Engagement Rings Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Anniversary

We must be emphatic: These statements are not theoretical but have very practical implications. We can change our whole life and the attitude of people around us simply by changing ourselves. The change is not easy. Improvement is possible only when the necessity to start with oneself is recognized-and admitted. Too many persons try to educate and change the partner. How many even enter marriage with the idea of changing the other one! In living together we do influence and change each other but not by insisting upon a change of the partner. Only by our own behavior can we influence those with whom we live.

Whatever happens in a marital relationship expresses the interaction of both spouses. Instead of the general demand, “If only he would change, I’d be glad to act differently,” we should recognize the truth that “If I change my behavior, he cannot continue his.” Even the slightest changes in attitude of one are immediately reflected in the behavior of the other. Without realizing it, we possess uncanny sensibility and remarkable powers of coordination. Unfortunately, we know much better how to fight and how to hurt than how to please. Therefore, we are more efficient and successful in warfare and fighting. It generally takes more time and effort to provoke pleasant reactions, especially when warfare has already begun. In the marriage relationship, a certain amount of fight, of competition, of hostility and distrust, exists often from the beginning; and it takes deliberate effort to establish an atmosphere of genuine trust and kindness.

Not that most people are bad or malicious. All possibilities for good or bad exist in almost every human being. Husband and wife have the power of arousing the good or bad in each other. But what do they know of each other? They live together in one room, they eat at the same table, they share the same bed, their whole life is intimately fused by mutual activity-yet how little they understand one another! Each knows the other’s habits (mostly annoying), peculiarities, preferences, and irritabilities. What has all this to do with the deeper personality, with expectations and fears, with conceptions of life and of one’s self, with all that which makes people act and behave in a definite way? Husband and wife recognize symptoms, but not the forces behind them. And if they are disappointed, they wish to eliminate the symptoms without being willing to gratify the needs in each other.

Curiously enough, too often after two individuals have separated, they understand each other better than before. Friction, mutual fear, the fight for prestige, had blinded them. In blaming each other, they sought to excuse their own maladjustments. Ignoring or riding roughshod over the partner’s fundamental needs made it easier to continue fighting for one’s own ends. What each says about the other is generally right, although statements seem to contradict each other. But it is not important who is right and who is wrong. Each is right from his own point of view, and wrong from the other’s. The point is that if we love someone, we do not ask if he is right or wrong. That is why love is called blind. But love is not necessarily blind. Love says, “I love you, although you are not perfect. I love you and accept you as you are.” But later, when our self-esteem and prestige are threatened, we do not take each other as we are. In fighting for our own superiority we find faults in our partner and use them as good reasons for stopping our own cooperation. For happiness, the question of rightness and wrongness is unimportant. But to accept the other’s faults and virtues-that is important.

We must start at this point when discord and disappointment threaten the very existence of a marriage–or, in minor degrees, just make it less comfortable and satisfactory. The first step, the first condition for any improvement, means accepting the situation, however unpleasant, as it is; it is futile to wish it were different. To face the problem squarely and courageously is the prerequisite for finding the ways and means out of a predicament. It is not always easy, as we are timid. But running away never pays; no problem is solved in that way. When we have decided to face the issue, when we muster our courage and try to think in terms of ‘What can I do to improve the situation?” -then we are on the right track. Having abandoned the illusion that we may succeed by fighting and forcing the issue, having overcome our feeling of inadequacy, having admitted that the other one suffers too, we discover solutions. Perhaps slowly, perhaps inadequately at first, but with growing courage as our insight increases and our growing self-confidence makes us less vulnerable and more effective.

The following example is characteristic of thousands of episodes and conflicts found in the history of almost every marriage. They could have been avoided or easily solved had both spouses understood the underlying motives and goals of each other, had they refrained from resenting and accusing each other and looked instead for their own chances to change the situation.

Mrs. M. came for advice in a matter that seemed to her thoroughly trivial and yet was threatening her whole marriage. Married about one year, she got along very well with her husband. Sexually and socially they had fun together and were devoted companions–except for one disagreement which lately had taken on such proportions that the harmony between them was gone, affecting almost every phase of their marital life.

She reported that despite all her efforts she was unable to make Mr. M. give her her weekly allowance for food and other housekeeping expenses on time. She had to ask for the money each week, several times; and, if she did not ask, he “forgot’” altogether to give her her money until the week was over. She talked to him, pleaded with him, and threatened him-nothing helped. The more they quarreled, the less he obliged. What could she do? Now he had started to accuse her of spending too much; she should have saved something from last week. “From my fifteen dollars a week-when I try so hard to make ends meet since he simply refuses to give me more.” She could not understand why he was so miserly in this regard, since he spent rather generously on her otherwise.

What could she do to avoid the fighting, quarreling and invariable final submission to the humiliating experience? We can well understand her predicament. It was impossible for her to plan her budget and even her meals. She had to borrow and to make debts, both of which she hated. What could she have done instead of talking, pleading-and threatening?

Here we reach the crucial point. Despite the fact that the majority of housewives probably would have acted as Mrs. M. did, they all miss the boat. A little understanding of the little guy who wants to play the big boss would have saved many sleepless nights, tortuous scenes, wasted hours, days, and weeks. It is obvious that the “unreasonable” behavior of Mr. M. appears only unreasonable when looked upon at the logical level. He certainly had neither the “right” nor any logical reason to behave as he did. But the situation looks different when regarded from the psychological point of view. He loved his wife dearly, was devoted to her to such a degree that she could wind him around her little finger. And she did so, except in this one field of action. The only point where he could exert his superiority was in his role as provider. And-without being aware of it-he wanted to make full use of this one advantage. He wanted to be asked, to be begged. If he had given her her allowance at the beginning of the week, without any ado, then even this sign of his authority would have been taken away from him. Instead of power he would have accepted just another duty. He could not explain that to her, because he was not aware of his psychological motivation. Therefore, when she accused him, he had to come back with rationalizations, with flimsy retaliations and unfounded reproaches, which made Mrs. M. only more furious. And so they became deadlocked in a battle which could result only in the break-up of their marriage.

Once Mrs. M. realized the situation, overcame her hurt pride and resentment, she found easily what she could do to solve the problem. First, she no longer resented asking him for what she knew was due her. She wanted him to be happy -and if that was what made him happy, why not give it to him. It was so easy, once her false pride was gone. Still, there remained some difficulty. She had to ask him several times for the money, of course, as he did not give it to her immediately. That sometimes involved hardships as bills had to be paid. What to do? But Mrs. M., clever as she was, found a simple answer. She discovered that she could as easily get from him a hundred dollars as fifteen dollars if she asked for it several times. He actually was very generous. So on several occasions she got a hundred dollars, which gave her a reserve to fall back on if he did not provide the weekly allowance on time. And reproaches and scenes were never necessary.

What she had learned from this experience went deeper than the successful handling of the allowance problem. She discovered that their real danger lay in their mutual competition, that he was afraid of being just a “sucker,” that his love and devotion would make him her slave, and that she wanted, more than necessary, her queenly position, ambitious and pampered as she was. In the limelight of the one conflict, she learned to understand the deeper conflict endangering their entire relationship-and she found the way of solving the whole problem.

Leave a Reply