Letters to the Editor
-
fair and balanced...
Don't worry, LLoyd - with feminists nailing the BFs nuts to the wall, i'd say the whole realm is covered...
-
Working-Class: an insult?
Unrelated to the overall subject matter, but: I was loving this article until I got to the following line, which stopped me in my tracks: "Her husband -- a sullen, macho, working-class guy with fewer social graces than Genghis Khan"
So, "working-class" is an insult now?
Carol, your classism is showing.
-
I agree with many of the letter writers
feminists in particular seem to be totally out of touch with what would make a marriage work.
why would any guy want to be stressed out at home by a woman who makes demands, harasses, nags, uses her wiles to force him to jump at her requests?
no woman would put up with it from her husband, but somehow men are expected to deal with it.
no wonder more and more men are jumping on the marriage strike wagon.
THE 'WAY OF THE BASTARD' RULES. Men can get it by the pound, no need to bother tying yourself and your fortunes to punitive, nagging bitches.
-
I've seen this relationship before.
As a couple's therapist, I've seen this relationship. Only when the wife didn't fulfill her agreed-upon tasks the way the husband wanted, he spanked her.
It was a contractual 24/7 Dominant/submissive relationship, and they seemed very happy. But it was a lifestyle freely chosen, not held up as more moral or godly than another. I wonder if the proponents of this "surrendered" relationship realize how kinky it is?
Those looking for studies on what makes for a sustainable, happy marriage should have a look at John Gottman's research. In his model of the "sound marital house," he points out that the neither withdrawing (a trait more often shown by husbands) or attacking/criticism (a trait more often shown by wives) makes for a happy marriage, but whereas traditional family systems therapy lays the initial job of change at the feet of the pursuer, he suggests that withdrawers and "stonewallers" must learn to "accept influence" from their partners first, which may involve letting go of a type of male "honor code" that is based on absolute individualism and control, and a subtle fear of and contempt for influence by women. He also finds that female pursuers must learn to do a "soft start-up" when raising concerns rather than launching directly into complaints in order to help break a pattern that is probably gender-influenced, in which women mentally "carry" most of the household concerns all day and men feel blindsided when they are brought up.
Gottman's work is the most extensive work on what separates a happy from an unhappy or failed marriage. His model is complex, but allows for a variety of styles of marriage, from very low-key to the stereotypical "validating" marriage even to those which often involve fairly emotional or expresive conflict. However his research indicates that a marriage of equal partners is crucial for the best chances at success.
Gottman is not writing from a feminist perspective, but his research supports feminist conclusions, and rejects both of the views identified in Lloyd's critique of the "surrendered wife" model - of women as shrewish and unfairly critical, and of men as emotional infants who cannot tolerate dissent or any threat to their illusions of control.
The other emprically-validated marital therapy, Susan Johnson's Emotionally Focused Therapy, has an immense body of evidence suggesting that both men and women need a secure emotional bond in relationships, and need to be able to to directly express their primary emotions (fear, hurt, loneliness, joy, etc.) with each other rather than swallowing them out of fear of conflict or being so cut-off from them that they don't even register. Her work is particularly successful with men described by their partners as "inexpressive," but it is based in exactly the opposite dynamic described in the "surrendered marriage."
Sheila Addison, PhD, LMFT
Denver, CO
-
Dr. Addison is only half correct
Dr. Gottman does not emphasize two way "acceptance of influence".
From his website:
http://www.gottman.com/marriage/self_help/
Accept influence. A marriage succeeds to the extent that the husband can accept influence from his wife. If a woman says, "Do you have to work Thursday night? My mother is coming that weekend, and I need your help getting ready," and her husband replies, "My plans are set, and I'm not changing them". This guy is in a shaky marriage. A husband's ability to be influenced by his wife (rather than vice-versa) is crucial because research shows women are already well practiced at accepting influence from men, and a true partnership only occurs when a husband can do so as well.
Notwithstanding Gottman's wholly unsubstantiated comment, I have yet to see a marriage in America where aa American wife is "well practiced at accepting influence from men".
-
double standard
Mike, I am the primary breadwinner in our household. I outearn my husband by a wide margin. When we got married I came with a house, a well paying job, no debt, substantial savings and retirement fund. I'm tired of hearing that as a modern woman (ie feminist) I'm in actuality a gold digging nag-whore who's going to steal my husband's hard earned cash and alienate our kids from him while I run off with the pool boy.
I really don't get it. The same men that deplore working women and working moms and prefer that their wives stay at home and raise the kids (without pay), then complain about the unfairness of alimony payments in the event of a divorce. So does that pre-nup that you are advocating include an annual salary for your wife for the housekeeping, cooking and child care? When you encourage your spouse to stay out of the working world and compromise their job marketability, how do you expect them to earn a decent living in case of a divorce?
Even within my fairly progressive family I have to put up with the inevitable questions about what I'm going to do about my career when we have kids. Or I get eyeballed by my boss because I'm hitting my prime reproductive years, but my husband's boss doesn't even consider that having children could impact his job. Because it is completely outside the realm of possibilities that my husband could be the primary caregiver or it's just assumed that he outearns me? I have to justify my career and ambitions and the fact that I would like to have children also ("having it all"), while my husband gets a free pass because it's expected that he can have both.
Marriage *is* special. But it's not one person shutting up and smiling and turning themself off from their partner. When my husband comes home from the office, I want him to talk to me about his day, and if it turns out it was a bad one, it's my turn to tell him that it's okay and yes his boss is an idiot and deserves to be pushed down the elevator shaft. And he does the same for me. I know he has my back and I've got his.