no point to it, other than to be set dressing. 

For that reason, and because teen boys on average have the attention spans of c0cker spaniels, I always assigned the various sports teams some task. They couldn't just walk in the parade, they had to build a float - and pull it! I've assigned teams to the senior center's float to help the elderly folks with anything they needed. I've assigned groups of boys to help with the pre-K children, having them assist and walk with, sometimes carry, the little ones. Anything to give them a job and keep them engaged with the event. And those boys, nearly universally, rise to the occasion, do a great job, and have fun with it. It gives them a sense of purpose and something to feel good about helping with - with the added benefit of keeping them from looking like a big group of bored slackers.


----------



## samyeagar

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


You know, my gut reaction to this was to think "yeah", but then I really thought about it, and I'm not sure it is quite as dire as presented. You have well known biases with regards to what females roles should be, and a general disdain for males since many do not conform to your standards, so I am not sure how objective yuor observations can be.

I think the first thing to consider is that it is the 4th of July, so only a select group of kids are going to be there anyway with it being the summer, families travelling etc.

I am not sure how big of a community, or schools you are talking about, but when I look at the middle schools and high school my kids went to, there was actually a pretty good balance. One of the middle schools only had about 300 kids in it, but the other I had kids at had about 600. The high school they go to had about 1600. All three of them are in the 220 member marching band...all of them extremely well disciplined as the female director is a retired United States Army Captain who directed the Army Band for two years.

As far as the sports teams go, every year here there are a couple of girls on the football team, and a couple of guys in poms and flags, so an actual mix, and the football team doesn't really ride on a float...they typically walk the route with lots of jumping around, screaming with the cheerleaders, pumping up the crowd, though a lot of that could be attributed to the coaching, and the discipline the demand. With a school that size, a lot of players who try out never make the team, so only the more serious ones are there anyway.

Academically, it does seem that there are more girls getting the top awards, but looking at say the top 10% of the classes, there is still a slant towards the boys, but when looking at where they are going after high school, more girls seem to be going into STEM, but then consider that the girls outnumber the boys, and it gets really difficult to make any kind of definitive conclusions.

I do agree that there is a huge shift in things over the past couple of decades for girls becoming prominent and competitive, but honestly looking at where they started, it it pretty much inevitable, because they really couldn't go backwards much....which leads to the real question I guess...

No doubt the gap between boys and girls is closing, but are we seeing a real decline in boys, or does it just appear that way because the girls are catching up?


----------



## farsidejunky

samyeagar said:


> You know, my gut reaction to this was to think "yeah", but then I really thought about it, and I'm not sure it is quite as dire as presented. You have well known biases with regards to what females roles should be, and a general disdain for males since many do not conform to your standards, so I am not sure how objective yuor observations can be.
> 
> I think the first thing to consider is that it is the 4th of July, so only a select group of kids are going to be there anyway with it being the summer, families travelling etc.
> 
> I am not sure how big of a community, or schools you are talking about, but when I look at the middle schools and high school my kids went to, there was actually a pretty good balance. One of the middle schools only had about 300 kids in it, but the other I had kids at had about 600. The high school they go to had about 1600. All three of them are in the 220 member marching band...all of them extremely well disciplined as the female director is a retired United States Army Captain who directed the Army Band for two years.
> 
> As far as the sports teams go, every year here there are a couple of girls on the football team, and a couple of guys in poms and flags, so an actual mix, and the football team doesn't really ride on a float...they typically walk the route with lots of jumping around, screaming with the cheerleaders, pumping up the crowd, though a lot of that could be attributed to the coaching, and the discipline the demand. With a school that size, a lot of players who try out never make the team, so only the more serious ones are there anyway.
> 
> Academically, it does seem that there are more girls getting the top awards, but looking at say the top 10% of the classes, there is still a slant towards the boys, but when looking at where they are going after high school, more girls seem to be going into STEM, but then consider that the girls outnumber the boys, and it gets really difficult to make any kind of definitive conclusions.
> 
> I do agree that there is a huge shift in things over the past couple of decades for girls becoming prominent and competitive, but honestly looking at where they started, it it pretty much inevitable, because they really couldn't go backwards much....which leads to the real question I guess...
> 
> No doubt the gap between boys and girls is closing, but are we seeing a real decline in boys, or does it just appear that way because the girls are catching up?


Confirmation bias is powerful.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Rowan said:


> For that reason, and because teen boys on average have the attention spans of c0cker spaniels,












Agreed @Rowan . Even though by most standards I am considered a "full grown adult" at times I still have the attention span of a 2 yr old lol. Just imagine my W having to deal with me AND an actual two year old :grin2: . It is a parade, it is meant to be fun. As you mentioned, if you want the members being more active/involved, assign roles to them. Otherwise, as long as no one is being blatantly disrespectful let the kids have fun instead of psychoanalyzing every little thing they do to confirm some predetermined bias you already have.


----------



## Personal

GuyInColorado said:


> Why would you want to stay married? I feel bad for people married now... never again. I'm free!


That's an interesting perspective, I have now been married for over 17 years, to a woman I've lived with for 19½ years, that I've been having sex with for just over 20 years.

Yet through all of that time I've always felt free, just like when I was single. The only time I never felt free was when I was a kid growing up.


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed @Rowan . Even though by most standards I am considered a "full grown adult" at times I still have the attention span of a 2 yr old lol. Just imagine my W having to deal with me AND an actual two year old :grin2: . It is a parade, it is meant to be fun. As you mentioned, if you want the members being more active/involved, assign roles to them. Otherwise, as long as no one is being blatantly disrespectful let the kids have fun instead of psychoanalyzing every little thing they do to confirm some predetermined bias you already have.


Yeah, a parade over a summer holiday weekend is a pretty slim snapshot to make any broad assessments. While my experience is also anecdobtal, I guess I have a bit different insight because I have been actively involved with my kids and step kids and their schools, and my kids and step kids have gone to public schools their whole careers as opposed to being home schooled. This has exposed me to a pretty broad spectrum of kids and activities, parents, teachers, coaches, administrators, and honestly, I think I'm more concerned about some of the parents than I am any of these kids 

Look, every generation has had their goods and bads, every generation of parents have complained about the younger generation, wondering how things are going to hell in a hand basket, how they will ever survive...damned hippies and their rock and roll, and I'm going to shake a stick at you, and get off my lawn...there are an awful lot of great young people out there, young men, and young women, and while they may find a different way than we did, I think they are going to just as wildly good at it as any other generation.


----------



## Personal

samyeagar said:


> No doubt the gap between boys and girls is closing, but are we seeing a real decline in boys, or does it just appear that way because the girls are catching up?


I suspect catching up might have a lot to do with it.


----------



## Personal

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.





NotEasy said:


> Wish I could think of an Australian equivalent of the 4th of July parade and so note the Australian trend.
> 
> We have Australia day, but most of us just go off for a barbeque.
> 
> We have ANZAC day marches, with mostly veterans marching, some with their children or grandchildren.
> 
> Perhaps sport is the equivalent here. It is the one place where many young boys show dedication. But again, the sport with the most participants is netball, mainly female. And our Aussie rules football has just aimed to make it equally easy for females and males to compete, and in just a few years females players already outnumber males in several clubs.
> 
> There are certainly reports that boys are doing increasingly worse in school. The state government gives awards for the best in each subject on ending year 12 high school. Well over half are female.
> 
> I wouldn't care if the difference was ability, but I think it is dedication and commitment. It is sad that this is the pool my daughter will probably pick her husband from. Apathy and happy marriage don't go together.
> 
> We need to get back to the country. At least they still have marching bands (I hope). I wonder how many band members are male now.


