Gifts

When I married my husband, he slept with his arms crossed over his chest. It seemed to me he was protecting his heart; it had been wounded and broken so many times. During his waking hours, he let his guard down. But, when sleeping, he still needed to protect himself, lest some threatening force invade and attack, catching him unawares.

Joe is an early riser. Typically he gets up before I do, quietly slips out of our bedroom, exercises, makes coffee, reads the paper, and then wakes me up. Rarely do I awaken before him. But recently I did. I marveled at how peaceful he looked. He was lying on his side, one hand underneath the pillow, the other just hanging down.

His chest was wide open, not needing his protection because he finally felt safe, open, and welcoming of me. In his sleep, he reached over and wrapped his arms around me. Like two spoons in a drawer, we lay there, side by side, a perfect fit. He let me in and I was part of him, safe, next to his heart.

He’s opened his heart. He trusts I won’t break it.

God chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and take them to the promised-land. Moses’ life was not without its failures, though, he couldn’t trust enough that God wouldn’t lead them astray and instead of asking God for directions chose to wander around in the desert for 40 years.

At this point we have found through the millenniums that nothing much has changed. All men would rather wander lost in the wilderness than having the appearance of being weak and stopping to ask for directions.”

Men are notorious for not asking for help, especially when it comes to asking for directions. They’d much rather travel miles and miles, trying to figure it out on their own, rather than admitting they are lost. This is one of the biggest complaints women make against men, as Deborah Tannen points out in her book, “You Just Don’t Understand” (Morrow, 1990).

Perhaps childhood conditioning has something to do with this tendency. Most often, little boys are taught to be independent and not act like sissies or babies by constantly requesting help. Even though this appears to be a “manly” thing to do, in reality, it is not. If a man needs help or assistance, he needs to ask for it.

If women understand that this merely is one of the “sex differences” in communication, they can help their mate to realize it is okay to ask for help. Instead of arguing, you can say instead, “I know you’d like to figure this out on your own and that you probably have a good sense of direction, but I would prefer if we could stop and ask someone for directions.”

An alternative to this is asking for a “pit stop” to use the rest room and then asking for directions. Once you have them you can advice your spouse that they pretty much had things worked out according to the gentleman in the store.

By saying one of these you are allowing the man to “save face,” as you are now talking his language. In essence, you are allowing him to help you by honoring your feelings of discomfort about the matter.

Some marriages are so fraught with nagging, destructive behavior, and the imputation of motives, that they seem to smoke from discord. The spouses appear to be on the point either of obtaining a divorce or of murdering each other. Yet, even in such cases it frequently happens that the relationship is reasonably sound. What has happened may resemble the collapse of a line of dominoes when the first one is hit-except that in this case the behavior is reversible. If the head domino is straightened up, the others may jump back into an upright position on their own. The problem, then, is to get that first domino straightened up.

In other words, in many instances of marital difficulty one powerful irritant has poisoned the relationship, and because both parties are perhaps stubborn or defensively rigid, this one destructive element contaminates the entire spectrum of marital behavior.

An example is the case of Cynthia and Joseph Special. Cynthia and Joe had been happily married for four years. They didn’t have much money and they had no children. Cynthia worked as a librarian and Joe worked for a paper-manufacturing company. Very slowly during the first four years they furnished their own home, paying cash for everything.

At the end of the four years, two things happened. A child was born-followed in a year by another-and Joe became assistant” manager of the paper plant. Now Cynthia had of course left her interesting job at the library and was home all day with two infants. Joe, as assistant manager, no longer was able to leave the office at five o’clock. He had to stay behind to check up on that day’s production, or to see about personnel, and attend the executive meeting at six o’clock.

When Joe came home at about seven thirty, he was fatigued.

