Sunday, March 10, 2013

Subtle disrespect

Blogger Empathologism illustrates this subtlety in his post The Hamster Whisperer (and his son) and challenges his readers to see it:

Stage-Couple has just gotten into the truck to go to a track meet. The wife (called “wife” from here on), picks up a piece of paper, sees that it is an invoice from a recently hired lawn chemical service, and a conversation busts out.
Wife: Why are they invoicing us before they even do the service?
Husband: Oh, they came the other day, i saw them here
Wife: Then why is the yard not green?
(took hubby a second, then he realized she meant the green color that some companies add to the chemicals to show its been applied)
Husband: This company must not add the green color, or they will on the next treatment, maybe, but i saw the two men and the truck and they were spraying the yard
Wife: Did they have a professional looking truck? Did it look like a decent sized company? Were they wearing uniforms?
Husband: yes yes and yes
Some quiet minutes…
Wife: Did they do the back yard, are you sure they did the back yard?
Husband (the tiny flicker of irritation, but keeping it hidden): I didn’t literally see them do the back yard but I cant imagine why they wouldn’t
Wife: I guess we will see when the weeds don’t die in the back
Husband: So, you don’t trust them? Do you generally distrust folks we choose to do business with?
Wife: No, I trust people, I already explained to you the reason I asked about the back yard was the lack of green color painted on the grass.
Pause for unpacking, or stop to scream.

If you didn't catch it, read this and then read the above conversation again:
...he was left with a bad taste in his mouth because he wanted, more than anything, for her to realize that asking him if the dudes sprayed the back yard was like saying he was not capable to handle little things like the lawn service without someone coaching him on all the right accountability to lay out.
...when speaking to his son, husband discovered that the son had followed along, correctly, in real time, to the whole conversation, and he understood not only the head fake of raising the green color again, but more importantly the implied challenge to husbands ability to do the most basic things.
Those of you ladies who are training your hamster to shut up probably caught it right away. A wife who has chosen to obey the words of Ephesians 5:33, will find it's the smallest details in life which are so important. They speak volumes about the inner thought processes and convictions of a woman abiding in the Word in all things.

Here's how an Ephesians 5:33 wife's conversation goes:
Wife:  Why are they invoicing us before they even do the service?

 Husband: Oh, they came the other day, i saw them here 

Wife: Oh, okay. Great!
The result - harmony. No showing of disrespect, no questioning of her husband's capabilities, no belittling, no fretting.

We can do this, ladies. We can train our tongues. And, the more we choose to train our tongues, the more we train our brains and our hearts. Our eyes will be opened to how easy it gets to defer to our husbands and show respect. We will separate ourselves from our sinful natures that undermine our husband's authority. We will begin to see this subtle disrespect quickly in life situations around us, especially with our children. In those times, we will be able to properly mentor them to hold their tongues.

I told RLB about this exchange after I read it and explained the disrespect I found in the woman's responses. He admitted it hadn't occurred to him. I told him I wanted to write a post about it. I think it is fabulous that Empathologism is illustrating examples like this so men can become "hamster whisperers" and feel that as Christian women we need to start doing our part. These are fitness tests. They are disrespectful and they undermine our attraction to our husbands*.  He suspected I'd need to do a better job explaining it with this post because it was hard for him to follow when I was telling him.

It is not hard for women to understand. Flip the script and it becomes blatantly evident:
Husband: Why are they invoicing us before they even do the service? 

Wife: Oh, they came the other day, I saw them here

Husband: Then why is the yard not green? Did they have a professional looking truck? Did it look like a decent sized company? Were they wearing uniforms? 

Wife: Do you think I'm an incompetent idiot? No, some white van showed up with a couple of masked men and I just figured it was the lawn company and didn't question it. Geez. 
We will immediately see the distrust of our competence in a hypothetical situation of a husband asking such questions because we project his motive to what ours would be in asking those questions. I know with certainty that I'm being disrespectful and belittling to RLB when I ask questions like that.

But...but...what if they didn't actually spray the yard?