Maybe it just depends upon where you live, I still see plenty of teenage boys and young men today who are engaged and participate.

That said with respect to discipline, I'm not a big fan of making kids learn to punch their arms through front rear with eyes front while marching a parade.

...


Anyway Is the pool really that bad?

As a school kid I had absolutely no interest in imposed discipline, didn't feel compelled to perform, couldn't care less about community and didn't play any sport unless forced to at school, I'm also not patriotic in a flag waving sense at all. 

I was a D grade student throughout my schooling, because I mostly couldn't be bothered doing school work at all (funnily enough the schools I went to almost always put me in the top classes). There is no way I would have bothered to turn up for such a march. And if forced to ribbing my mates with headphones atop my ears would have probably followed.

Yet I joined the Australian Army at 17 (served 14 years through 15 years both Regular/full-time and Reserve/part-time), became an Infantry Section Commander/Squad Leader at 21, went on to become an Infantry Platoon Sergeant at the age of 26. And was then headhunted for Intelligence Corps which I joined when I was 28.

Subsequently I then contributed to the War On Terrorism, Regional Border Protection, Regional Peace Keeping and the invasion of Iraq etc until early in 2004.

As a Team Leader early in 1995 I was responsible for the coordination & control of State Police, Ambulance, Army and civilian volunteers for the crowd management of circa 65,000 people out of a 200,000 person crowd during a Papal visit event. At the time I was a 23 year old Corporal (equal to an American Squad Leader) and was given the job because the previously tasked Warrant Officer (CSM) was not available for that role when event planning started.

In my Army service I've briefed politicians, one Governor and two Generals, and have had the RSM of the Army watch one of my Orders Groups and follow one of my Section (Squad) patrols. While later as a Platoon Sergeant I have been commended by the Land Commander (Maj-General) and RSM of the Army for my leadership. I have also trained Recruits, Infantrymen and Intelligence Corps Operators, learnt to sail racing dinghies, caved, abseiled, thrown myself out of planes and more besides.

I have given first aid to critically injured people, and controlled a multiple casualty incident (even though I was very intimately part of that incident) until police and ambulance personnel arrived.

For many years I have also worked in the media in various editorial roles and also do some unpaid volunteer work for a museum. That said for the past several years I get to do really cool fun things for a living, to the point I sometimes can't believe how lucky I am to get paid to do what I do.

At the same time I've been happily and faithfully married for over 17 years (20 years together), to a great very healthy woman, who was an A-B student, that has various tertiary qualifications including a STEM graduate degree, who has her own successful career where she is considered to be one of the best in her field (she earns more than me by the way).

My wife and I have two great kids, who are at the moment both high achievers in school academically, with one of them being good at music and okay at sport (variously reaching Zone and Regional level).

When I went to school I certainly didn't display any effort, dedication or commitment to school work or sport etc, on the other hand I did display plenty of apathy.

That said despite coming from that pool of which you despair @NotEasy, there's hope for some of us.

...


On to women and girls in bands, my youngest daughter is turning 13 next month, 3 years ago she was picked to learn clarinet at school. Following that she has now been a member of 5 different concert bands.

The first two bands were in an isolated rural town on the edge of the Australian outback with a shrinking population of circa 2500 people. The first band was the school band which had roughly 50/50% boys and girls. While the other band she was in was the town band which was effectively 50/50% men and women with two children in it.

The next two bands followed our moving back to Australia's largest city around 15 months ago. Where she has been in two school concert bands at the Primary level last year and High School level this year. The Primary School concert band had a 50/50 split between girls and boys. While the High School concert band is mostly girls, incidentally at that same High School the Jazz band is mostly boys.

More recently well for the last few months, my daughter was selected for a State championship prize winning concert band, of around 50 people which has about 50/50 male female participation inclusive of circa 20% adults with the rest being children. After months of considerable practice my wife and I got to see our daughter and her talented peers (of which many were male) perform a number of musical pieces at the Concert Hall of the famed Sydney Opera House. If you factor in all of the dancers, singers and the other band at that event, it was still around 50/50 for both genders at that level.

...


As to getting back to the country, hmmm.... One of the things my wife and I noticed while we were living in the country (as in you could drive for hours sometimes without seeing another person).

Was that aside from the debilitating drought that was then followed by devastating floods. Alcohol & drug abuse, domestic violence, marital breakdown, lots of obesity. Combined with most women working many different casual jobs because full time employment certainly wasn't available to all (including some of her employees), plus plenty of other problems that in large part seemed almost all pervasive.

My wife and I made plenty of female friends, male friends not so much. Which was a lot different to our experience in our more usual environs.

Of the women that my wife made friends with and the others she worked with aged from 20-70 (through her role in government management). She was one of a very tiny number of women in the greater community we lived in that wasn't divorced, getting a divorce or intending to get a divorce (especially the 30-50 year olds). Exempting domestic violence and alcoholism which was not uncommon, most of the rest of the women felt they were with men who were disengaged, non-caring, seldom present, aloof and unwilling to talk with them.

On the other hand amongst my wife's circle of friends (all tertiary educated, 40-50 year olds - most with careers) from our home metropolis, except for the ones who have happily remained single, most of the rest are happily married to some great guys. As far as I am aware only one of her friends isn't happy with their marriage, that said so far she's not looking to leave at all.


----------



## Anon Pink

Personal said:


> I suspect catching up might have a lot to do with it.


That's what educators attributed as the reason for the disparity but the boys test scores continued to decline, year after year. 

We know that early elementary years boys typically lag behind girls because boys language skills develop slower but by 5th grade the test scores typically even out. The trend that caused the concern was that once boys reached middle school, their test scores began dipping. I was on a committee for a local middle school to develop special programs and incentives directed toward boys in order to engage them. But their reading and writing skills continued to decline and none of the incentives seemed to work. We even experimented with single sex classes and that didn't work for boys but the girls scores really increased.
@Rowan,

Bravo to you for organizing parades!!! I did it for 4 years and it was very stressful. I'd sleep for a full day the next day and felt like I'd been hit by a bus.


----------



## Rowan

Anon Pink said:


> @Rowan,
> 
> Bravo to you for organizing parades!!! I did it for 4 years and it was very stressful. I'd sleep for a full day the next day and felt like I'd been hit by a bus.


I've been a senior officer on the board of directors for the two local organizations that organize parades here, so I'm going on about 6 years now of parade duty. I would love to take credit for my bravery, but the truth is that I was "voluntold" to help with parade organization my very first year on my very first board. Apparently, every other board member had been smart enough to decline the honor.... I didn't suck at it, so now they won't let me quit!


----------



## Anon Pink

Rowan said:


> I've been a senior officer on the board of directors for the two local organizations that organize parades here, so I'm going on about 6 years now of parade duty. I would love to take credit for my bravery, but the truth is that I was "voluntold" to help with parade organization my very first year on my very first board. Apparently, every other board member had been smart enough to decline the honor.... I didn't suck at it, so now they won't let me quit!


Poor Rowan. Lesson learned. Never miss a board meeting.


