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. …
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.
Lucia's comment is typical of thoughtless feminist claptrap. What if some people dismiss the modern trend of increasing feminism and feminization? What if traditional social roles were superior to today's theorizing although imperfect? What if the leftist tendency to try to ignore centuries of successful learning on human institutions in modern civilization means that the catastrophes of radical egalitarianism, almost all feminisms, socialism, multiculturalism, the blank slate, etc. are all just dead ends in the passage of history. Dead ends that sadly leave human society worse off than before. However, dead ends that are easier to tolerate because farmers have built a modern civilization that allows forager parasites the ability to erode its values in the short run while contributing to greater decline and misery in the long run.
Matches my life pretty well. I've told my wife I'll have the best relationship I can with her, but it totally chap my arse that she seems to endemically see me as highly flawed. Without the 12 & 11 year olds, I don't think it would be worth even trying to stay.
So how many of you believe the theories that you are putting forth to understand Robin's post? That is, how many of them ring true to your life and may be the lives of your friends? How many of you find yourselves in relationships in which these narratives of male and female play out in the way characterized in the original post? Perhaps I am missing the point of a thought experiment; but I feel the need to point out that in the end, men and women are people, and until that can be realized (especially by couple's therapists) we limit the quality of the partnerships we can haveGiven the historic inequalities between men and women, let's reevaluate the above situation. Let's rethink what this female "nagging" and male "acceptance" are about. Do we know that that only way that women are asking men to fulfill their potential is as workers, social climbers, and not as partners that share in each others lives, help one another achieve their potential as individuals or share the responsibilities of keeping a home/having a family? that isn't made clear. And when men appear to accept their "nagging" wives, what is it that they are accepting? Are they accepting their wives for who they are? Or are they accpeting the status quo in which they can ignore their wives real structural limitations and only see her as a wife rather than as a person with agency and potential herself?Again, I think it behooves us to evaluate the theories in Robin's post by seriously evaluating the realities in which people live and not through theories based on gender norms that limit human potential. I hope, for their own sake, that men want more than "one thing"
For biological-clock reasons, women are more likely than men to feel some urgency about choosing the best currently available spouse rather than waiting for a better one. Therefore women are more likely than men to marry someone less-than-satisfactory, and hence more likely than men to want to change their spouses.
Most plastic surgery looks very little like youthful body parts, fake breasts in particular rarely improve anything but breast size (if there were implants that made 40-50 year old boobs look and feel like large teen breasts they'd likely be very popular with men).
I think there are a couple possibilities. On the one hand, I think it's a difference of what people think of as a partner worth showing off to friends. Women want to be able to show off to their friends that they've scored a man who's wealthy, well-dressed, well-mannered, cultured and so on. Whereas a man just wants to be able to show off a woman who's beautiful. This leads to different behavior: women try to improve their man, whereas men will tend more often to stray when her looks fade. Relatedly, it could be that women see their men as long term investments, that are worth cultivating, like a house that you own and try to improve, whereas men more often see women as a temporary dwelling, an apartment you don't want to invest in because you'll move out of it soon anyways. On the other hand, it might be that men and women both try to change one another, but there is a difference of approach. A woman uses more subtle means, like guilt, withholding sex, selective compliments, criticism, etc. Whereas men will more often use more blunt methods like violence or the threat of violence. They both have the same goal, but the woman's approach appears more like she's trying to change him, whereas he just appears to be abusive. It also could be that women are more picky. Since women are much more often choosing among several potential mates whereas men are taking what they can get (and as much of it as they can get), women have higher standards of men. It'd be interesting to see how these dynamics play out in same-sex couples. Are gay men more accepting of one another? Are lesbians constantly trying to change each other? I should also admit that I have made many efforts to change my current fiance and past girlfriend's too. It's only a problem when they know you're doing it. Must learn to be more subtle.
What behavior is outside the realm of inter-marital interactions? Isn’t the definition of marriage to make all behavior inside this realm?
No, what I mean is this. Wives and husbands probably both try to groom each other to be more pleasant to be around on a day-to-day basis. (Actually, I suspect that even in this area, wives have more complaints than husbands, although I won't defend that claim here). But I think most will agree that wives are much more concerned about how their husbands perform publicly--in terms of career, appearance to non-family members, etc.--than vice versa.
The interesting question would be "is this state of affairs do solely to the fact that men in our society happen to have more influence with a family's public standing (since more men are employed in higher positions, etc.), or are there innate biological reasons (caused by ancestral roles played by women and men) that would continue to lead women to be more concerned with their husband's public performance regardless of how society structured?" My guess is that it's mostly a product of current societal structure, but I would also be surprised if genetics had little (or a reverse) effect.
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.
It's not even Halloween yet and your already playing Jingoist Bells
Lucia's comment is typical of thoughtless feminist claptrap. What if some people dismiss the modern trend of increasing feminism and feminization? What if traditional social roles were superior to today's theorizing although imperfect? What if the leftist tendency to try to ignore centuries of successful learning on human institutions in modern civilization means that the catastrophes of radical egalitarianism, almost all feminisms, socialism, multiculturalism, the blank slate, etc. are all just dead ends in the passage of history. Dead ends that sadly leave human society worse off than before. However, dead ends that are easier to tolerate because farmers have built a modern civilization that allows forager parasites the ability to erode its values in the short run while contributing to greater decline and misery in the long run.