Cynthia was also fatigued. With two young children, the small house was always untidy, and Cynthia didn’t have time to prepare the kind of meals Joe was fond of. They no longer spent a pleasant hour drinking a couple of cocktails, discussing the interesting things which happened during the day, followed by a simple but elegant meal, eaten in leisurely fashion, and then a play or a motion picture. Joe had his drink at the executive meeting, and when he arrived home he was eager to eat quickly and go to bed. Slowly, Cynthia began to believe that they no longer were companions or equals, that Joe had more interest in his business than in his family. Joe felt that Cynthia was being selfish when she wanted to go out after the children were asleep. He became irritable when she asked him to skip having drinks with the executives and, instead, go back to the old system of spending an hour before dinner with her in the evening.

The situation is one with which most people are quite familiar.

Slowly, Cynthia began to take less interest in preparing even reasonably fancy meals for dinner. Joe gulped his food and no longer commented on her efforts. And when Joe was amorous in bed, Cynthia said she was too tired from looking after the children, feeling vaguely angry that Joe seemed to be interested only when he was in the mood, and was unresponsive to her needs when she showed the initiative.

Joe started eating out with other executives two or three times a week. Slowly, their needs became divergent in one area of their relationship after another, and Cynthia and Joe were about ready for a divorce.

Cynthia and Joe decided to consult a professional counselor before they saw a lawyer. He recognized the falling-domino pattern almost immediately. He perceived that one basic, relatively small irritant was poisoning the whole marriage system, and he was able to suggest a solution. Here is what they did.

At the executive meetings at six o’clock, Joe abstained from having his cocktail and instead had what Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a horse’s neck, ginger ale with a piece of lemon in it. Joe found he could now enjoy a drink a little bit later with his wife.

Instead of eating immediately upon returning home from the office, Joe took a hot shower and rested for almost an hour. The children were already asleep, and Cynthia too was able to shower and nap. When they got up, both put on fresh clothes and had a cocktail and dinner. What difference did it make if they ate at eight thirty every evening instead of seven thirty? The delay enabled them to refresh themselves and enjoy the evening.

When Joe had his two-week vacation, Cynthia visited her mother for two or three days while Joe stayed at home and took care of the children. The experience gave him some perspective on what a time-consuming job and intellectually unstimulating day Cynthia usually had.

At one of the office executive meetings, Joe pointed out that the problem of working late and getting home tired was probably common to all executives. He suggested that the wives be permitted to spend a day at the office, one at a time, to gain some understanding of their husbands’ work and responsibilities. The president thought this was a good idea. Soon Cynthia spent a day watching Joe.

One night a week Cynthia hired a responsible baby-sitter and she and Joe went out to a restaurant. They gussied up, and had a gay evening just like old times.

Cynthia and Joe had a discussion as to whether his particular job with its extraordinarily long hours was worth keeping. Should he quit and find another one? Cynthia volunteered that since Joe had been promoted quite recently, it seemed normal for him to have long hours in the new position, but presumably when he became more familiar with the routine he would be able to maintain a more normal schedule again. Cynthia recognized that this was the difficult period in Joe’s career, and she was happy to share the extra hard work. Joe responded sincerely that he knew caring for two small children was the most trying part of the family-raising cycle for Cynthia, and wondered what he could do to make life easier and more pleasant for her. In their discussion neither of them came up with any suggestions for making

How to Handle the Falling-Domino Pattern

To determine if a falling-domino situation exists in their own marriage, spouses should sit down together and each answer the following question (after tossing a coin to see who will go first):’What is the one thing which annoys me the most about you?” If the major complaints involve physical circumstances or clearly defined ways of behaving, the spouses may be able to correct them without outside help. Here are some examples of such complaints.

“I can’t stand to make love when you’ve been drinking too much. It destroys your attractiveness.”

“You always eat with your mouth open at the table, and it makes me sick to my stomach.”

“Your bad breath drives me crazy.” “The house always looks like a pigsty.”

“You’re a slob. No matter how much I clean up the house, you always drop your clothes and ashes all over.”

“Half the time you’re late for dinner and you never telephone to let me know. Half our meals get burned.”

