Improve Your Gal?
A woman often marries a man for his potential. If women married men for who they actually were, there would be far fewer marriages. When a woman loves a man, she says to herself, ‘I could improve him. Once we’re together, things will be different.’ Since I began my [couples therapy] practice in 1977, I’ve heard this refrain hundreds of times. I try to get it across to the woman that what she sees is what she gets. This is him. …
Men tend to resist change. In fact, one of the most prized characteristics of a man’s friendship with other men is total acceptance. When a woman begins to encourage a man to live up to his potential, he misunderstands that as her overall dissatisfaction with him. … The man may initially improve according to her recommendations — remember, he has a lot invested in what she thinks of him. But over time, he becomes slower to respond. …
When the marriage is on the brink of breakup, the woman drags him into my office. That’s when I hear what almost any therapist can tell you is the most repeated phrase among men: “No matter what I do, I can never please this woman.” (more)
I have many questions: Why don’t men try as hard to improve their women? Is it that he cares less what she will become, or would she more resist the pressure to change? If he cares less, is this because men peak later in life, and we care more about our spouses qualities near their peak than their trough? If she resists more, is this because example the median woman is more dominant, the median man more submissive? Is the above pattern world-wide, or mainly in the US?
I think this is the most likely explanation. In my experience, both men and women hypocritically want to improve their partners without accepting advice themselves; men just give up because women get more offended by the advice, so there's a stereotype that only women do it.
A couple weeks ago I had a long conversation re: women changing men with my mother, and we came to the conclusion that a woman considering a relationship should recognize that people can change, but there's nothing special about you personally that's going to single-handedly change him for the better (read: to more adaptive behaviors) when the sum total of his life experiences with all people ever couldn't get him there.
Could it be that men are molded to be how they are raised and to just accept life's plight? Therefore in a more enlightened culture, in response to the traditions of the older, previous generation, men are seeking freedom and a companion in their quest to become "deprogrammed"?
Then for women, who are programmed to become the domain of a man by older standards, this enlightenment dictates that they, being the freer being, are given the auspices of the determining role?
In this case it would be nature trumping chauvinistic tradition.
Between a more reasoned egalitarian relationship and this natural response to the dictatorial patriarchy of kindred souls yearning to be free, this is pretty much a win/win situation,
As a man, it seems that men are more affixed on being tolerant. In order to be considered acceptable in a general sense. They are struggling with ebbs and flows of their naturally produced steroids, while trying to maintain an at least outwardly cohesive demeanor. Leaving them locked in a struggle with their own aggressive nature. Having someone that can understand them and on whom they can depend as much as reasonably possible, is a major key in self-fulfillment.
You can read a lot about the importance of fidelity into this given the personal investment of developing a deep understanding of another person.
Perhaps an innate drive for "overcoming bias" is something more exclusive to the fidelity bond of the male - female relationship.