I'm quite sure the husband will see in a matter of time if the weeds have grown back up and will either question the lawn service company or not use them in the future. It doesn't matter. Nothing is accomplished by a wife questioning the way this one did. I know when I was not committed to obeying Ephesians 5:33, RLB would have gladly paid any fee for harmony in our home. Think about that ladies. Think of the dollar amount your husband would pay for you to shut your mouth so that the questioning, nit picking, undermining, and belittling stop and don't build up over time.

*If our husbands do not catch this behavior as the disrespect it is and call us on it, it lessens our attraction to him. Questioning our husband's competence sabotages the intimacy of our marriages. It sends negative feedback into our conscious and our subconscious minds. Overtime we are rolling our eyes, snarking about his abilities to do anything right, placing ourselves as superiors over him, rebelling to God's word and indulging in sin. 

39 comments:

  1. It could be that sharing it verbally was unclear to your husband. Or that he has grown so used to you not doing this he doesnt key in on it as readily.

    I wrote the following in response, at my place. im interested in your husbands posture on it.

    ----------------
    SD, I was surprised that your husband didn’t catch it. May I ask, did he say, “but what if they didnt spray the yard? or were you just adding that as the sort of obvious potential objection to my point.?

    I am 50 years old and not prone to paying folks willy nilly, but i am also not prone to suspicion, and I ask this because in this very particular example, I actually know a few men who would have been very overdone about verifying that the work was done. I suppose I simply am different than that, and cant really debate personal taste.

    Its always struck me as a supreme distraction and waste of time to see the world that way, I tend to use a negative question as my guiding principle…”whats my downside?”. In this case, the downside is exercising my right in the agreement to have them return and do it again. But for sure, I know men who would have had to have seen the spraying done to feel good about paying the bill. In my case I saw PART of the spraying and assumed that the company isnt so strapped for profits that they come and make sure to be seen spraying, swivel their heads looking around as they skip places to save some chemicals.

    Wife and i own a dry cleaner in another state. We used to live hear the dry cleaner and though we never actually worked in it (have manager) we were there a lot. People would come in and accuse us of pressing their cloths but not cleaning them. If they knew the process that a dry cleaner follows they would know that that would be a nightmare. Its like an assembly line and take a part out and the process breaks.
    Imagine, then, the lawn company telling their employees, “Pssst, hey, in case an owner sees you spraying the front lawn, then the owner leaves, g’head and skip the back, snicker, hee hee, just think we be rollin’ in money soon”

    Minutia, But I work with a guy who will visit Walmart, Target, Lowes and Home Depot before the will purchase a toilet flapper. Each their own.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One other thing. It is more than just the fitness test aspect. It was the technique. The extremely clever re-raising of the green color, when that had been dealt with in the beginning and was not even possible as the explanation for the fitness test.
    I wonder though, is that an overt display of clever, or, as I suspect, is it not an example of what is REALLY meant when we hear how much better women are verbally than men? I think the later, and always question that claim when its made. I have tons of theories as to the why and how of women being able to instinctively rationalize things away, I think mainly for her own benefit, even it it makes no logical sense.

    ???????

    ReplyDelete
  3. SD said: "*If our husbands do not catch this behavior as the disrespect it is and call us on it, it lessens our attraction to him. Questioning our husband's competence sabotages the intimacy of our marriages. It sends negative feedback into our conscious and our subconscious minds. Overtime we are rolling our eyes, snarking about his abilities to do anything right, placing ourselves as superiors over him, rebelling to God's word and indulging in sin." ,

    Additionally, this disrespect in itself can snowball. If a woman feels she has to double check, even if the outcome is satisfactory, the inclination to always have to make sure is going to fuel the disrespect more and more. "I always have to verify that it is what I want."

    It is similar to, "why are you going that way?" when driving. Really, just let it be.

    I had an interesting incident with exwife a couple of weeks back. We were meeting for me to get my adult son who had traveled with her. I arranged for a specific place. Because I had given a mistaken direction, there was a little anxiety when we met. "Why did you have me come all the way here." "Because it is easy to get where you are going from this location."