“You’ve put on twenty pounds and I’m repulsed by fat people.” All of these complaints and annoyances are reasonably correctable. Yet if they are not corrected, they will cause problems in other areas. If a person registers a valid complaint of a correctable nature and the spouse-from stubbornness or lethargy refuses to alter his behavior, it is likely that the complainer will in turn refuse to make changes requested by the other. The message here seems to be, “If you won’t change for me, then I won’t change for you.” Most people actually fear giving in to another repeatedly because they sense that this will become a one-sided pattern and they will have to give in on everything henceforth. In many cases, this fear is justified. Only when the fear is proven to be ungrounded in fact, when the other party evidences an equal willingness to compromise and to change, can the fear be relinquished and relaxed flexibility take its place.

Once reasonable complaints are remedied, quite frequently other negative factors disappear. Just the act of getting together and discussing how to improve the marriage has a general therapeutic effect on many areas of behavior. The spouses are trying to have a functional relationship and that’s half the victory. It’s one big step toward realistic trust in a responsible partnership.

Many people believe force helps. If they cannot force the issue physically, as too often they do with their children, they do it morally or mentally. Here we must recognize the aggressive character of force as contrasted with the nonviolent passive resistance. Active forcing always means violating respect for someone else. Resistance, on the other hand, is seldom an imposition; it merely preserves respect for oneself. The old Romans expressed a fine understanding for rules of cooperation when they demanded that their two Consuls could only act when both agreed. The veto of one was always stronger than the demand of the other. What one wanted did not count when the other disliked it. That should be a rule for family life as well. In our case, it is the wife who wants to go out, while the husband prefers to stay home; it is she who wants to do something and he doesn’t like it. His veto should be stronger than her demand. It means more hardship for him to do what he does not like than for her to refrain from what she likes very much, unless, of course, she is able to win him over.

Unfortunately, the ancient rule of the veto is rarely applied, as most people find it difficult to distinguish between imposing upon and merely not yielding. If they do not get what they want, they feel abused and coerced. (This attitude is typical of pampered children; its prevalence among adults is an indication of how few are actually grown up.) In the event of conflicting interests it seems advisable to let everyone do what he likes: not to impose, but not to permit imposition either. Only too often do we fail to recognize the distinction between the two and the practical applications of this principle. Behind this difficulty lies the lack of respect so often found between the closest relatives. They just do not respect each other, despite all their unquestionable love and devotion.

Sources of Mutual Disrespect

There are many reasons why people so often find it difficult to treat other members of the family with proper respect. Whatever the reason is, it can be traced to personal fears and inferiority feelings. We all are inclined to be more critical of the shortcomings of relatives because we identify ourselves with them. Their shortcomings reflect on our own value and status. We feel ashamed of their faults, as if they were our own. If we were surer of ourselves, of our own value and position, we could accept our own shortcomings and those of our close associates more readily, because we would not consider them as expressions of our value and significance. A self-confident person is able to regard faults, limitations, and shortcomings in their proper perspective, without unduly making them tests of social value. Respect for members of one’s family is, therefore, closely linked with self-respect. He who fears disgrace and humiliation in the world at large becomes over-sensitive of his relatives’ imperfections. Moreover, if one feels helpless in regard to such shortcomings, one resents them and expresses resentment, either passively and sullenly or in an openly violent and aggressive way. Both lead to disrespect of the dignity and worth of the others.

Another reason for the lack of respect within many families is the existing state of competition in which we live, in the outside world as well as within our intimate family circle. We have already described why husbands and wives of today generally regard each other as competitors. Children, too, are definitely in competition with each other. They fight for their parents’ love and attention. Each regards the other as a threat to his own position, developing a deep sense of competitive strife, and overcoming each other in turn-often, by this means, introducing an element of unrest and friction in family life. The same competition exists between parents and children. The two generations carryon a family fight, too, for prestige. In a world which grants so little security and certainty of personal appreciation, parents naturally try to impress with their own superiority those who seem to offer the least resistance. Many parents do not recognize the acts of hostility and combat which are so often disguised as exuberant love and overwhelming affection. Humiliation and worship color the relationships of parents and children more frequently than do respect and human dignity. It would be worthwhile to treat our relatives and children-and parents-as we would treat casual acquaintances whom we meet socially. We are all rather well trained to meet antagonistic interests in society, politely and with due respect for each other. Couldn’t we use this technique and knowledge also in our own family?