----------



## Buddy400

Celes said:


> Second, I believe that with the rise of feminism, girls are being taught early on to be what they want to be. That they can have it all. Kids, career, independence, achieve their dreams. "You go girl" and what not. Nothing wrong with that. But boys don't get the same kind of encouragement.


Young girls are probably receiving an unhealthy amount of pressure to "do it all".

Young men, not enough.


----------



## Buddy400

soccermom2three said:


> At my son's high school awards ceremony I would say probably 70-75% of the recipients were girls.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any sign of the coordinated effort to focus on why boys are under performing in school that was seen 20-30 years ago when it was thought that girls were under performing.

Why is that?


----------



## GTdad

Buddy400 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any sign of the coordinated effort to focus on why boys are under performing in school that was seen 20-30 years ago when it was thought that girls were under performing.
> 
> Why is that?


It's a reasonable point; working in higher ed we certainly see the disparity in numbers and performance, and it's causing quite a bit of alarm. The difficulty seems to be trying to come up with an effective way of dealing with it, which really needs to happen at the K-12 level. I know that I don't have any answers.

But personally, I've always thought that female drummers were wildly, rabidly hot.


----------



## Personal

notmyrealname4 said:


> But I still think that overall, young men especially, hate being lumped together with girls, with the possibility of being less talented in that activity.


I remember being in Year 11 in High School where I was one of three males in my visual arts class, inclusive of my best mate (who is now a male nurse, always a chick magnet and at school was an accomplished sportsman), and another guy who is gay (and now enjoys working in a tropical paradise).

Anyway my mate and I loved being in that class, because we thought it was terrific being the centre of attention with the girls.

That said my mate couldn't draw or paint to save his life, but he didn't care since it was all about the girls. Whereas I was/am exceptionally talented in drawing and painting, so aside from the girls I also saw it as a subject I would enjoy more than some other subjects.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> Look, every generation has had their goods and bads, every generation of parents have complained about the younger generation, wondering how things are going to hell in a hand basket, how they will ever survive...damned hippies and their rock and roll, and I'm going to shake a stick at you, and get off my lawn...there are an awful lot of great young people out there, young men, and young women, and while they may find a different way than we did, I think they are going to just as wildly good at it as any other generation.


My goal in life was not to get old and complain about "kids these days".

Now I'm getting old and really have to fight the urge.


----------



## Anon Pink

Buddy400 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any sign of the coordinated effort to focus on why boys are under performing in school that was seen 20-30 years ago when it was thought that girls were under performing.
> 
> Why is that?


I posted earlier about our middle school's efforts to engage boys better but I googled to search for coordinated state wide programs or academic organizations that might be developing or researching ways to engage boys.

But what I found shocked me!

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

According to this link, from a highly reputable source, boys have always lagged behind girls academically. Wha.....? 

Boy do I feel foolish now.


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> My goal in life was not to get old and complain about "kids these days".
> 
> Now I'm getting old and really have to fight the urge.


C'mon Buddy, give in to the urge ...


----------



## Buddy400

notmyrealname4 said:


> Are you being rhetorical; I mean do you know?


There are lot's of books with ideas about what's wrong, I won't try to list them here.

In the 1990's, it was widely thought that girls were being shortchanged in school, it was seen as a crisis and a lot of attention was given to trying to solve the problems.

I don't see an equal amount of attention given to the possibility of boys being "shortchanged" these days.

Here's an article from the Atlantic on the subject

The War Against Boys - The Atlantic

And no, anything done to improve the situation for boys should not be at the expense of girls.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> I posted earlier about our middle school's efforts to engage boys better but I googled to search for coordinated state wide programs or academic organizations that might be developing or researching ways to engage boys.
> 
> But what I found shocked me!
> 
> http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx
> 
> According to this link, from a highly reputable source, boys have always lagged behind girls academically. Wha.....?
> 
> Boy do I feel foolish now.


There was a panic in the 1990's that girls were disadvantaged in school. Many programs were designed to fix the "problem".

See the Atlantic article I referenced above.

I'm sure girls always out performed boys in grammar school.

I suspect boys used to do better in high school and I think that's changing.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> I posted earlier about our middle school's efforts to engage boys better but I googled to search for coordinated state wide programs or academic organizations that might be developing or researching ways to engage boys.
> 
> But what I found shocked me!
> 
> http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx
> 
> According to this link, from a highly reputable source, boys have always lagged behind girls academically. Wha.....?
> 
> Boy do I feel foolish now.


Interesting that, while boys did better on achievement tests in math & science, girls got better classroom grades in these subjects.


----------



## Anon Pink

Buddy400 said:


> There are lot's of books with ideas about what's wrong, I won't try to list them here.
> 
> In the 1990's, it was widely thought that girls were being shortchanged in school, it was seen as a crisis and a lot of attention was given to trying to solve the problems.
> 
> I don't see an equal amount of attention given to the possibility of boys being "shortchanged" these days.
> 
> Here's an article from the Atlantic on the subject
> 
> The War Against Boys - The Atlantic
> 
> And no, anything done to improve the situation for boys should not be at the expense of girls.


My two oldest were in middle school in the 90's. I observed a teacher during a class discussion in science. He was a very engaging teacher. Through out the class the kids hands were in the air as he guided the discussion. He called on 3 girls and 12 boys. When I told him I had been keeping count he shrugged his shoulders and said he always called on the kids who's attention spans were limited. Boys!


ETA: your article was from the 90's and it failed to mention the foundation for the claim that girls were being short changed in education. Their test scores did not translate to continuing education the ways boys test scores did, back then. It was concluded that taking the SAT was an indication of college preparedness. It was also concluded that hit school grades indicated college preparedness. Girls typically out scored boys but we're not enrolling in college at the same rate boys were. There were several important studies done to discover why grades and test scores weren't reliably predicting college entrance and college completion for girls. I'll find them later today.



@Maricha, gonna need you to keep me out of TAM today so I can get my to do list completed!


----------



## john117

That's been my experience also. Tho parental pressure is more of a factor than gender


----------



## Maricha75

Buddy400 said:


> My goal in life was not to get old and complain about "kids these days".
> 
> Now I'm getting old and really have to fight the urge.


Give into the urge. I have. I see a lot of the behavior and shake my head... often. Then I turn to my own kids and admonish them to NOT partake in that particular action... which gets the "Why would you even think I WOULD do that??" look.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rowan

Buddy400 said:


> Interesting that, while boys did better on achievement tests in math & science, girls got better classroom grades in these subjects.


I'm guessing that's because girls tend to mature a little faster than boys, and generally tend to function better in a confined classroom setting than boys. So, a girl might have a maturity level and temperament better suited to paying attention in class, doing assignments neatly and on time, finishing projects and turning in completed homework than a boy her same age. Things that matter to classroom grades, but not at all on achievement tests. The ways we teach in classrooms today seem mostly to frustrate and stifle a lot of kids, perhaps boys even more than girls.


----------



## Phil Anders

Duguesclin said:


> On the equality subject, I am concerned that men and women may have different definitions.
> 
> I watched the 4th of July parade in my community. It is a pretty big one lasting over 2 hours with many marching bands.
> 
> What struck me is the number of young girls involved. They were in the bands and I could see them playing the little flute or the big tubas. I saw some with the cymbals and others with the big drums. The girls did the range of instruments. They were not limited in any way by the size of the instrument.
> 
> I saw the cheerleaders and pom pom girls working hard to show their skills, doing great.
> 
> But behind them the football and basketball players were goofing off, a lot of them texting. No discipline. They just showed up, nothing more.
> 
> I saw all the girls engaged. I saw few boys doing much.
> 
> I am afraid equality to some means that the girls will do most, if not all, of the work.