    WELL, color me flabbergasted when I received a text from her praising me for that, recognizing that there was good will in my actions toward her. Not long ago, it would have been hamsterhamsterhamster.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Further, I think it is also just responding to the shit test that drives the behaviour. "I made him jump. Let's see if I can do it again." All hypothesis on my part, but seems logical.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CC, think about this.....the hamster is the hamster is the.....like that....and sometimes even the hamster stops its wheel in the right place.

    I guess until the little bugger chokes on Decon, all things emanate from his pea brain, like, you know, random.

    (no disrespect to you are her, not meant as an indictment or contradiction)

    ReplyDelete
  6. SD, I was surprised that your husband didn’t catch it. May I ask, did he say, “but what if they didnt spray the yard? or were you just adding that as the sort of obvious potential objection to my point.?

    No, he didn't say that. He saw the point being that women think some of the craziest things - like you said, and he, having been a business owner, wondered what motivation she thought there would be for a company to not do the job?

    I added the question because it is the kind of question I'm often asked from women (and surprisingly some men) when talking about unconditional respect and submission. They search to justify why a wife should question as a means to prevent any negative outcome. Prevention of a negative outcome is not worth the, like CoffeeCrazed says, snowballing affect of this type of disrespect.

    The re-raising of the color green was a cop out to not take responsibility for the disrespect, to avoid apologizing, and a justification for behavior that is contrary to God's commands. If the husband accepts it as valid and logical, perhaps God will (so she rationalizes). It is VERY difficult for women to admit when she has done something wrong ESPECIALLY if there is a way out. She projects herself onto him and fears his reaction. Not understanding that men are VERY accommodating and quick to forgive when someone confesses where they were wrong.

    In this situation, had she said, "you know what, I'm sorry, I was out of line, it was disrespectful for me to question you the way I did, please forgive me." Outside of the husband's reaction (which would been very positive) she herself would feel closer to him, and likely quite amorous. It is the natural order of things. Stepping back into biblical submission, accepting responsibility, being humble, and acting honorable are aphrodisiacs for women. Part and parcel to the observable reality of increased attraction when a man DOESN'T fail a fitness test. When he calls her out and requires she take responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @CoffeeCrazed: Further, I think it is also just responding to the shit test that drives the behaviour. "I made him jump. Let's see if I can do it again." All hypothesis on my part, but seems logical.

    That would seem to be the logical motivation behind continued shit tests. Women are not logical...and, we do not do it to "see if we can make him jump again." We literally do it with the subconscious need for him to NOT jump again. We NEED to know that our husbands will not be manipulated. The more they fail, the more we test until...there's no more attraction left.

    A wife does not feel good after her husband has failed a shit test. She may not even be able to verbalize it but it is negative. That is why my advice to women is to STOP doing it. And why men are advised to NOT FAIL a shit test.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, SD, then was the man calling her out on the shit test by laying it all out, or was he indulging it in a different way?

    I see it as the later, where calling the shit test would have been to bluntly yet calmly shut it down, which would have been the usual save for the urge to pass along whispering skills.

    Yes its easy to see the green thing as a cop out for responsibility, I described it in my post where I mentioned about walking through rooms and closing off what has been walked through. But it is not calculated, or calculating, its instinct, and maddening because it actually works for the woman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. He was indulging it by entertaining her questions. It doesn't make sense that a woman's attraction to her husband will be increased if he does the following, but it does. And it trains her hamster to shut up:

    Wife: "Why is the yard not green?"

    Husband: "Come on honey, think that one through, you can do it."

    If she persists, Husband: "Do you really need me to explain that it is possible for weed spray to not contain green coloring?"

    If she questions more, Husband: "That's enough, the next words our of your mouth will be an apology."

    Wife: "for what?"

    Husband: "you'll figure it out."

    Should she not figure it out, Husband: "your questioning of me is disrespectful whether you acknowledge it now or not. Ephesians is clear on this and for your own spiritual health, I will not allow this behavior from you. Now, the next words out of your mouth I'll respond to will be an apology."