Intimacy can hamper Friendliness

Family ties alone do not guarantee friendly relationship.

Wooing and charming are no less necessary after the wedding than before, notwithstanding the mistaken adage regarding the futility of chasing a streetcar after one has caught it. On the contrary, close association demands more consideration and understanding for the preservation of friendship and affection. It is much easier to get along with people whom we see rarely. Distance facilitates harmony. It is necessary in marriage to accept and like each other, even unwashed and unkempt. But why must we take more pains to appeal to perfect strangers or casual friends than to those for whom we care the most? Parents make the same mistake when they expect their children’s love merely because they have begotten them. The devotion and respect of children must also continuously be won anew. A friendly atmosphere within the family is evident in many ways. The tone of voice in which father, mother, and children address each other reveals whether friendliness and respect reign, or friction and humiliation and force. We should sharpen our ears to realize these subtle signs of disturbed cooperation. Unfortunately, we cannot hear ourselves as we sound to others. A discovery which would enable us to do so would certainly merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Intimidation Instead of Firmness

Kindness, however, does not exclude firmness. On the contrary, one can be kind only if one is sure of oneself, sure of the impression one makes, and sure of the final success. To be firm requires the same self-confidence. Firmness does not imply imposition. The less firm and sure we are, the more we tend to intimidate and impose. This mutual intimidation is only too often found in family life. Of course, we do not inject fear deliberately, but we ourselves are certainly afraid. Like two men unexpectedly meeting at midnight on a dark street, each afraid that the other wants to rob him, neither suspecting that the other one, too, is shivering in fear, many a husband and wife live in fear, the fear of being neglected, of not being appreciated, of being dominated or abused, frustrated or humiliated. They will admit their fears confidentially to a third person, but it is difficult to convince either that the other is afraid, too. None recognizes the fears of his opponent, especially in regard to relative superiority; we are all inclined to suspect others of being, or at least attempting to be, superior to us. Of course, the methods and weapons of warfare are clearly recognized as such only if used by our opponent; we consider ourselves harmless and full of good intentions, denying others any reason for self-defense with regard to us.

Logic Used as a Weapon

All marital quarrels show fundamentally the same structure. Listening to husband and wife, one feels sure that the one who talked last is right. And they are both right-or at least they believe they are. Otherwise, they would act differently. Logic becomes only a weapon which can be used, and is used, by everyone who fights. But fundamentally, the quarrel is never a question of right or wrong only of pleasing or antagonizing, of agreeing or opposing. The bone of contention plays, generally, a secondary and accidental role. The issue of right or wrong arises only when cooperation is disturbed and each wants to shift the blame for the discord. Human beings are remarkably clever and astonishingly adept at finding reasons to justify their actions. Their scheming minds invent slight provocations to incite the other to more drastic actions which then are justifiable causes for open hostility.

Demanding Instead of Winning

Methods of pleasing are easily available, but are far less frequently utilized. When we want to please we are all able to do so, although some are so discouraged that they have stopped trying, desperate of ever being liked. We all have hundreds of little ways to show affection and to attract it. Yet in family life we insist on legal rights first and try to get before we are willing to give. Otherwise we feel abused. If we do not get what we want, or what we believe we deserve, we punish, although in that way we diminish the readiness of the other one to do his share.

Shifting the Blame

Since we do not know ourselves, or admit our real intentions, or hear the way we sound, or realize when we provoke, how can we be sure whether we violate the fundamental rules of cooperation or observe them? We are able to evaluate ourselves properly only if we look at the consequences of our actions. Then we may determine whether we are provoking more friction and tension or promoting a better understanding. This procedure, however, demands that we abandon all hope of putting the blame for any family discord on factors outside ourselves. Nor will blaming ourselves help. Blame, excuses, and complaints - all indicate discouragement and resentment. ‘Whenever we detect in ourselves any sign of such inclinations, we can be sure that we are going to violate rules of cooperation. Our own emotions are good guides, if we regard them as indications of our own intentions, and not, as many foolishly do, as a natural “reaction” to stimulation from the outside. Taking full responsibility for our emotions deprives us of easy excuses, but it enables us to gain mastery of the situation. When we recognize hostile emotions as deliberate weapons of warfare, they may stimulate a reorientation, a new evaluation of living conditions and family members, so that new emotions, more benevolent and more courageous, may develop. Properly understood, the alleged lack of affection will no longer be an excuse for neglected human duties but a challenge to develop a new social interest.