What were the boys in the bands doing? Were they goofing off, or were they playing instruments & drums and marching in rank along with the girls? That would seem the obvious comparison to make here. Do you suppose those football and basketball players are more engaged during games and practices, where they have a clear purpose, as opposed to a once-a-year parade in which their ceremonial function of "being seen" is likely both alien and rather boring to them?


----------



## NotEasy

Ok, I found the example of Australians participating, the CFA, our volunteer Country Fire Authority. They spend their free time training to do an unpaid job that might put their life at risk, and all just to help others. They are certainly not apathetic. This is the sort of person who I would like my daughter to consider as a husband. I think apathy is disaster for marriage. 

The CFA only recently opened up to front line fire fighting roles to females. Not sure what the current percentage is, but it was about 25% female a decade ago. It is not the ratio that I care about. The CFA shows there are some self-less males about.

I have a brother in the CFA. His wife is also involved, but with a disability she works back at base. Given she can't even walk fast it would be stupid to put her near a fire. She does what she can, and that is very good. They have a good marriage and I am not surprised.

I have an uncle who retired on a disability pension at 30. We all think his disability is laziness. I would be distressed if my daughter was going to marry someone like him.

I don't think there is an Australian equivalent to your 4th of July parade. And I am fine with that. Our ANZAC veterans walk in whatever they want in the parade, that is good, they have already done their bit. Serving military groups march, but no-one else. That is the Aussie way and it is good.

The difference in school results is alarming in a general sense, but doesn't worry me about marriage. Being best in the state is not important for marriage. Being committed and prepared to sacrifice is.


----------



## NotEasy

Personal said:


> Maybe it just depends upon where you live, I still see plenty of teenage boys and young men today who are engaged and participate.


Good and, selfishly, I only care about my daughter marrying a good one, not what the average ones are like.



Personal said:


> That said with respect to discipline, I'm not a big fan of making kids learn to punch their arms through front rear with eyes front while marching a parade.


Agreed. My daughters school didn't even march them back to class after assembly, mine tried to and it was pointless.



Personal said:


> Anyway Is the pool really that bad?
> 
> As a school kid I had absolutely no interest in imposed discipline, didn't feel compelled to perform, couldn't care less about community and didn't play any sport unless forced to at school, I'm also not patriotic in a flag waving sense at all.
> 
> I was a D grade student throughout my schooling, because I mostly couldn't be bothered doing school work at all (funnily enough the schools I went to almost always put me in the top classes). There is no way I would have bothered to turn up for such a march. And if forced to ribbing my mates with headphones atop my ears would have probably followed.
> 
> Yet I joined the Australian Army at 17 (served 14 years through 15 years both Regular/full-time and Reserve/part-time), became an Infantry Section Commander/Squad Leader at 21, went on to become an Infantry Platoon Sergeant at the age of 26. And was then headhunted for Intelligence Corps which I joined when I was 28.
> 
> Subsequently I then contributed to the War On Terrorism, Regional Border Protection, Regional Peace Keeping and the invasion of Iraq etc until early in 2004.
> 
> As a Team Leader early in 1995 I was responsible for the coordination & control of State Police, Ambulance, Army and civilian volunteers for the crowd management of circa 65,000 people out of a 200,000 person crowd during a Papal visit event. At the time I was a 23 year old Corporal (equal to an American Squad Leader) and was given the job because the previously tasked Warrant Officer (CSM) was not available for that role when event planning started.
> 
> In my Army service I've briefed politicians, one Governor and two Generals, and have had the RSM of the Army watch one of my Orders Groups and follow one of my Section (Squad) patrols. While later as a Platoon Sergeant I have been commended by the Land Commander (Maj-General) and RSM of the Army for my leadership. I have also trained Recruits, Infantrymen and Intelligence Corps Operators, learnt to sail racing dinghies, caved, abseiled, thrown myself out of planes and more besides.
> 
> I have given first aid to critically injured people, and controlled a multiple casualty incident (even though I was very intimately part of that incident) until police and ambulance personnel arrived.
> 
> For many years I have also worked in the media in various editorial roles and also do some unpaid volunteer work for a museum. That said for the past several years I get to do really cool fun things for a living, to the point I sometimes can't believe how lucky I am to get paid to do what I do.
> 
> At the same time I've been happily and faithfully married for over 17 years (20 years together), to a great very healthy woman, who was an A-B student, that has various tertiary qualifications including a STEM graduate degree, who has her own successful career where she is considered to be one of the best in her field (she earns more than me by the way).
> 
> My wife and I have two great kids, who are at the moment both high achievers in school academically, with one of them being good at music and okay at sport (variously reaching Zone and Regional level).
> 
> When I went to school I certainly didn't display any effort, dedication or commitment to school work or sport etc, on the other hand I did display plenty of apathy.
> 
> That said despite coming from that pool of which you despair @*NotEasy*, there's hope for some of us.


Yes, agreed. I wouldn't look at a potential husbands school report, it often only demonstrates how well they sit still. I would look for some commitment to be shown to something before marriage. You certainly showed that with your army service.



Personal said:


> ...
> 
> 
> On to women and girls in bands, my youngest daughter is turning 13 next month, 3 years ago she was picked to learn clarinet at school. Following that she has now been a member of 5 different concert bands.
> 
> The first two bands were in an isolated rural town on the edge of the Australian outback with a shrinking population of circa 2500 people. The first band was the school band which had roughly 50/50% boys and girls. While the other band she was in was the town band which was effectively 50/50% men and women with two children in it.
> 
> The next two bands followed our moving back to Australia's largest city around 15 months ago. Where she has been in two school concert bands at the Primary level last year and High School level this year. The Primary School concert band had a 50/50 split between girls and boys. While the High School concert band is mostly girls, incidentally at that same High School the Jazz band is mostly boys.
> 
> More recently well for the last few months, my daughter was selected for a State championship prize winning concert band, of around 50 people which has about 50/50 male female participation inclusive of circa 20% adults with the rest being children. After months of considerable practice my wife and I got to see our daughter and her talented peers (of which many were male) perform a number of musical pieces at the Concert Hall of the famed Sydney Opera House. If you factor in all of the dancers, singers and the other band at that event, it was still around 50/50 for both genders at that level.
> 
> ...


My daughter also played in several bands, with a differing numbers of boys and girls in each, but roughly equal numbers overall. A good sign.


Personal said:


> As to getting back to the country, hmmm.... One of the things my wife and I noticed while we were living in the country (as in you could drive for hours sometimes without seeing another person).
> 
> Was that aside from the debilitating drought that was then followed by devastating floods. Alcohol & drug abuse, domestic violence, marital breakdown, lots of obesity. Combined with most women working many different casual jobs because full time employment certainly wasn't available to all (including some of her employees), plus plenty of other problems that in large part seemed almost all pervasive.


I wouldn't move back to the county permanently. I have seen the same problems. Places with tourism seem to be the only survivors. And for that they need to be close to a major city. The real bush is suffering.