    Here's the really crazy thing. She will still have in her mind the urge to shit test. When she stops her own self, the same positive attraction building response happens in her. The same as if she dealt the shit test and he calls her on it. Her respectful behavior (not shit testing) WILL give her a physiological positive response.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent post, SD. It is good to have women telling other women such advice.

    For the men who are married, this is really where the term "henpecked" applies.

    And he usually falls into the "yes dear, you're right." mode.

    From the "game" perspective, the meta-view of this narrative is even more instructive.

    Who holds the frame? Who demonstrates the higher value?

    The wife starts the frame and begins the henpecking interrogation. Rather then assert his own frame and lead the conversation, beta-fied husband accedes to her questioning as if he were a murder suspect under the harsh glare of the overhead light and two police officers playing good cop/bad cop to try and get him to confess. By answering her questions, he is confessing - confessing to incompetence and Beta-tude.

    Men need to always put their women into place. If they don't, she will put you into her's. There's no middle way.


    ReplyDelete

  11. I've discovered a sense of freedom since working to be more submissive and to trust my husband's decisions.

    For instance, I used to check our savings account to make sure that he was depositing a certain amount each month to cover our property tax bill, which we pay every six months. If he wasn't making regular deposits I'd freak out.

    I stopped doing this last fall. It turned out that he didn't deposit enough money to pay the bill, which was due in November. I didn't say anything; I just trusted him to figure it out.

    He was able to cash in a small investment and pay the bill the day it was due. Even if he hadn't found the money, I would have tried not to worry knowing that I was only accountable for submitting to him in all things, including our finances.

    He's decided on his own that he'll look into refinancing our mortgage so that the tax money is rolled into the payment and put into escrow each month.This will give us peace of mind and make budgeting simpler.

    The hardest part of being a submissive wife, is trusting your husband fully, but I find that the longer I work on it, the easier it becomes and the more trustworthy he seems to be becoming.

    LisainVermont

    ReplyDelete
  12. He's decided on his own that he'll look into refinancing our mortgage so that the tax money is rolled into the payment and put into escrow each month.This will give us peace of mind and make budgeting simpler.

    This says to me there is still some doubt on your part, and the wording "on his own" is a red flag.
    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. empathological,

      I'm still a work in progress, so yes, I struggle with anxiety over whether he'll make the best decisions at times. The "on his own" is important because this was his decision; I had thought about it but hadn't brought it up and certainly hadn't nagged him as I would have done in the past.

      Delete
  13. I am coming to the conclusion, via game-philosophy, that ANY direct confrontation of a shit-test is a "fail". It is defensive and the moment you go defensive, it shows the other party they have the upper hand. And in this case, the other party demonstrated they felt they had the upper hand with the reiteration of the green-spray-corollary.

    Best examples I can think of are via Heartiste, so they don't really reflect the marital relationship, but show the appropriate pattern of response.
    -Negging
    -Agree and amplify, and the one I am working on...
    -Smirking

    ReplyDelete
  14. hmmmmm....SD might be the new SSM. The blogging shit-test will be tolerance for "Mary's Law" - a discussion on a red-pill-female post will eventually result in a reference to oral sex.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The point of my post (I cannot speak for SD and her take on it) was not to bust out a game teaching moment. Nor is the interchange truly useful for that except in the very most cursory reading of it because it was not about the right way to handle shit tests.
    I realize the religisity of game adherents can't avoid launching into "game says_________" lectures though, with requisite references to game guru proof text.
    In this case it is to miss the point being made by recounting the exchange, and the point of even allowing the exchange to occur.
    There are infinite teaching examples online for how to handle shit tests. It would be a bit, what, redundant to describe just one more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In this case it is to miss the point being made by recounting the exchange, and the point of even allowing the exchange to occur. "

      Oh, I get it, Empath. If I'm a game adherent, I suck.

      If in fact the point of your post as the highlighted sentence states is to shut it down, then some kind of appropriately dominant response is needed.