Innumerable reasons are given for falling out of love.

One woman complained that she could no longer love and accept her husband, for the reason that he had absolutely no faults. “You can’t imagine how terrible it is to live with a man who is perfect. I really can’t stand it any longer. If he did something wrong only once! If he would be angry with me! But no, whatever I do is all right. Whatever I don’t do is all right, too. He never loses his temper. Can you live with an angel?” Unbelievable as it may sound, one hears such a complaint not infrequently. It only shows that if someone wants to find a reason for opposing, he always can. A lack of fault serves the purpose as well as too many.

The question arises, then, of whether personal faults are the actual causes of marital friction. Is it true that we reject someone because of his faults? I do not think so. As long as we accept and love someone, his faults do not matter; when we refuse to accept him, his faults simply supply us with a good reason for our hostility. We discover faults which we readily overlooked before when they fitted into our plans. Then why do we reject each other, causing endless pain to ourselves as well as to others? It is always the question of our own importance which interferes with our happiness and our cooperation. As long as we feel recognized, appreciated, worshiped-and pampered-everything is all right. But as soon as we feel inferior and unequal, our closest friend becomes our enemy.

This feeling of inferiority generally has no actual basis, yet compensations, namely, a state of superiority, may be sought in various ways. The position of a victimized martyr may seem to any observer a state of definite inferiority and humiliation, but the person who evokes this position for himself finds in it an opportunity for moral superiority. Suffering physical and mental torture may even enhance the spiritual “victory,” and martyr and torturer can get along happily on the basis of their distribution of power. One enjoys his physical dominance and the other one his righteousness. But the martyr may immediately rebel and reject his mate should he ever attempt to be virtuous and considerate, for considerateness would spell defeat and disrupt the equilibrium. This situation is, of course, extreme, but we must keep in mind that mutual acceptance means agreement about the equilibrium which permits each party to compensate in his way for his feeling of inadequacy. Friction is never caused solely by external disturbances. Economic or social pressure or misfortune can normally bring husband and wife closer together. If the equilibrium between the couple is shaken by these hardships, then friction results. Most frequently these adversities are not the cause of marital disturbances-they are merely a test of the ability to cooperate. They bring hidden conflicts and resentment into the open which indicate that the feeling of belonging is inadequate in both parties, and that they are unwilling to stick together through hardship. They look only for an occasion each to blame the other for the reverses.

Being pregnant and having a baby, it’s easy to get caught up in the annoying habits of mothers and mothers-in-law. They always offer unsolicited advice, and their reminiscing feels more like not-so-subtle hints as to how to parent properly. They call all day everyday and worry about every little thing. It’s enough to drive a new mom mad!

Mad, that is, until the new mother finds time to sit back, relax, watch, listen and learn.

Grandmothers are amazing. It doesn’t matter if it’s mom or mom-in-law. When a new mother finally retracts her claws and takes a breath, all she will see are the two most loving and caring people she could ever hope to have in her child’s life.

–

It was only a few weeks ago when I had this epiphany. I was as guilty as any other new mother at being a “swooper.” Anytime my daughter cried in Grandmom’s arms, I swooped in and took her up in mine. Any time Grandma wanted to lay her down to occupy herself, I swooped in and sat her on my own lap. I knew perfectly well what I was doing, and I knew it was not in accord with what the Mothers were trying to do. But, it was my baby and my way - until I got tired enough to back down.