Personal said:


> My wife and I made plenty of female friends, male friends not so much. Which was a lot different to our experience in our more usual environs.
> 
> Of the women that my wife made friends with and the others she worked with aged from 20-70 (through her role in government management). She was one of a very tiny number of women in the greater community we lived in that wasn't divorced, getting a divorce or intending to get a divorce (especially the 30-50 year olds). Exempting domestic violence and alcoholism which was not uncommon, most of the rest of the women felt they were with men who were disengaged, non-caring, seldom present, aloof and unwilling to talk with them.
> 
> On the other hand amongst my wife's circle of friends (all tertiary educated, 40-50 year olds - most with careers) from our home metropolis, except for the ones who have happily remained single, most of the rest are happily married to some great guys. As far as I am aware only one of her friends isn't happy with their marriage, that said so far she's not looking to leave at all.


I haven't seen as big a divide as this, to me the marriage success seems broadly similar. However my only experience is visiting family who are luckily in a tourist town. It must be hard to keep a marriage going in a dying town with no jobs and no future. I have sympathy but also no desire to join them.


----------



## Personal

@NotEasy hoping that your daughter chooses a good partner/s is not unreasonable at all. I hope my children have a good life, while my wife and I encourage them to work hard and behave decently as well.

The town we were in had its share of problems unfortunately, that said there were plenty of good people in it, that said as you say there is quite the difference between a place that has its own attractions and is a bit closer to a big city.

Anyway we were there for only four years and despite the fact it sometimes felt like the end of the world, once we had adjusted it was a mostly positive experience, to the point we would happily live in the country again (just not in a town that small or smaller) if work took us that way.


----------



## heartsbeating

I may be simplifying things based on where this thread has likely gotten to now as a discussion. 
One of the few posts I've saved from TAM was from GTdad. I liked his take on things and what he's discovered through (and for) his marriage. 



GTdad said:


> Kindness and compassion. When I think about it, I'm pretty convinced that my wife taught me how to be kind.
> 
> Liking each other as well as loving each other.
> 
> Humor. My wife and I crack each other up all the time, and it's a great way, maybe the best way, to meet all of the adversity that comes with living life.
> 
> Communication. Maybe the primary thing that brought me here in the first place. In spite of the positives sketched above, we had problems talking to each other and reading into things that weren't said. It was complicated, and I don't want to spend too much time on it, but we've been doing much better in that department lately. You can't overestimate the value of good communication when you've lived it's absence.
> 
> Commitment. The drive to make the marriage last a lifetime regardless of the stumbling blocks (absent the obvious like abuse, addiction or infidelity), and the drive to dismantle those stumbling blocks you have control over.


----------



## sapientia

Thanks for sharing that again, @heartsbeating.


----------



## john117

If you have commitment the others are not difficult to conjure. My father had the comedy skills of a brick while my mother was a natural born comic... communication wise he was all Army speak and politics speak and she was all empathy and compassion. They were nearly the two most incompatible people I have ever seen yet they succeeded despite WW2, the occasional Commie invasion here and there, serious health issues, and all that.


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> If you have commitment the others are not difficult to conjure. My father had the comedy skills of a brick while my mother was a natural born comic... communication wise he was all Army speak and politics speak and she was all empathy and compassion. They were nearly the two most incompatible people I have ever seen yet they succeeded despite WW2, the occasional Commie invasion here and there, serious health issues, and all that.


Failed to divorce does not equal marital success.

Love in some form is the sugar.
Commitment is the flour.
Compassion is the butter.
Friendship is the eggs.

Willingness to hear is the baking soda
Willingness to sincerely apologize is the salt.

Acceptable amount of affection is the vanilla
Sense of humor is the brows sugar
Sexually interested is the chocolate chips.


Guess what I made today?


----------



## john117

Sorry Anon... Nobody divorced back then yet the happy marriages were easy to spot... look at the outcomes, how happy they were, fighting, children, legacy, accomplishments, selflessness, teamwork, the works. 

I compare those two with my in-laws and it's hardly a surprise that J2 and siblings ended up like that.


----------



## Anon Pink

That's my point John, nobody divorced back then. Divorce was not an option and because of that people decided to just be happy anyway or make everyone around them miserable too. Just because they didn't make everyone around them as miserable as they might have been doesn't mean they were a happy couple.

You can be happy, and also a couple.


----------



## john117

Are you telling me their own kids couldn't tell the difference?

I know several relatives and friends who were not TAM spec happy and it was quite clear why and how. 

Not having the misfortune of growing up back there back then, you may find it surprising that marital happiness had a different definition... 5 Love Languages takesa whole new meaning 😂


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> Are you telling me their own kids couldn't tell the difference?
> 
> I know several relatives and friends who were not TAM spec happy and it was quite clear why and how.
> 
> Not having the misfortune of growing up back there back then, you may find it surprising that marital happiness had a different definition... 5 Love Languages takesa whole new meaning 😂


1. Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Because being happy in general and loving your kids enough not to make their home a battle ground for power struggles or passive aggressive nit picking is what good parents do. And we know that we don't necessarily have to have a good marriage to be a good parent.

2. Sometimes the trouble in the marriage is evident to all, sometimes it is hidden to all. 

3. I am not at all surprised the definition of a happy marriage has changed over the years. My own mother used to tell me I was ungrateful toward my husband because he went to work every day, came home every night, didn't beat me and didn't get drunk every day. That was her definition of a good marriage and to her mind I had a good marriage. It was anything but a good marriage.


----------



## john117

You need to keep in mind that societies back then and even now are far closer than in the USA. The proverbial grandma with pillow under arms on window... things did not stay covered for long.

Looking into my immediate family I could easily tell the good, the ho-hum, and the bad. And a few were bad, regardless of definition.


----------



## Anon Pink

No John you couldn't tell the good from the ho hum from the bad. You could make inferences based on what you know now and how that frames what you remember from then, but the point in time of then, being 30-40 years ago no. The 13 year old boy has no ability to asses a good marriage from a bad from a ho hum in the absence of constant very complaints, witnessing bullying and or seeing bruises.

As far as societies back then being all up in one another's business I beg to differ. There were many things not discussed.


----------



## john117

I'm glad you're an expert on family dynamics, rural Europe era 1970-1980...

The bad marriages were very easy to tell, AP. Child's play. There was considerable impact on the kids. Every one of my cousins and such that accomplished anything in their life came from a good marriage. The ho hum marriage kids did ok, in varying degrees. The bad marriage kids for the most part did not fare well.

The dynamics were simple. Woman brings in property, man brings in a job, at some point property income exceeds man's wages. Ouch. My folks were man brings nothing, woman brings nothing, both work, they were not great parents to begin with but they cared. 

If you're a 12 year old and can't tell that uncle Joseph doesn't like aunt Jemima... we grew up MUCH faster in such circumstances. I recall my first experience of an open marriage at age 15 maybe, when my aunt Georgia (think the lady in the "these boots are made for walking" video) gets married to a very high desire type guy. Apparently she wasn't enough. She let him do whatever he wanted and divorced him eventually. Or my first case of marital adultery, where my cousin - a darned good looking professional woman - was cheated on by her husband the math teacher. With a woman in her 40's that looked like the wicked witch of the west. Instant divorce 😂

In the village very few things are private. It's Facebook without the sidebar ads.

Even my wife's grandfather had two wives , the side benefit of their religion. In different cities. The stories I've heard about him could keep TAM busy for weeks. My wife was no more than 15 when she had to deal with two grandma's and one grandpa. 

We will agree to disagree.


