dlmCommentary

An old friend has written me an e-mail asking for my advice (what some used to call "wisdom") about sustaining love, happiness and fruitfulness in marriage. It's always pleasant to be reminded that there are some out there who have benefited in the past from my advice - to the point of asking for more. So here are my random thoughts, in no particular order. (Warning: in many ways, I feel that I am not the same person I was back in the earlier part of this decade. Keep that in mind and, as I have always said, make sure you go to some wiser and more credible people for more viewpoints. Only accept what I say if it seems unquestionably true to your own experience. Absolutes may exist, but no human can know them absolutely.)

1. The air around us is thick with gender confusion and gender politics, to the point where even the best of us can be confused at best, and corrupted at worst. Our sexual identity is one of the two or three most crucial, critical and profound components of who we are. Therefore, whatever enemies of humanity there are - whether inside or outside of us - will be attacking that part of us. Never assume that an idea is true or false simply because it is old, or simply because it is new. It will be impossible to have a fulfilling marriage if you get this fundamental question wrong. Or to put it another way, when there is discomfort or trouble in your marriage experience, look to this area first: confusion about gender and gender roles.

2. Read and re-read the section on love from M. Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled. Wise words, transcendent truths.

3. Almost all of us, especially in marriage, family, religion and politics, have a fundamental confusion about compassion/giving vs. personal boundaries/self-respect. It is highly likely, in a great many cases, that a great many of us try to be giving when we should be defending ourselves from attack, and vice versa.

4. Read my Little Crucifixions, and apply it - not just the first half of it - to marriage.

5. A great book on the subject, if you have the commitment, time, intellect and energy to really examine it and apply it together as a couple: Getting the Love You Want.

6. Other very important resources, less challenging ones to read: Eldredge's Wild at Heart, Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, and Allendar's Bold Love.

7. Almost ALL problems in marriage, as they are identified by one or the other partner (e.g., sex, money, family, time management, dealing with the children), have a deeper root than what has been identified. If these problems are not solved at the root, then they are solved temporarily at best. It is rare indeed to find the courage to go to the root, but you must learn to arm yourself for such a trip.

8. Likely "deeper roots" of problems: (a) inward pain or discomfort that is ignored and defended at all costs, sometimes by strikingly clever and subtle machinations; (b) ways that old troubles, hurts or survival strategies are unconsciously injected into the marriage even though the marriage itself should be treated as something fresh and different; (c) following the models one "caught" from his or her own parents but has not thought about with sufficient intention or depth; (d) a combination of two or more of these.

9. A good counselor is invaluable.

10. Beware of family ties that are really family bondages. Your marriage is supposed to be something new. I am convinced that lines such as "But this is family... But s/he's family... But what about the family... Family first...," etc. are almost always used manipulatively, to force some behavior that would otherwise be clearly seen as silly or destructive. If you have the slightest inkling that one partner's family or family member is making things worse than they need to be, cut the problem off, no matter how bloody the operation. Unless we're talking about a divorce in which there are kids involved, no price is too high to pay.

11. Notwithstanding all the silly rhetoric to the contrary, you can not help but deal with issues of authority. No "shared responsibility" or "partnership" or "cooperation" or "team" exists without the more or less constant sacrifice of one agenda to satisfy another. Just who does the sacrificing from one conflict of wills to another will (or should) change, but don't buy the shallow claptrap that cooperation is some sort of absolute. The man especially needs to be clear on this. (I'll explain why in a minute.) The man needs to be very conscious, intentional, strategic and courageous about: (a) if wives "win," they believe there has been no conflict; (b) situations in which his own viewpoint needs to "win," and therefore, in which he needs to stand up and lead, no matter the immediate cost.

12. For several powerful reasons, husbands think they have only two choices: (a) to yield, or (b) to be cruel. This is one of the great lies of our culture. Over the long-term, though not in the heat of the moment, your wife wants you to be a kind leader. Because many women have assumed that this third possibility does not exist, they feel they need to take the reigns as much as possible - and most husbands allow it until their anger builds to an uncontrollable level. But the irony is, the more "male power" (that phrase requires its own separate discussion) a woman exercises, the more insecure and vulnerable she feels. And the more vulnerable she feels, the more control she seeks to have. A vicious circle. The only solution is for the man to become a loving leader. The other two choices only perpetuate the problem.

13. The apostle Paul gets bashed for saying that wives should be "submissive." He never seems to get bashed for saying in the same sentence that husbands must "love" their wives. What's going on? Simple. It is very easy for the average wife to "love" (as she defines it), and it is very easy for the average husband to "submit" (yield his will to hers). Obviously - obviously - a marriage with any health includes love and submission in both parties. (Why do they never notice that that same Paul talks about a husband "giving himself up" to "nurture" and "cherish" his bride?) Paul speaks as he does because a husband does not need to be reminded to submit, and a wife does not need to be reminded to love.