      Or am I stilling missing it?

      Delete
    2. to clarify, "If I am a game adherent, I suck at it."

      Delete
  16. I am coming to the conclusion, via game-philosophy, that ANY direct confrontation of a shit-test is a "fail".

    Any? Nope.

    You forget Asshole game.

    Shut the FUCK UP! Quit nagging you dumb bitch!

    Brutal. Uncouth. Vulgar. Abusive.

    Effective.

    Such game is not my style - nor most cerebral thinking men's style - but perhaps when you consider the number of women who continually stick with and/or return to "abusive" men, you'll begin to grok why: He's not only passing the shit tests, he's beating her shit tests down with brutal, aggressive ferocity. Naked male aggression, the polar opposite of feminine manipulation. Complementary polarity.

    Thus she tingles.

    Shit Tests? Just a frame game. There are many different ways to establish who's frame is the one they will participate in on every interaction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaaahh, but still, that doesn't engage the shit-test. It unequivocally beats it down, as you said. But it is not a direct response to the test.

      My experience alone, however fortified by other examples, is that anytime an accusation is met with an attempt to refute, the battle is now lost.

      Now, I need to Shut the @#$% UP because I am a simple noob to all this.

      Delete
    2. Also, don't forget silent confrontation. It can be highly effective. it comes in the form of that look that some men are so good at giving that says, not in words, "Woman, enough".

      Also, very tingle inducing.

      Delete
  17. No CC, no one sucks simply because they are a game adherent.
    And again, this isn't my spot anyway, but Every. Stinking. Thing. becomes more repetition of game principles and citations.

    Dont let me interrupt.

    The point of the man NOT shutting the exchange down, meaning the exchange between the man and woman, was to use it to teach the kid in the back seat how to recognize the BS, both the test and the manner of rationalizing it, so he may understand that his father is not just an ass brute and hopefully learn to spot it when it happens to him.....and shut it down without feeling guilty about it. So, admonitions that the man was lacking frame and was pandering and beta are missing the point and plucking non existent low fruit.
    But, this is a no win dialog, once it starts it builds a head-o-steam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See for me, I still want to engage my wife (if I had one) respectfully. There is something about the fact that I choose her and that me treating her disrespectfully is as much a reflection on me.

      So as I get it, and I always appreciate your exposition, it is simply to ensure that as we raise our young men up, that they recognize the mechanics of how the other half works.

      Delete
    2. The dominant frame that is set by the dominant partner in any relationship can be done in any imaginable way possible. Benevolent. Respectful. Abusive. Cruel. The flavor doesn't matter.

      What does, is that your person you're interacting with will either decide to accept your frame, or try to impose their own. If they're attempt to impose their own, the frame fails, they can choose to accept the more dominant frame of the other person or simply leave.

      In the case of husband and wife, many times the wife's frame dominates and the husband chooses to accept it (like the one in the OP).

      In other words, CC, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot have the dominant frame and still be respectful towards your wife.

      At any point in the OP's conversation, the husband could have re-framed the conversation to take the lead.

      The effectiveness of how he does it depends on the frame of the woman and what she will accept as adequately dominant so that she will willingly surrender to his frame.

      For some women, they won't surrender unless it's the abusive, asshole game frame.

      For others, a simple bemused deflection is enough. Depends on the lady.

      "Quit worrying, Dear. I took care of it already."

      Delete
  18. My apologies, empath, I did focus more on admonishing women to stop with the shit testing and have overlooked what your point was - teach the boy. It is very valuable for our sons to learn first hand how these things work.

    Stingray has an excellent post up on Raising a Man as well.

    I know RLB and our son have many conversations discussing the dynamics at work with the women in our home. We give them so much to discuss. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, admonitions that the man was lacking frame and was pandering and beta are missing the point and plucking non existent low fruit.
    But, this is a no win dialog, once it starts it builds a head-o-steam.


    Well if you approach it as an excercise in zero-sum, than yes, it's no win.

    And yet, empath, we are agreeing on the substance of the matter, you're just disagreeing with the language.