----------



## imtamnew

john117 said:


> If you have commitment the others are not difficult to conjure. My father had the comedy skills of a brick while my mother was a natural born comic... communication wise he was all Army speak and politics speak and she was all empathy and compassion. They were nearly the two most incompatible people I have ever seen yet they succeeded despite WW2, the occasional Commie invasion here and there, serious health issues, and all that.


Maybe these external factors took their mind if their own conflicts?

A hungry man rarely complains of less salt in his food. A person with no such problems... can either be at peace or have an issue with a speck of nonexistent dirt.


----------



## NotEasy

Anon Pink said:


> That's my point John, nobody divorced back then. Divorce was not an option and because of that people decided to just be happy anyway or make everyone around them miserable too. Just because they didn't make everyone around them as miserable as they might have been doesn't mean they were a happy couple.
> 
> You can be happy, and also a couple.


Well at least in my family tree people did divorce back then. One several times. Some seemed to have left town just after divorcing. So it appears there was more shame involved in divorce then. 

Oh, and one baby was born just a month after the wedding. So guess what else people also did back then.


----------



## john117

NotEasy said:


> Well at least in my family tree people did divorce back then. One several times. Some seemed to have left town just after divorcing. So it appears there was more shame involved in divorce then.
> 
> Oh, and one baby was born just a month after the wedding. So guess what else people also did back then.


We had all those too. But everyone knew well ahead of time what was going on.


----------



## Maricha75

NotEasy said:


> Well at least in my family tree people did divorce back then. One several times. Some seemed to have left town just after divorcing. So it appears there was more shame involved in divorce then.
> 
> Oh, and one baby was born just a month after the wedding. So guess what else people also did back then.


Are we related? My own grandmother was married and divorced twice. The man whose name my dad carries is not his biological father. Grandma had sex with some other guy we have never met. Here's the best part, though. All his life, my dad was told that this third man is his biological father. We went to a family reunion years ago... I would say roughly 20 years ago... and one of my dad's cousins noted that he looks a LOT like grandma's stepbrother. Dad's aunt shushed him REAL FAST! So, now, he has THAT playing in his mind, too. Dad knows his mom was no angel. Even we girls know this. But that bit of info floored us. I guess it really shouldn't have, though. That same stepbrother ended up marrying my grandmother's sister (full blood relation, so the two were step-siblings). They divorced, too. Shocking, right? Their second spouses know all about the marriage, and it was oddly NOT awkward at reunions. 

Divorced definitely did happen back then. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## NotEasy

john117 said:


> We had all those too. But everyone knew well ahead of time what was going on.


This is an interesting difference that I can't understand. Some people, like us, remember seeing marriage discord during their childhood, maybe their parents, maybe others. 

Other people say it was all happy in the good old days, or at least it was hidden. And I think some are telling the truth, at least in terms of what they saw.

This ends up being he said / she said.

Family trees are nice clear proof in black and white. I don't know which marriages were happy 100 years ago, but no one can argue who divorced.

It doesn't relate especially to the thread, but it does prove that going back to the good old days will not mean everyone will remain married, happily or otherwise.


----------



## john117

As I said, two divorces going back 55 years and 100 couples. If you put the entire village, even fewer divorces per capita. Truly happy marriages, not as many as one would think, but that's not because of people but because of standards being lower 

A fair amount of PA and that was deterrent enough for any LD's ...


----------



## Begin again

john117 said:


> I am considering mailing my wife to Dr. Gottman for evaluation... I'm having a hard time finding a box that fits her at the UPS Store...
> 
> Come on, JLD, this is not true by a mile. What did people like me, Copper Top, Anon, and many more here in TAM compared to our wives? Speaking personally the only thing I could do to help my marriage is to drop dead at work. J2 and the kids get a ton of money from my insurance company, plus another sum if I die at work, and she's a happy camper.


No one can give you perfect advice because every situation is unique. Do you separate the wheat from the chaff and try to make progress? If not, and you won't divorce, then why give it another moment of thought? Why post on a marriage forum if your marriage is dead and no one here can give you what you seek? I'd sure as hell go find something better to do. It would be like reading third grade textbooks - if you can't learn anything from them then put them down and go do something else.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Au contraire.... After 25 good years of marriage I thought that the last few years were an outlier, a mid life crisis, something just on me. After all, I earn a great living reading people's minds. I can fix it. 

Pffffft.

It took three years of TAM to convince me otherwise. Right now the count down clock is counting towards May 2017.


----------



## NotEasy

Maricha75 said:


> Are we related? My own grandmother was married and divorced twice. The man whose name my dad carries is not his biological father. Grandma had sex with some other guy we have never met. Here's the best part, though. All his life, my dad was told that this third man is his biological father. We went to a family reunion years ago... I would say roughly 20 years ago... and one of my dad's cousins noted that he looks a LOT like grandma's stepbrother. Dad's aunt shushed him REAL FAST! So, now, he has THAT playing in his mind, too. Dad knows his mom was no angel. Even we girls know this. But that bit of info floored us. I guess it really shouldn't have, though. That same stepbrother ended up marrying my grandmother's sister (full blood relation, so the two were step-siblings). They divorced, too. Shocking, right? Their second spouses know all about the marriage, and it was oddly NOT awkward at reunions.
> 
> Divorced definitely did happen back then.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Sounds like we are related.

I was going to post more, but it seems off-topic, so I started 
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/342001-skeleton-family-closet.html#post16096417


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Ok... @jld.. Finally getting back.. a few times you wanted me to read these over...asking me If I agreed with Gottman... as you know I think very highly of what he says about Conflict...his writings has certainly validated my sometimes "volatile" conflict style.. everything he wrote about that fit us to a "T"....yet this can be healthy.. the main thing is resolving...and that 5 to 1 ratio...

For Reference *>* http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ead-4-types-5-1-ratio-marriage-conflicts.html




jld said:


> This is a summary of his research findings:
> 
> _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._


_ I can not express how much it means to me personally that my spouse IS my best friend.. there are some who don't seem to need this or care about it.. I am not one of those.. I care a great great deal... so Yeah.. I very much agree.... I'm the woman.. I cause fights.. he doesn't hold it against me since our Positive output is Way beyond probably the norm even.. we've always felt best friends, since before we even kissed... yeah even though we fight now & then.. it's just not a big deal !




*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).

Click to expand...

 Gottman is putting a lot of focus on conflict again.. but I think it's good  ..... 

It's in the HOW.... our attitudes can make or break a relationship...even if my emotions get heated (and they have at times!)...my husband never shuts me out.. it's never a "it's my way or the highway" type thing...he doesn't leave the room...he listens to me.. he seems to understand I need to get things off my chest... he's like your husband in this way...

I can't express HOW MUCH this means to me.. THIS IS CALMING.... I want that in a man..if he shut me down or left the room....this would cause me to escalate..the opposite effect.. some women may want left alone, maybe pushing the man out the door.. I don't know. I am just speaking what works for me.. 

I do the same for him.. I want to hear him out.. even if I don't like it.. I have a NEED to understand, for us to find that common ground with each other.... We stay beside each other till we work it out... 





*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.)

Click to expand...

 A lot said in this one...basically ... KNOW YOUR Woman.. her deepest fears, her greatest joys...it's good to look back on memories shared.. always make each other a priority.. (women should do this too -by the way)... I know he's focusing on the man here..but I'd still read it as though this was just as relevant for us to make our men a priority too....caring to satisfy his deepest longings also... seeking to know what they are .. just as much as he should be seeking to know ours... it's a 2 way street here..




