Engagement Rings Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Anniversary

When next the pseudo-benevolent dictator offers an unwelcome gift or proposes some undesirable recreation, his spouse must refuse politely and follow up by saying, for example, “But since you are in a giving mood, I would appreciate it if we could go to a show,” or “Thanks so much for the sweater, darling. I notice, however, that it’s your favorite color-olive green-and I’ve been telling you that I plan to buy a pink one. I hope you won’t be disappointed when I exchange it tomorrow.”

The recipient of phony benevolence is as guilty as the giver if he accepts what is offered. The recipient must object, thanking the giver but firmly stating that he prefers to determine the nature of the gift or favor. If the pseudo-benevolent spouse is really trying to please or cooperate, he will accept the change, for if he doesn’t he demonstrates that he was indeed being a dictator. If he does not accept the suggestions, the spouse may have to be insistent.

One of the most common complaints that a marriage counselor hears begins with the words, “If only John [or Mary] would…” Here one spouse presents the need for a unilateral change on the part of the other. The person who has been labeled as inadequate usually responds by presenting alibis, or by attacking his spouse on some other grounds in an attempt to change the subject. In doing so, he is making a mistake. Instead, he should recognize that if he did make the particular change requested, the other spouse would probably discover that it didn’t alter their relationship as much as he had expected.

Therefore, the attacked spouse (the one considered to be in the wrong) should insist that the natural consequences of making the suggested change be considered. He should point out that a change on his part will also require a change on the part of the other spouse, and should attempt to project what these changes would be like. The question then would be, are these projected changes desirable or undesirable? Are the husband and wife even prepared to handle them?

For example, a man who is well informed and is respected for his obvious intelligence may feel that his wife should be better read and better able to hold her own in a discussion. It is true that if his wife became more intellectually competent, they might share more together, but is he willing to pay the price? If she sharpened her powers, perhaps the man would find his own self-esteem and sense of importance, derived from being the “smart” one in the family, suffering greatly. Is he really prepared for her competition? Can he relinquish his position in the spotlight at social functions? Is he ready to help his wife contribute to conversations by listening intelligently to her, or does he expect her to attempt to shine despite his continuing efforts to appear smarter than she is?

In other words, we are urging the spouse who is told to change to evaluate this request in terms of how it will affect the other partner, and to insist that change involves a faint effort and is not up to him alone. Equally, the critical spouse is urged to evaluate his request in terms of what corresponding changes will be necessary on his part and to refrain from asking for changes to which he cannot adapt.

This concept may, at first, be hard to grasp because it is completely antithetical to our usual way of thinking about marriage. We assume that if we wish our spouse to change in a particular way, he will-if he is loving-immediately attempt to oblige. But actually, in a marriage most of the important behavior patterns (we are not speaking of such minor annoying habits as dropping ashes or leaving hair in the wash basin) are products of the relationship and not just manifestations of traits peculiar to one spouse.

Consider, for example, a gentleman we know who has become increasingly vociferous in his comments about his wife’s slovenly housekeeping. He neglects to mention to his friends, during his numerous complaints, that his wife accompanies him in many activities (far more than the usual). For example, they often go sailing together, they hunt, and they fly a private plane in which she is the navigator. Since there is not enough money for a maid, the housework just remains undone.

The question here is why the condition of the house is so important to the husband. Is he simply a person of compulsive neatness, or is he protesting that his wife’s role is becoming too close to his own and that he is uncomfortable about this closeness and would like to push her back to a more “feminine” role? If she simply takes the blame for the untidy house, they will never face the question of the shared-role conflict, which may be the important issue in their marriage. As long as he is free to complain about a slovenly house he has the feeling that he is asserting his control over her, while at the same time nothing can actually happen, so there is no danger of an upsetting change.

The spouse who is being criticized in this case might appropriately wonder why her husband doesn’t pitch in more and help clean up the house since it seems important to him and since it also seems important to him to have her share in his many activities. Does she sense that he requires this kind of complaint in order to keep their marriage workable? To test this hypothesis she might propose that during the next several weeks she give up all her other activities and concentrate on pleasing her husband, by keeping the house immaculate. If the husband’s complaint is functional-that is, if it is related to the marital system and does not simply reflect his liking for cleanliness-some other source for complaint will emerge to take the place of the no-longer-dirty house. When it becomes evident that the complaining is related to a larger relationship pattern, the couple is in a position to discuss the larger problems with some chance of making basic changes to improve the relationship, and can learn to avoid repetitious arguments over topical and insignificant issues.