Matches my life pretty well. I've told my wife I'll have the best relationship I can with her, but it totally chap my arse that she seems to endemically see me as highly flawed. Without the 12 & 11 year olds, I don't think it would be worth even trying to stay.
"Why don’t men try as hard to improve their women?"
Women don't like to hear men's advice; they'd much rather hear sympathy.
So how many of you believe the theories that you are putting forth to understand Robin's post? That is, how many of them ring true to your life and may be the lives of your friends? How many of you find yourselves in relationships in which these narratives of male and female play out in the way characterized in the original post? Perhaps I am missing the point of a thought experiment; but I feel the need to point out that in the end, men and women are people, and until that can be realized (especially by couple's therapists) we limit the quality of the partnerships we can haveGiven the historic inequalities between men and women, let's reevaluate the above situation. Let's rethink what this female "nagging" and male "acceptance" are about. Do we know that that only way that women are asking men to fulfill their potential is as workers, social climbers, and not as partners that share in each others lives, help one another achieve their potential as individuals or share the responsibilities of keeping a home/having a family? that isn't made clear. And when men appear to accept their "nagging" wives, what is it that they are accepting? Are they accepting their wives for who they are? Or are they accpeting the status quo in which they can ignore their wives real structural limitations and only see her as a wife rather than as a person with agency and potential herself?Again, I think it behooves us to evaluate the theories in Robin's post by seriously evaluating the realities in which people live and not through theories based on gender norms that limit human potential. I hope, for their own sake, that men want more than "one thing"
The classic line:
"Men get married hoping that women will stay the same. Women get married hoping men will change."
Neither is realistic.
This comment led me to this: http://www.theabsolute.net/...
I found it rather entertaining. Ol schop doggy dogg was a real charmer. I can't help but think he is directionally correct and only off on magnitudes.
What would we do if genders were even more genetically disparate than they are now?
For biological-clock reasons, women are more likely than men to feel some urgency about choosing the best currently available spouse rather than waiting for a better one. Therefore women are more likely than men to marry someone less-than-satisfactory, and hence more likely than men to want to change their spouses.
Most plastic surgery looks very little like youthful body parts, fake breasts in particular rarely improve anything but breast size (if there were implants that made 40-50 year old boobs look and feel like large teen breasts they'd likely be very popular with men).
I don't know how accurate that actually is, but the Onion had a funny article on it.
Men don't try to improve their women; they just discard them and start fresh.
I think there are a couple possibilities. On the one hand, I think it's a difference of what people think of as a partner worth showing off to friends. Women want to be able to show off to their friends that they've scored a man who's wealthy, well-dressed, well-mannered, cultured and so on. Whereas a man just wants to be able to show off a woman who's beautiful. This leads to different behavior: women try to improve their man, whereas men will tend more often to stray when her looks fade. Relatedly, it could be that women see their men as long term investments, that are worth cultivating, like a house that you own and try to improve, whereas men more often see women as a temporary dwelling, an apartment you don't want to invest in because you'll move out of it soon anyways. On the other hand, it might be that men and women both try to change one another, but there is a difference of approach. A woman uses more subtle means, like guilt, withholding sex, selective compliments, criticism, etc. Whereas men will more often use more blunt methods like violence or the threat of violence. They both have the same goal, but the woman's approach appears more like she's trying to change him, whereas he just appears to be abusive. It also could be that women are more picky. Since women are much more often choosing among several potential mates whereas men are taking what they can get (and as much of it as they can get), women have higher standards of men. It'd be interesting to see how these dynamics play out in same-sex couples. Are gay men more accepting of one another? Are lesbians constantly trying to change each other? I should also admit that I have made many efforts to change my current fiance and past girlfriend's too. It's only a problem when they know you're doing it. Must learn to be more subtle.
Q: "Why don’t men try as hard to improve their women?"
A: "one of the most prized characteristics of a man’s friendship [...] is total acceptance."
What behavior is outside the realm of inter-marital interactions? Isn’t the definition of marriage to make all behavior inside this realm?
No, what I mean is this. Wives and husbands probably both try to groom each other to be more pleasant to be around on a day-to-day basis. (Actually, I suspect that even in this area, wives have more complaints than husbands, although I won't defend that claim here). But I think most will agree that wives are much more concerned about how their husbands perform publicly--in terms of career, appearance to non-family members, etc.--than vice versa.
The interesting question would be "is this state of affairs do solely to the fact that men in our society happen to have more influence with a family's public standing (since more men are employed in higher positions, etc.), or are there innate biological reasons (caused by ancestral roles played by women and men) that would continue to lead women to be more concerned with their husband's public performance regardless of how society structured?" My guess is that it's mostly a product of current societal structure, but I would also be surprised if genetics had little (or a reverse) effect.