My parents came to visit last weekend, and no sooner were they in the door than Grandmom had grandbaby in hand. It was a long week of parenting, cooking and cleaning for me, so I was thankful for the reprieve. When baby pooped, I let Grandmom climb the stairs and clean her up. When baby cried, it was Grandmom who wiped the tears. I didn’t even feed my daughter that afternoon. I had a bottle on hand and warmed it for Grandmom. I was in heaven.

Not only did I get a chance to breath and hug my husband every other minute, I had the pleasure of watching my mom enjoy herself. She was getting to do exactly what she had dreamed of doing, probably since the moment we announced our pregnancy. In being a “swooper,” I knew I was being irrational, but I didn’t realize I was robbing my mom of the joys of grandparenting. I spent the rest of the weekend playing second fiddle to Grandmom and loving every second of it. I haven’t had the chance to make up to my mother-in-law for my swooping errors, but her time is coming. She will be in town next week, and I can’t wait. I can’t wait for the chance to watch her in action for a whole week. A whole week! I won’t know what to do with myself! I just may have to do a little shopping and buy a couple of ‘thank you’ presents… for the grandmothers.

Anthony was flying home from a business trip when, just to prove the seventies were not dead, the woman next to him asked, “What’s your sign?”

He told her. He told her mine as well.

She shook her head at the hopelessness of it all “A water sign and an earth sign? She’s emotional, you’re logical you’ll never understand each other.”

When he told me the story, we laughed. To think that anyone would predict the future of our new marriage knowing nothing about us but our birthdays! He squinted at me, I bit my lip.

“We balance each other,” I said.

“Right,” he said, bobbing his head too hard.

Sometimes Anthony and I remind me of a couple I once saw on “The Newlywed Game.”

“How far did you go before you were married?” Bob Eubanks asked.

“Third base,” the wife answered promptly. Her husband said, “San Diego.”

Anthony says I don’t listen, get too emotional, jump to conclusions. I say he wouldn’t waste so much time making decisions if he’d trust his intuition.

He says we’ll never work out our differences if I don’t explain my positions more rationally. I say we’ll never get anywhere if he doesn’t learn to take emotions-changeable, immeasurable, illogical, and very real-into account.

We are both equally convinced we are right. Perhaps we have something in common, after all.

Many men and women have difficulty having fulfilling conversations. In essence, men and women really do not know what to say to one another, as revealed by a lovely 30-year-old news reporter that told me she broke up with her boyfriend, whom she had been dating for one year. When I asked her what happened, she answered, “He was just too boring. He was a sports reporter, and all he ever talked about was sports and his Corvette. He never wanted to talk about things which I found interesting. ”

This is an all too common problem.

The differences in what men and women talk about was extremely interesting to Edward. He attended his first baby shower and had the honor of being the only male in a roomful of women. At the shower, Edward learned who was having an affair, who was divorcing, and who was now available. He heard about labor pains, menstrual cramps, and detailed accounts of varied “female-related” surgeries. He even learned that one woman’s pubic hair never grew back after her hysterectomy. He discovered which guys were “great in bed and why,” and how to give yourself a facial that only takes five minutes.

Interesting topic - eh? (I suppose that depends on which gender you belong.

In a recent study by Dr. Adelaide Haas at State University of New York, department of Speech Communication, she found that the most common topics discussed by females were: 1) men 2) food 3) relationship or family problems, and 4) clothing.

Other topics that women talked about were news events and work-related Issues.

Women like to discuss feelings as well as more socially oriented issues.

On the other hand, Dr. Haas found that men talked more about 1) women 2) news events 3) sports 4) arts, and 5) sex.

In order to have a meaningful conversation with the opposite sex, one must become aware of this difference in likes and dislikes. It is essential for women to be more willing to talk about activities and related issues, as men do. If you don’t know anything about these topics, learn about them. Just watch the news and listen to sports.

On the other hand, if men want to have better conversations with women, they need to pay more attention to interpersonal relationships, other people, situations, and self-improvement. If both sexes equally make this effort of learning what the other sex wants to talk about, we can certainly help bridge the conversational gap between men and women.