Things work very differently in the rest of the world.
ETA: With the growing number of men who refuse to pick up every check, plan every date/event, act as sole provider for the family, purchase gifts regularly for their other half, etc. for fear of marrying a woman who is too focused on money... I'm really beginning to wonder what women are getting out of this marriage deal anymore.
Sure, if what you want from a relationship is things, stuff, and to not have to work, more power to you... But I have no respect for you.
That is, if I have to sit quietly, look pretty, and clean house, what am I getting in return? Not much these days.
Because I sure would if my spouse kept buying me things just so I'd put out.
My point, anyway, is that the men in the WSJ article cheering this drivel on are often the same guys who don't want to assume the traditional provider role for men. They don't want a wife, they want a maid that "puts out".
That said, you have a point. Outside of child-bearing (and even there...) marriage seems less and less useful. I don't see this as a bad thing, but YMMV.
I could roll with "fuck it, let's neither of us clean". I want a wife, not a barracks inspector.
But when it comes to nagging reminders about what your
spouse still has to do after a long day working for the
man—take out the recycling, walk the dog, write a
thank-you letter, defrost the chicken, fix the
stereo—keep a lid on it. Economists talk about
“information processing costs,” or the costs incurred
from processing, absorbing and filtering information.
When information processing costs get too high, we
tend to become paralyzed.Make an effort with your relationship.
Like everything good in life it takes work to have a good relationship. If you make an effort to have a good relationship, applying thought and energy day to day, you will grow a healthy satisfying relationship.
If there is dominance by either partner, the relationship will have difficulty staying healthy in the long run.
As you say, family first. Both should view the other as having more importance than themselves. Not just one or neither.
I think you mean, if there is dominance by both partners (i.e. one partner asserts dominance and the other resents them for it, or both partners vie for dominance), the relationship will have difficulty staying healthy in the long run. Well-defined D/s relationships, on the other hand, can be quite healthy.
They even optimized which kid helps them, I worked better with my mom (I was all about getting a list of chores and powering through them when I had time, and so is she), so I ended up working with her for the weekly chores. Shutting up and getting stuff done really does make one happy.
Sometimes the breakdown does look disturbingly similar to the old traditional gender roles, but sometimes it really doesn't - I do the mending, for example, and she takes the car in for service. I'm sure we are both influenced by the traditional sexism of the societies we grew up in, but whatever the reasons for our choices, each of us pretty much gets to do what we think of as the easy or inconsequential chores while our partner tackles the nasty, time-consuming, or obnoxious ones.
That seems somewhat inevitable. A lot of those gender roles are there precisely for comparative advantage and "do the thing that annoys you less" reasons. It just happens that statistically fewer men are annoyed by trash (e.g. they never get pregnant, so don't have months-long periods when they just can't deal with it at all), women are better at taking care of infants (e.g. can often feed them more easiy), and so forth. On average, etc. ;)
The problem in all this venting is that the advice is given to both sexes - it just discusses using comparative advantage to split up tasks, don't nag each other and slip between the sheets as much as possible. If you realise that the advice could equally apply to a gay couple you can see there actually isn't any gender bias in the article at all.
While 100/100 expands to 100/100:100/100 , or 1:1 of course.
You might say the ratios are equivalent, but of course, you have ignored the units (if a relationship can have units).
This sounds a lot like the advice to women from the Tom Leykis show: "Stay slim, Long hair, sex anytime, shut up!"
I've been married for last 8 years and also have a kid. I feel, the best of marriage is lived when you share everything - talk out every feeling - help each other achieve the small dreams - LIVE together! Every relationship, even a mother-child/friends/brother-sister - they all have conflicts - and most of it because of expectations. Without 'expectations' there cannot exist a relation. The key is to achieve the balance - try to give enough space/freedom to each other so that both gets to do the things they enjoy the most - try to find your happiness in the same, if you can, or at least support it in some way.
For household responsibilities, it should be equally and mutually shared. But 'don't talk so much' is definitely not the approach to avoid conflicts. We are not machines; the whole point of 'living' is to 'share'; and Humans Do Need to Share. What else do you need to marry for? Better stay bachelor, if you don't think you can shoulder the responsibility to 'share' and handle 'expectations'.
lmao on the (with each other) emphasis :)
Marriage Satisfaction = Fighting (or Total Conflict) - Unresolved Conflict
Conflict among other things brings you closer together. A couple who "fight" well will stay together.
marital happiness = rate of lovemaking - rate of arguments
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=_0H8gwj4a1MC&pg=PA393&#...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25love.html?_r=1&#...
I'd never equated being overweight as behaving irresponsibly. If everyone thought this way, would we all be thinner? If my spouse can't nag me to lose weight (see #1), is there anything she could do to encourage it, or is it all on me?
One thing that can be very helpful is to schedule exercise with other people (e.g. spouse). It's easier to get going with a group, it's more fun, and there is a social cost to canceling. You don't even have to do the same exercises -- just go to the gym or pool or park or whatever and do your thing.
i.e. don't nag against bad activities, but support and encourage wholesome ones in their place.
What this implies is that overeating/under-exercising should be taboo just like smoking cigarettes. These things aren't considered taboo by some people, but maybe that's the reason people aren't healthier.
I would suggest that you and your wife do some research into obesity/nutrition and form a meal plan together. It is much easier to eat the right foods when you're doing it together. It's also fun to cook together. At least, that's working for me and my partner.