14. A man thinks he is loving when he is "leaving" his love "alone"; the wife meanwhile thinks she is being neglected. A woman thinks she is loving when she is "pursuing" her love; the husband thinks he is being hounded.

15. Men think their feelings. Women feel their thoughts. Wives want their husbands to feel, as it is defined my women. Husbands want their wives to think, as it is defined by men.

16. When women share their problems, their highest priority is to have the listener commiserate. When men share their problems, their highest priority is to get the problem solved. Before you know it, each begins to lose his or her desire to share problems with the other.

17. When your wife tells you she wants to "feel connected" by hearing what's "really going on inside you," don't accept it as absolutely true. If she feels the need to ask this, it is probably because you are struggling with something she CAN'T bear hearing about. Share something, but not the whole thing. Share the whole thing with someone else.

18. You feel frustrated when she asks you about your day (or something along that line). Why? Because your day was probably filled with lots of the same old thing which, to you, is not worth reporting. But if you don't give some answer, she will feel uncared for. Don't despair. You don't have to answer the question literally, the way men hear it. You don't have to literally report about your day. Merely think of an interesting story to tell about, and tell it. That usually satisfies, and it might even lead to an enjoyable discussion.

19. You don't really want to ask her about her day, for the reason implied above. But she does want to share with you about her day. Here's the fix: ask her a specific question about something that might really interest you. "What's the most unusual thing that happened to you today?" "Did you think at all today about...?" What ever happened with..."

20. Wives will do anything they need to do with facts and opinions in order to feel good in the short term, or to make someone they care about feel good in the short term. Husbands will crash through any tender feelings in order to get their facts and opinions understood.

21. Women generally want to reproduce a loving home environment, even when they are out in the work world. Men generally want to work on their projects, even when they are at home with their families. Each one sees the insanity of the other's agenda.

22. In the postmodern world, it is fashionable to say that traditional marriage-family-gender roles can now be thrown away. Why? Because they were based on raw, primitive physical needs that are no longer valid. In other words, there needed to be a hunter-gatherer-warrior outside the home, and a nurturer inside the home. These roles were automatically linked to physiology (that is, baby-making). Now, it is said, just about anyone can fulfill just about any role, so we need to redefine the whole project. There was a time when I would have simply laughed and dismissed this idea, or fought against it as against the devil herself (a little religious gender neutrality there). I've pulled back from that viewpoint in one important way: the fact is, as long as we live in a culture that welcomes this view, and wants it to thrive as thoroughly as possible, and as long as most individuals have no strong rationale to think otherwise, then the fact is, the principle will operate as if it were true. The rhetoric becomes reality, whether or not it is valid. Why does that matter? Here is one of many ways: If a wife doesn't want to "need" a husband, then what good is it for the husband to keep trying to fulfill his unwelcome role? If the husband doesn't like what the wife considers her "independence," then the husband needs to either adjust his view of marriage or do something else to make peace with his frustration. Go ahead and make peace, but do it with some consideration.

23. The old saying goes, "Show me who you spend your time with, and I'll show you the kind of person you're becoming." This is true with marriage as well. Though marriage must not be too affected by the families of the married couple, it also can not remain healthy for long without a support group. The word "support" is a relative term here. If your group is heavy with liberal Presbyterians, your "support" will have that flavor. If it is fundamentalist Baptist, "support" will have that flavor. Ditto for atheists, Buddhists, nihilists, partiers, etc. When you pick your group, you pick the quality and fate of your marriage.

The big issue of the day in Southern California is what they're calling "immigration reform." But there's much insight in the different use of words, as usual. If your on one of the extreme sides of this issue, it's a matter of "welcoming undocumented workers" in the name of compassion. If you're on the other side, its a matter of "defending our borders" in the name of the rule of law.

It is the appropriate role of the Christian Church to fulfill the former. It is the appropriate role of government to do the latter.

SO MUCH trouble is caused by those who want either entity to do the work of the other. As always, wisdom and goodness must embrace an entire spectrum and allow itself to be uncomfortable with the sense of tension.

One component of human nature that is almost to troubling to consider is our ability to be subjective, self-referential, manipulative and agenda-driven while all the time thinking we are just following procedure or just trying to be fair or "just" something else.