*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.

Click to expand...

 We don't hear fondness or admiration talked about all that much... Admiration is one of the 10 emotional needs spoken of in "His Needs/ Her Needs"...










yes very important.. it's something deep within us that we carry around - a warm feeling that our partner invokes in us.. this can't be manufactured or brought on by our will -just because we Should...

It has to be genuine.. is the way we live and handle ourselves admirable ?? Do we treat our spouse with kindness, caring, honoring our marriage , doing our part ?? If not.. chances are we won't be all that admired or felt fondly of.. We need something to bring, to offer...to help too. When we read these.. we have to look at ourselves through them too. 

Bringing up "Remember when's" / good times/ memories shared.. this is very comforting...it's encouraging...that we've always been a team...we're in this together, and look how far we have come.... 





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.

Click to expand...

 Can't say enough about this one.. You know I am a BIG romantic...all those little things.. the smallest thing could have brightened a day... sometimes we just don't realize....t add some flavor.. a "pick me up"...an "Awe, that was so sweet" & we cant stop smiling....it's encouragement , it reminds us we are Loved, thought of... he even said "Mundane things" in this writing.. this is just to hit home to not take each other for granted... When their is shared intimacy.. everything is just brighter.. or it could be. 

One thing I so much appreciate about my husband is.. he's NOT a complainer, he is very slow to anger.... I mean.. today (and typical).. I wanted to get the grass cut, he's at work.. almost finished & what do I do.. get the mover STUCK good on a hill side.. (so typical of me- going places I shouldn't be going thinking I "got this"..I'll save him from doing it..... his attitude is .. he laughs, asking "how did you even do that!?".... another story for the guys at work.. how I try to save him work & I create more work... the "little things" is ... I have good intentions, so I get credit.. and I didn't kill myself, he didn't come down the drive with the mower on top of me.. so there is nothing to get upset about...Life is good..







....













*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

Click to expand...

 All about the intimacy...making memories.. I think all of these can be Romantic.. IF we're tuned in. not our heads buried in our cell phones when our spouse is near..that is a












*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.

Click to expand...

 I like this.. it's basically saying that a husband needs to listen to his wife.. hear her.. do his best to satisfy her - finding their common ground, as he CARES about her happiness too, heck it affects his own happiness..... not shutting her out.. with a "My way or the Highway" attitude...as this will escalate any women.. she will not have much to admire in her husband or feel fondness about -if this is his overbearing attitude.. 

Though she has to be a *"reasonable"* wife here...not "entitled" or asking more than she should....what if the woman was spoiled growing up - always getting her way / what she wanted ..."Princess Syndrome anyone?".... that sort of dysfunction & expectation would cause hell to any man.. 

I've always felt I had influence over my husband (I was far from spoiled growing up, I was very appreciative for the little things)...I knew we'd have to work hard to get anything we wanted...

Ideally...influence should flow back & forth from a husband & wife.. we learn & grow from each other.




*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

Click to expand...

 It's true.. when we feel deeply loved & cared for, thought of.. we are much more likely to pour out everything we're feeling...I've always felt this way .. his arms SAFE to fall in.... I would assume many feel this is asking too much or something.. work stress can drown out living like this... or life is just too busy.. it again comes back to those little things.. they do add up.. next time you hear a love song on the radio.. maybe an oldie that brings you back.. reach over & grab her hand.. give her a big .




*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*.

Click to expand...

 I am surely the bigger complainer between us, at least initially when something flares me, not to mention "harder to please".. and more vocal.. my husband may be on the passive side.. but he's always open to discussing...thankfully...

I wonder how accurate 80% is...I mean men were raised to "suck it up.. not complain.. BE A MAN"... so probably...but there are still marriages where the wife may be the avoider & refuses to discuss issues.. Being on the receiving end of that would frustrate anyone.. and eventually they will just STOP going there.. then resentment will fester and it's a downward spiral.. it hurts both ...we need to listen to the woes of our spouse.. and find common ground.. no matter how grueling it may be, we need to wade through it...to come out the other side...together...this is what saves us...holds our intimacy with each other.




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

Click to expand...

 the unrequited dreams is interesting.. is this why I want my husband to be more "aggressive "... this is in my dreams.. Unlived... I may have felt "entrenched" at times.. but I was also willing to budge as it's unfair for me to feel hurt over trying to change something that goes against his very nature. 

.. Through all of our spats & make up sex.. I couldn't deny what was in front of me...I was asking/ pushing for too much from him, then he wouldn't be happy... this is more of a WANT over a NEED of mine..(though for some women it may be a need if they are naturally more submissive, after all opposites attract here)...

Weighing it all out...other things are far more important, to allow this to steal our joy would be a terrible terribly waste...Just my own example there..

Every couple has some of those "entrenched" arguments where we deeply want our Way...that we keep re-visiting. ..Hopefully a couple can work through them...all of them. It's THAT important.. 

Yes.. I agree with Gottman.. this is when we give up.... disengage emotionally....this causes a man or women to be vulnerable.. even weak...we feel like roommates.. may question what we are missing over the fence..this won't have a good ending...




*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.

Click to expand...

 Could any of us be with another who we felt didn't really LIKE us, or felt disdain towards us.. wanted to fundamentally change us in some way ?? 

In order to feel that freedom with this person before us..we have to feel accepted AT OUR CORE... and loved for who we are.. so we can build from there.. there is great encouragement when someone believes in us...sees potential.. even if we fall short in some ways.. but still they love us...we're worth it.. It's important to feel this from our spouse ...Yes. 




*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 that those who lower their expectations.

Click to expand...

_This last part.. those who are demanding... interesting take.. .. I can be demanding.. .but it's not a selfish demanding....I literally NEED and WANT his happiness too.. This is what he means.. to "fight" together to find your Peace.. and happiness..as a couple.. it should never be one person being in control while the other has little voice or feels suppressed.

Ok.. there was my long winded 2 cents @jld !


----------



## 225985

The HHS funded a large study of his work. It concluded his statistical conclusions had no validity. 

If some people find something useful in his work for their own marriage, that is great. 

Preaching it to everyone as a religion, when the US govt concluded it is invalid, that is not so great.


----------



## farsidejunky

blueinbr said:


> The HHS funded a large study of his work. It concluded his statistical conclusions had no validity.
> 
> If some people find something useful in his work for their own marriage, that is great.
> 
> Preaching it to everyone as a religion, when the US govt concluded it is invalid, that is not so great.


The government encouraged pasta as an acceptable and healthy option for getting enough carbohydrates in one's diet.

Pasta. 

Now, I am not all in on Gottman either. But I am highly skeptical of anything from government; much more so than anything from Gottman.


----------



## john117

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*

Ever been to Italy? Pasta is not the issue 

Here's a link to get one started. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435728/


----------



## jld

blueinbr said:


> The HHS funded a large study of his work. It concluded his statistical conclusions had no validity.
> 
> If some people find something useful in his work for their own marriage, that is great.
> 
> Preaching it to everyone as a religion, when the US govt concluded it is invalid, that is not so great.


Citations?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 225985

farsidejunky said:


> The government encouraged pasta as an acceptable and healthy option for getting enough carbohydrates in one's diet.
> 
> Pasta.
> 
> Now, I am not all in on Gottman either. But I am highly skeptical of anything from government; much more so than anything from Gottman.




