Suppose you read a book that suggested that a man be kind to his wife, ask her if he could bring anything home on the way from the office, notice her new haircut, or to sit through a few hours of “American Idol” (if that’s what she likes) in order to build a better relationship. That hypothetical book (surprisingly one exists—called “The Secrets of Happily Married Men”—written, not coincidentally, by me) would be universally recognized as a useful instrument in the toolbox of marriage.
But what if your read a book that asked a woman to greet her husband lovingly when he came home every night, express heartfelt appreciation for his little acts of service (like bringing in the groceries) and warm up some leftovers in the oven if he comes home late from work. That’s much of what I write about in “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” and it caused a heck of a firestorm when I discussed it on the “Morning Show with Mike and Juliet.” If you look at the >100 responses to a clip of my show on the popular women’s issues site “Jezebel”, (http://jezebel.com/5037660/mike--juliet-guests-purport-to-have-the-secret-to-a-happy-marriage) you’ll see that I’m not too fondly loved by people who have seen the clip.
I can understand why. Out of context, it sounds like women must do a whole list of things to make marriage better. The context, of course, is that men also must do a whole list of things to make marriage better. From my point of view, the issue isn’t “who’s doing more,” for the other sex. It’s whether we can conceptualize marriage as a place where we learn about our partner, and strive to make him or her happy. If a man has a deluded idea that his working makes a genuine difference in the life of his family, then his wife can spend her life trying to take him down a few notches, or she can say, “Thank you, Dear, I appreciate it.” Do you really think her life will be happier if she spends her energy proving to her hubby that she works just as hard as he does? I don’t see how she loses out by expressing appreciation, or doing nice things. I have found that such an approach makes her husband is more likely to want to come home, and want to do things for her. It irks me that my suggestions of seeing what your partner needs and speaking his or her language is characterized as “manipulation,” by some psychotherapists, and that somehow this approach is the opposite of “trust and respect.”
So, go to the clip show on Jezebel and take a look at the comments. Then tell me what you think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Man I am really surprised at how harsh some of those comments were - is this how these people communicate with their spouses too? Yikes!
I tried marriage without focusing on my husbands needs and he ended up in an emotional affair. I should have been doing the things you talk about for years, but wasn't.
Everyone is different and everyone has different needs and just because they aren't the same as your needs doesn't mean they aren't valid. If you are in a committed relationship with that person you should recongnize those needs and work to meet them.
There is no shame in this. If you genuinely love them and are acting on love - and what you are doing makes them and you happy - how is that a bad thing? If this falls under the category of manipulation - then what doesn't? When we say please and thank you - is that manipulation now too? Seriously people!
It is like these women view this sort of concept as some sort of submission to their husbands? Do they not see that their husbands should be doing the same for them? Probably decades or centuries of stereotypes and gender differences to deal with here...good luck Dr. Scott!
Your observations here are spot on, Dr. Scott.
Here are a couple of ideas that really stand in the way of "gender progress:"
NEEDY is part of the current psychobabble--as if having a spouse provide or give something that you enjoy is a pathology. We pair up out of our complementary natures and needs, and it will ever be so. To suggest that we should all be our separate, self-sufficient islands is an assault on many realities.
CO-DEPENDENCY is another bit of nonsense--we would expect every man to have a skill set for home, family, and professional life that would be different and complementary to the woman and thus there might be a deference and even a dependence on the other in the area of their expertise.
To consider both of these words/concepts as pathologies is a major contributor to gender misunderstandings. (A major contributor to nonsense thinking here is the book, Women Who Love Too Much, as if blaming men might help in learning better skills at loving each other.)
Of course, Dr. Scott has written well on this subject, but see also Steven Rhoads and Simon Baron-Cohen
I agree Homebuilder. It' hard to remove the psychobabble from the offices of couple's therapists. But I think couples would be a lot better off if therapist engaged in that kind of talk for their parakeets!
Post a Comment