This all about abortion and nothing but abortion. If the current nominee does not want to bow the knee to the goddess Artemis and all her sad little worshippers, and slam the gavel for "a woman's right to choose," then they don't want him to get through the process. End of subject. It has nothing to do with his paper trail, or record of cases, or age or experience or even gender, or opinion of the constitution. It's just about the litmus test: when the rubber meets the road, will you side with "us."

This is not an anti-abortion post; or at least, I don't intend it to be. It's a protest about deception. And a decievers greatest deceptions are always of him or her self. Honest public dialogue is simply not a possibility. It's always about "getting my way," like spoiled little children who might not get the sucker they just saw, and to which they have attached their souls with religious zeal.

War is the natural culmination of all politics.
If you are politically involved in order to make peace,
you are a fool.

If you want peace
work for justice.
If you really want justice,
work for a detailed definition of that word
that all people would agree on.
(The devil is in the details.)

Near the home of my brother-in-law stands an out of the way, easy to miss family owned Mexican restaurant. Very small. Since a Mexican breakfast is one of my favorite things, I have gone there the last three mornings. It is thoroughly a relationship of mutual use and exploitation; I want their product and they want my money. They need my - or someone's - money to survive, I need food from there - or somewhere - to survive. I chose them to take care of my essential need, and they benefited. It is Capitalism, through and through.

It is Capitalism thoroughly, but it is not Capitalism exclusively. Since I was the restaurant's sole customer during two of our three breakfasts together, there has been freedom to interact. I have learned a couple of new Spanish phrases while getting acquainted with the father, the mother, two daughters and a granddaughter. I have learned that one of the daughters is moving to Oregon with her husband in the spring. They have now met my wife and one of my children. There has been a great deal of kind-hearted laughter.

If we are to believe what some folks say about Capitalism, all this seeming camaraderie has been a sham. The Spanish family is going along with whatever seems to be my personality in order to keep me coming with my wallet. I for my part am acting friendly and interested primarily in order to get larger helpings of food and the occasional second cola without charge. It is mutually exploitive in its essence. They put a sign on the door (advertising), I saw the sign and chose to walk in with my money and by the product.

Mutual use. Exploitation. The only conceivable redeeming aspect of it is that wealth is being transferred from the obviously rich white American male to the obviously poor and needy minority family. We must not allow this tiny arbitrary detail to deter us. Let us not become sidetracked from the main issue by observing that the family was from Mexico and therefore deserving of forgiveness for their complicity in the Capitalist exploitation. If the detractors of Capitalism are to be taken as seriously as they take themselves, mere accidental details just muddy the waters. If Capitalism is acceptable when it benefits the members of certain ethnic groups, what a slippery slope that could be!

It seems heartless to say it that way, but that's all Capitalism can be to some folks: heartlessness. No matter how many times I go back to that restaurant and have something like rich fellowship along with my food, the whole thing is corrupt; and diverse cultures have herein been brought together joyfully, peacefully and with mutual benefit, to obscure the critical point: Capitalism - Bad.

Here's what seems to be another critical point. If a point of political rhetoric only works as political rhetoric - must be habitually and often subconsciously set aside to make judgments in the real world - then that point of political rhetoric, no matter how it stirs the troops when delivered from a podium, is just plain wrong.


Copyright © 2005 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved, except as stated below

Permission is hereby granted to the user to read, download and/or print one copy of any item for personal use only. Beyond that, all rights are reserved under international and pan-American copyright restrictions, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Send direct permission requests to don@donmcintyre.com. Include:
-your full name, your permanent address and phone number, the specific content for which you are requesting permission, brief description of how you wish too use the content

An Eager Plea: I'm a big believer in making good stuff available to people who might benefit from it. But like most people, I need to take my finances seriously. It is relatively easy to copy, publish, and otherwise widely use these works without paying for the privilege. Such abuse of author's rights certainly does not encourage the continued availability of past, present or future works. Therefore, please, either order multiple copies of desired works from me for a reasonable price, or send a healthy donation - checks made out to "Words and Music."

Dear Editor,

In the Ann Landers column which the Daily News ran on November 1, there appeared numerous reader letters on the subject of husbands being present for the birth of their children. Here are two quotes from that column:

"I've never met a man who was not delighted to be present for the conception. That being the case, I would damn well insist that he stick around for the result."

"Grow up, mister...The least you can do is be there when she delivers your child." I heartily agree with these comments. Furthermore, I suggest that these women speak up with equal fervor against abortion rights feminists who say that a man has no business concerning himself with the resolution of a woman's pregnancy.

He's needed for the conception. He's wanted for the birth. So "I would damn well insist" that his views on the fate of the child carry equal weight.

Copyright, 1993 by Donald L. McIntyre