    The point of the man NOT shutting the exchange down, meaning the exchange between the man and woman, was to use it to teach the kid in the back seat how to recognize the BS, both the test and the manner of rationalizing it, so he may understand that his father is not just an ass brute and hopefully learn to spot it when it happens to him...

    The point is, every relationship has a leader and a follower. Who sets the frame? Recognizing the mechanism and using game terminology to describe it is not the same thing as proselytizing or trying to "WIN" some mythical competition between "GAME" and whatever terminology you would wish to use to describe it.



    ReplyDelete
  20. @Lisa
    I've discovered a sense of freedom since working to be more submissive and to trust my husband's decisions.

    This is fantastic! Thank you for sharing what you are experiencing. I completely understand that sense of freedom. It is wonderful. I love to hear testimonies of the blessings that are realized when we as women start walking according to God's commands.

    ReplyDelete
  21. KG/CC
    Im appreciate that neither of you took my points as making conflict where there was none. The things you are saying KG are true, and applicable in a "could have" kind of way. I also realize and know that the man didnt need to be a horses rear to stop the dynamic, and that horses rearism isnt the only way to establish dominant frame.
    In fact, in the case of that man, the most effective way he has found to do it has wry humor and subtle playful belittling involved. And it works, and the sons laugh, and the daughters laugh, which actually reinforces his dominance as if he is playfully scolding a child with a "duh" moment.
    This example had the facet about the misdirection of the wife circling back to the green color thing, which was also a very good forensic lesson to the son. It said that, while something may seem to speak to an issue in the instant, regarding the latest exchange of sentences, context, thoughtful context, remembering and collating what has been said already and what it implies and means, is part of reasoned communication....and even debate. The point is not that the man should try and win the forensics with the wife, the point is to notice that when she makes the forensically invalid assertion he can rest in the certainty that he is speaking to the rodent.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The point is, every relationship has a leader and a follower. Who sets the frame? Recognizing the mechanism and using game terminology to describe it is not the same thing as proselytizing or trying to "WIN" some mythical competition between "GAME" and whatever terminology you would wish to use to describe it.

    It may not be the same as proselytizing, but it still misses the point I sought to make. If I wanted to make it a lesson in how to handle shit tests, id have described how the man handled a shit test, then unpacked it.
    So, its a bit more than terms we are on about.

    But this hill is not to die for because unlike seemingly so many others, I just am not animated by game exposition and debate, regardless where I agree with tactics and application or disagree with the comprehensive philosophy (and by saying so invite charges of just not understanding it)

    ReplyDelete
  23. "The point is not that the man should try and win the forensics with the wife, the point is to notice that when she makes the forensically invalid assertion he can rest in the certainty that he is speaking to the rodent. "

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sarah's Daughter,

    What does Hamster or Hamstering mean? I've seen that phrase on various manosphere blogs and take it to mean someone who continues with an unproductive or self-destructive activity out of habit. Does it mean something else?

    Lisa in Vermont

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lisa,
    It pertains to that which we say and do that is not logical. It is not only a female thing but predominantly female (feminized males also suffer the hamster).

    The visual is a literal hamster running on its wheel. It moves fast (says a lot) but doesn't go anywhere (does not move logical communication forward).

    There is the rationalization hamster - that which we say to justify our actions in lieu of taking responsibility and onus for our behavior.

    There is projection, re-framing, and false posturing and expressions of solipsism. There is defending the herd (rallying behind someone else and their illogical behavior), and just good old fashioned rhetoric. If you look at the synonyms of rhetoric you get a better idea: bombast, fustian, gas, grandiloquence, hot air, oratory, verbiage, wind

    As women, it is our natural, go to response but can be limited if we train ourselves to engage in dialectical discourse (discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation).

    Most men have a goal in mind for conversation, discussion, and debate. Women are less likely to have the same end goal. Their conversations lack this specific purpose and therefore lack any substantive value to men.