I suggest Gary Taube's or Mark Sisson's books for research.
Edit: Working link, courtesy mhb http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/14/the-secret-to-a...
In my experience, people who nag believe themselves to be "making an effort". Indeed, they think they're doing the right thing.
Willingness to put in the effort is a good first start, but it's not enough. Many people clearly don't understand why certain things do or don't work. And there's as much to be learned from study and experience in the right way to work at a relationship as there is in anything else.
If you've not gone to the point of setting up areas of responsibility and some means of ensuring things get done, your choices are either do it yourself or nag about it. I think the tendency is often towards the latter, when it should be the former.
For men, typically making a visible effort will cause your spouse to perceive you as weak and low value. This will only make things worse.
You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.
Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.
The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
Reading a book won't reverse decades of cultural conditioning.
I recommend getting a Brazilian or Colombian wife instead.
Stop and think about your relationship.
Put your effort into things that are worthwhile. I've caught myself many times putting my energy into the aspects of our relationship that don't matter, while missing big big things because I thought I had the whole thing covered.
A blog post I wrote illustrating one of his deceptions: http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000...
So that might have some truth but I believe it blurs the truth by making the reader or observer (of research) believe that arguing/conflict is bad.
In a way, yes.
In fact stereotyping is like writing a script rather than repeating the same process over and over. You may need to amend the script for a given situation of course, but it serves as a useful first approximation of a solution.
It is critical thinking that leads one to effective use of stereotypes: it's not always raining when it's cloudy outside but it's a useful indicator.
It leads her to believe your genetic material is of a higher quality than she could normally gain access to.
Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
Sometimes. But that's a better outcome than if she stays with you and goes elsewhere for higher quality genetic material, which is far more common than most people believe.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Marriages-Succeed-Fail-Yours/dp/06...
Basically, the author did studies and interviews and found that some couples who fight frequently do still have a healthy marriage.
This goes against some common-sense notions, of course.
The important thing was that each thought the other one heard and understood their point of view. I can't recall if the feeling that progress was made to resolve the dispute mattered as well.
We'd do better to stick to the original point: that both partners should do their best rather than a half-ass job. A point I happen to agree with. Numbers just get in the way.
"Hunny, I appreciate that you want to help me remember what needs doing, but it's overwhelming if you tell me as soon as I come home from a long day at work. I know I have a habit of forgetting, so let's make a deal: if I forget to do something come 9 PM, I'll take on one of your chores the next day. Does that sound fair to you?"
Or if your SO can take the hint from humor: "If I had a nickel for every time you told me to take out the trash when I was about to do it..."
This actually happens a lot... and then you don't get the credit for doing it, because she told you to do it :/
- Not that I hear that from anyone. Perhaps different strokes for different folk applies here? - (PS: I love you honey)
This is not so different from the standard sales approach of gaining the confidence of an SME on the client side who advises the decision maker.
* adblock - no stupid commercials for fastfood places, etc * Downloaded tv (whether brought from iTunes or downloaded from thepiratebay.org) doesn't contain commercials.
Add that a personal mp3 player means you are less likely to hear radio and it becomes that much more difficult to sell you stuff.
The successful relationships I've had were always ones where my partner had their own, multiple criteria for happiness. I want to be at most say, a third of someone's life and contribute as much to their emotional state.
Between work, hobbies, social circles, working out, etc etc, I've always found relationships to fit into that but they place about no. 3-4, and anecdotally, its always made for better outcomes. When they hit no. 1 or 2, it means we're both giving up on something that's a significant part of our character, and I've never found it to be a positive indicator.
n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the majority of breakups and divorces, so you're not risking much if you risk a breakup.)
We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.
We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.
I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.
You are confusing normative and positive claims.
Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.
Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.
You're slaving away in a startup, working insane hours and getting paid way less than what you're worth. There's equity in there somewhere. Maybe. You've finished up another 12 hour day and there's the wife glaring at you at the kitchen table: "When is this job going to get us somewhere? Why can't we be doing/having <x> like your friend Bob who works at <consulting firm y>?"
The social status thing makes sense. And you're working your ass off to try to make that next step up, or cash out, or whatever.
So what do you tell her in return?
It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.
The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.
n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.
Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.
In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.
And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.
There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.
No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?
I hate this phrase, it's the battle cry of those who do whatever their wife says and laugh with their buddies about how whipped they are. Marriage is a balancing act. Of course you have to change and give in where appropriate but if you do everything she says she wants you will lower her opinion of you (as it should, since you're a coward).
-- Socrates
But way to read too far into a silly little phrase and call me a coward, Mr. Anonymous Internet Man.
Not in my experience.
As for your "happy wife = happy life" theory, I'd strongly suggest running very fast away from women who implement this theory. You don't want people in your life who will drag you down to their level.
if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.
In that case, something is probably wrong with most women.
It is known that in general, women respond most to emotional stimulation and men respond to sex. When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
However, many people fake the "happy me = happy you" by making you unhappy. That is often within their power to do. Then they give you respite when you do what they want. If you don't know better, you might mistake this for happiness. From what I've seen, this is how "happy wife = happy life" (or in it's more honest form, "if momma aint happy, nobody ain't happy") is usually implemented.
When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
It might be a win-win for you, but many people dislike trading labor/money/etc for sex (even when the trade is implicit). Personally, I prefer sex which is freely given for the sole purpose of mutual pleasure.
My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.