This entry was posted on Friday, February 15th, 2008 at 8:53 pm and is filed under Women Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Doubt in the partner, very often based on an unconscious desire to prove one’s own superiority, is frequently the moving force behind apparently inevitable predicaments. The wife of a drunkard, object of public sympathy and admiration for her endurance and faithfulness, frequently has contributed more to the family situation than anyone suspects. Often enough, an ambitious and efficient woman chooses a weak and unstable husband. While she prides herself on her intention to guide and “save” him, she actually acclaims only her own virtuousness over his wickedness. This kind of woman makes it difficult for any man to be good. He has no chance of competing with her impressive virtue, and punishing her with his expected misbehavior is only a small consolation. He rarely realizes that by torturing her he only adds to her glory. The wife of a drunkard is often a typical martyr; the more she suffers, the holier she becomes.
In the history of such a marriage, we find many periods in which a wife could have stopped the husband from drinking. Certain firmness could have made him aware of the consequences of his behavior-losing her, at a time when he still cared for her and yet had not been sufficiently antagonized by her contempt and nagging. But after each quarrel, after every threat, she gave in; believing his promises which she knew would never be kept. Treating drunkards requires influencing their wives first. The woman’s holiness and the man’s viciousness fit together and are typical of martyrdom. The peculiar equilibrium is never the fault of the man alone.
Although it may sound as if one could put the blame for these conflicts on women, we know that right and wrong are never exclusively one sided. But unfortunately, women suffer most from marital discord. Their personal dependency upon marital concord makes them more sensitive to harmony-and gives them also more responsibility. As a matter of fact, the fate of a marriage generally depends much more upon the behavior of the wife than upon that of the man. Women have, for centuries, been trained in domesticity. Their “natural” interest in marital affairs can be overcome only by a very strong masculine protest. Women have been and still are the dominated sex; but they always were the power behind the throne. This position has induced women to use other methods than the crude, forthright aggressiveness permitted to men. The scheming qualities, which have inspired their comparison with cats, compensate for their lack of actual power. Men dance as women play the tune, rather than vice versa. This does not mean that women do not need as much encouragement and assistance as men, but women reveals their need for protection readily, whereas men are prevented from doing so by their masculine pride. Often the strongest man is fundamentally like a child, and the weakest woman can have the persuasive influence of a mother. That is the reason why we must assist women in managing their husbands, rather than wait until men learn to regard their wives as partners.
This ability to lead the partner toward a common goal is necessary whenever conflicting interests appear. There are always conflicting interests, as we cannot expect two persons to have the same desires, interests, concerns, and to enjoy the same amusements and diversions. In some cases, the field of common interests is broad, in others narrow. There is no question that it is easier to maintain mutual participation when the marriage starts out with a broad basis in mutually shared goals; but in every case each mate has to enlarge his own field of interest to accord with the previous training, activity, and concern of the partner. It seems less advisable to demand that anyone should cut out previous interests because they are distasteful to the other one. The positive desire should have more weight than the negative distaste, because overcoming an original distaste broadens the base of agreement, whereas abandoning a desire narrows that base and makes for resentment. Such an adaptation, educationally considered, provides growth, and, psychologically considered, a sense of accomplishment, as well as enhancement of social worth. Each mate should be ready to give activities liked by the other a fair trial. Sincere effort to participate will make it easier to abandon some activities if they prove to be too difficult or too foreign to the mate.
Our present marital situation demands, for more than one reason, that woman take the lead, not only because by her training and inheritance she is generally more apt to induce and influence, but also because at the present time women generally have more inclination than men to broaden their interests. If the husband is an artist, scientist, or works in a special cultural field, then he generally stimulates the interest of his wife in his activities. If he cannot do so, his marriage is bound to fail. But too many American men are interested only in business and work. Outside interests are limited to politics and recreation with men friends in drinking and playing. Interest in art, books, music, psychology, and other cultural activities is increasingly-and unfortunately-becoming the privilege of women. Few men complain that their wives want to stay home, refuse to go to a concert or art exhibit, but women very frequently voice such grievances.