    When a question is posed to a woman and she begins with "I just feel that..." You can tell the hamster has begun to spin. If she feels threatened or challenged in her thinking, the spinning gets faster and it is not long before the original question has been long lost in a myriad of confusion. She'll resort to name calling (projection) and tears and a "why you gotta be so mean to me" appeal.

    RLB learned the best way to overcome my hamstering was to limit discussion. "Let's focus on X. We'll get to a, b, c, d, e, f, g...later. We're discussing X. And he'll get me to refocus. If I go off on a tangent - bring up unrelated issues he'll say, "is X resolved? If it's not, let's continue to talk about X." The notion that women need to fight it out to figure out what she's ultimately mad about is evidence of the hamster. It's also a cop out for a women to argue about issues unrelated to the issue she's actually upset about or even inquiring about. I hope that makes sense.

    You might enjoy many of the posts Vox has had at Alpha Game giving examples of the hamster. The best way to find them is to google "Alpha game hamster" And then "Alpha game rhetoric."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank's Sarah's Daughter

      Makes sense. My job requires me to be analytical, rational and objective so I've got my hamster under control for 8 hours a day. Plus, I work in a male-dominated profession, which probably helps.

      But, at home I do tend to "beat around the bush" as my mom would say rather than just coming out and telling my husband what's on my mind and staying on point until the situation is resolved. It's something I need to work on.

      Lisa in Vermont

      Delete
  26. "When a question is posed to a woman and she begins with "I just feel that..." "

    I never thought of that. And now I am ticked!

    I recall some communication seminar through church, probably marital, (trying to recall) they tried to draw a distinction between what a person thinks and what they feel. Good so far, right?

    Problem was, "thinking" was placed on the bottom tier as "feeling" was better positioned as "I am, ."

    Being the kind of person I am, I was annoyed (notice how I did that?) that our being was predicated on how we felt.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Welcome to the red pill, CC, and the realization that a lot of what you've been told is not only wrong, it's unbiblical.

    When I attempt to rely on my feelings as truth, I am reminded of the verse in Jeremiah 17, "the heart is deceitful above all things." I've cognitively tested this. Stimulation X makes me feel this way on these days of the month. Stimulation X makes me feel a different way on other days of the month (you understand what I'm saying). I'd have to do some heavy mental gymnastics to claim that my feelings were truth and who I am on one day and a different truth and who I am on a different day - when it is the SAME stimuli.

    For women, many things affect our feelings/emotions; hormones, food, other relationships, sunlight (seriously). There is no way to depend on feelings as a definition of who we are. To do so leaves a woman feeling (heh) a bit psychotic.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I feel.....is considered proof text , even in light of tangible real data.

    Say, there are 10 marbles in a bag, 7 are red, the others white. 70% of the balls are red, but if woman wants that to not be the case she can simply say, "I feel that there are more than 30% white balls in there". You can dump them out and count them, and it will not change her feelings.

    This comes especially into play in budgeting money. A couple has $100 in the account, and $90 of obligations. It is Aunt Betty's 70th birthday, and wife wants to buy her a $50 gift.

    Husband says, it doesnt add up
    Wife says, "but we have never given her anything and its her 70th b-day", and treats that as if it actually, tangibly solves the problem and put it to bed.

    Hamsters are powerful animals

    ReplyDelete
  29. This really hits home, as my wife does this kind of thing all the time. For example, when I'm driving with her in the car (and I have a perfect driving record), she will keep her eyes rigidly fixed on the road, being sure to warn me about the red light 1000 feet in the distance--for which I'm already slowing down.

    Or telling me "you don't care about our child" when I was unavoidably 10 minutes late to pick him up from a school event.

    This is all very distrustful and disrespectful of me: she also often shows similar behavior toward other people, though usually not as directly rudely as she is to me. Basically she doesn't seem to trust that anyone can do anything right without her micromanaging them (despite her own lack of most practical skill.)

    I don't know if anything can be done about it at this stage, but men should be warned to be very careful about marrying a woman who must always be "in control." And women who have this characteristic should really ask themselves if it is worth sacrificing marital happiness for.

    ReplyDelete