Sorry, the govt provided the grant money for an independent research group to review the validity of his work. The govt's purpose in this was to reduce divorce in low income couples because the divorces most often lead to them seeking govt assistance.


----------



## 225985

blueinbr said:


> The HHS funded an independent large study of his work. It concluded his statistical conclusions had no validity.
> 
> .


----------



## EleGirl

interesting read.

Can the Government Prevent Divorce? - The Atlantic

"Especially wrongheaded, Gottman said, is the focus on empathy and active listening in resolving conflicts—the model that "forms the basis of most complex multi-component marital treatments of all theoretical orientations, including behavior therapy, systems approaches, and object-relations theory." For more than twenty years Gottman has watched happy couples interact. His finding? They do not employ active listening and empathy during conflict. 

The active-listening model might work if people could really do it, but, Gottman said, shaking his head, it's just too hard to be an empathic, active listener when somebody is criticizing or attacking you. "I have seen the Dalai Lama do this," he joked, "and I am sure that Jesus and the Buddha did this, and that Moses did not do this." "


----------



## Wolfman1968

jld said:


> Gottmann is trying to help men. He cannot help them if they will not listen.


He also cannot help them if he is wrong.

Or if his paradigm doesn't apply to their particular situation.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> interesting read.
> 
> Can the Government Prevent Divorce? - The Atlantic
> 
> "Especially wrongheaded, Gottman said, is the focus on empathy and active listening in resolving conflicts—the model that "forms the basis of most complex multi-component marital treatments of all theoretical orientations, including behavior therapy, systems approaches, and object-relations theory." For more than twenty years Gottman has watched happy couples interact. His finding? They do not employ active listening and empathy during conflict.
> 
> The active-listening model might work if people could really do it, but, Gottman said, shaking his head, it's just too hard to be an empathic, active listener when somebody is criticizing or attacking you. "I have seen the Dalai Lama do this," he joked, "and I am sure that Jesus and the Buddha did this, and that Moses did not do this." "


I read an interview with him once on this. He said active listening is a very helpful tool--for those who can stay calm enough to use it. He said if you can do it, by all means use it. 

The problem, he said, is that his research showed that most people cannot stay calm enough, when they are upset, to use it.

This finding left him at odds with many of his fellow academics, who, along with him, had taught and heavily encouraged active listening. He told them that he, too, was surprised at his findings. But his research showed what it showed.

What is interesting, though, is that if you look at his findings, for example, that even if a wife approaches her husband in anger, if he responds to her in a way that makes her feel "known, respected, and loved, and that he accepts her influence, her stance will soften," that sounds very much like what active listening can do for a couple.


----------



## jld

blueinbr said:


> Sorry, the govt provided the grant money for an independent research group to review the validity of his work. The govt's purpose in this was to reduce divorce in low income couples because the divorces most often lead to them seeking govt assistance.


Please provide a formal citation. 

Blue and Wolf, if Gottman's work were truly a fraud, he would not have the standing in the academic community that he does. His fellow academics would be working overtime to disprove his findings. And there would be a massive outcry for his work to be retracted.

This is a man who has worked for 4 decades in marital research. His work has been peer-reviewed. He himself, as the result of his research, has had to change some of his former recommendations. This is not an amateur we are talking about.

Has either of you actually read any of his work?

Fwiw, some of his research findings leave me a bit disappointed, too. That does not invalidate them.

For example, his research found that successful marriages have a sort of us against the world mentality. If your spouse comes home complaining about his or her boss, saying things supportive of your spouse's feelings can strengthen the marital bond. I think it is because you are basically showing empathy.

My concern about this is . . . What if your spouse is basically wrong? How is letting him or her feel supported that they are right going to help them?

But maybe when people are upset, they just need to feel comforted more than anything. Maybe they need affirmation of their feelings. Maybe it is only after they feel supported emotionally that they can even consider a shift intellectually.

Iow, I do not get the feeling from reading his research that there is any focus on trying to make couples better people. It seems to be about just what strengthens the marital bond. It is possible to have a strong marital bond with someone who is not a very good person. And that does not seem very helpful overall.


----------



## john117

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*



jld said:


> For example, his research found that successful marriages have a sort of us against the world mentality. If your spouse comes home complaining about his or her boss, saying things supportive of your spouse's feelings can strengthen the marital bond. I think it is because you are basically showing empathy.


If this was the case I would have a storybook marriage 

Gottman's theory does not work as we move from a supportive relationship to a me me me focused relationship.


----------



## samyeagar

*Re: &quot;How to Stay Married&quot;*



john117 said:


> If this was the case I would have a storybook marriage
> 
> Gottman's theory does not work as we move from a supportive relationship to a me me me focused relationship.


His observations are fine because they are well, just observations, and are largely "Well, duh." kind of common sense things.

The real trick is actually taking something actionable away from them. In order to have something actionable in a positive way, it is predicated on having both partners all in, wanting to work on the marriage. There is no room for selfishness...again...Well duh. Unfortunately, the world is full of a lot of selfish women and men.


----------



## soccermom2three

jld said:


> For example, his research found that successful marriages have a sort of us against the world mentality. If your spouse comes home complaining about his or her boss, saying things supportive of your spouse's feelings can strengthen the marital bond. I think it is because you are basically showing empathy.


Ha! You could probably describe my marriage like this.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Please provide a formal citation.
> 
> *Blue and Wolf, if Gottman's work were truly a fraud, he would not have the standing in the academic community that he does. *His fellow academics would be working overtime to disprove his findings. And there would be a massive outcry for his work to be retracted.
> 
> This is a man who has worked for 4 decades in marital research. His work has been peer-reviewed. He himself, as the result of his research, has had to change some of his former recommendations. This is not an amateur we are talking about.
> 
> Has either of you actually read any of his work?
> 
> Fwiw, some of his research findings leave me a bit disappointed, too. That does not invalidate them.
> 
> For example, his research found that successful marriages have a sort of us against the world mentality. If your spouse comes home complaining about his or her boss, saying things supportive of your spouse's feelings can strengthen the marital bond. I think it is because you are basically showing empathy.
> 
> My concern about this is . . . What if your spouse is basically wrong? How is letting him or her feel supported that they are right going to help them?
> 
> But maybe when people are upset, they just need to feel comforted more than anything. Maybe they need affirmation of their feelings. Maybe it is only after they feel supported emotionally that they can even consider a shift intellectually.
> 
> Iow, I do not get the feeling from reading his research that there is any focus on trying to make couples better people. It seems to be about just what strengthens the marital bond. It is possible to have a strong marital bond with someone who is not a very good person. And that does not seem very helpful overall.


I never said he was a fraud I just said his theories do not apply to everyone. That is the part you seem to never understand. I'm sure In His works or even if he was here he would state truely that his research doesn't apply to all in all circumstances. So long as relationships are made up of people then they will all be wide and varied.

He is one guy with one theory. Others of his peer group have completely different opinions and theories. I tend to agree more with what I have seen and experienced in real life vs what someone tells me I should be experiencing which has never been reality. You agree with him because you identify his words with your world view. Many of us do not at all see it the way he describes it.

*sorry I thought you were referring to me when you said wolf and I realize now you didn't. I will leave the rest of my statement though*


----------



## Wolfman1968

jld said:


> Blue and Wolf, if Gottman's work were truly a fraud,


Are you addressing me or Wolf1974?


----------