It is important now to take a closer look at the behavior of the spouse who asks for changes in the other by complaining. Such an individual contributes to the other’s unwanted behavior by permitting it and complaining afterward. The tendency to nag and complain instead of refusing to tolerate unwanted behavior is widespread in marriages in our culture. A husband may accuse his wife of being inconsiderate because she repeatedly interrupts him. But how often will he prevent this behavior at the time it occurs by saying, “You interrupted me, Jane. Please let me finish what I was saying”? If this didn’t work, he might simply get up and leave the room, saying, “You apparently aren’t interested in what I’m trying to tell you now. When you do want to hear it, let me know.” A few such episodes would get the point across quickly and without unnecessary anger. This type of behavior may seem harsh and rude, but it does work. The practice of nagging and complaining does not, because it never deals explicitly with the unwanted behavior at the time it occurs. However, people prefer complaining just because it is futile: if they actually enforced a change in the other’s behavior, they would have to change their own behavior as well. If Bill is firmer than he used to be about Jane’s interruptions, he must also give up the privilege of interrupting her, or else risk having her walk out on him in her turn.

Mary may harbor burning resentment toward John because he makes jokes or sarcastic remarks about her intelligence or physical appearance in front of acquaintances. Yet if this behavior on John’s part continues over a long period of time, it is a sure bet that she has done nothing to stop it. Perhaps she smiles or laughs with embarrassment in response to these remarks, or perhaps she counterattacks with nasty remarks of her own about John’s messy living habits, his bald spot, and so on. Later, when they are alone once more, Mary may just sulk, or she may explode and tell John his behavior makes her furious, so that their nastiness escalates into a fight, or mutual withdrawal, or whatever. If Mary really wants to put a stop to John’s unkind actions, she must be willing to change her own behavior. The next time they are with friends and John is insulting, Mary might say, in front of the friends, «John, your remarks are humiliating and inappropriate. I suspect they make our friends as uncomfortable as they do me. If you have something to tell me, wait until we get home and can discuss it in privacy.” If John persists in his behavior, Mary can rightfully say, “I asked you once to stop your unpleasant remarks, John. I won’t argue with you here and embarrass our friends, but neither will 1 tolerate this kind of talk. I’m taking a cab home and 111 see you there later.” One or two such confrontations evidencing Mary’s determination and willingness to change her own behavior in relation to his undesirable behavior will force John to make a corresponding change.

Again, the reader may shudder at such tough, harsh recommendations, but marriage is so important, and so difficult to make workable, that there is no place for half-truths and half-hearted actions.

One of the most useful ways for spouses to correct unwanted behavior patterns and improve a marriage is always to act on the assumption that their actions are bilateral, not unilateral. There is no action involving them both to which they haven’t both contributed. Therefore, any change must be made by both.

There are two approaches to this problem. The first is meant for the situation in which one spouse labels the other a disaster seeker, but the other spouse does not agree. The second is useful when both spouses are in agreement that one or both of them have this trait.

If one spouse is attempting unilaterally to change the other, who refuses to admit to being a disaster seeker, he must be willing to take a chance on being a troublemaker.

Basically, the disaster seeker is afraid of being abandoned. He is unconsciously afraid that the other spouse will grow apart from him, becoming too independent or successful. By employing the gloom-and-danger ploy, the disaster seeker attempts to keep the other spouse in line. Thus the spouse who would cure the situation must convince the other that this technique won’t work and is harmful to the relationship, and he must do the convincing by means of action, not by complaining or nagging.

The approach is Simple. The healer chooses an area in which there has been past evidence of disaster seeking. He makes it clear that the spouse is welcome to attend this convention, fly on this trip, or whatever, but that the plans will be carried out regardless of what the disaster seeker does or says.

A variation open to the healer is to invite the disaster seeker on a short vacation that he knows from their past experience should be pleasant. However, he must stipulate: “If you so much as make one negative comment about the trip, 1 will end it.” If this stipulation is to be effective, it must be carried out the first time the disaster seeker utters an unpleasant remark, even if the result is that they return home a half hour after departure. This action must then be carried out so that the message is, “I am not going to desert you, but 1 am going ahead with these plans that are important to me.”

The first few times, the disaster seeker may pout and be sullen upon the other spouse’s return, but this reaction is to be expected. If it does not deter the spouse from his course of action, it will disappear.

If both spouses agree that there is a need for remedying a disaster-seeking attitude, and will work together, it can be accomplished easily. Two techniques are employed.

First, the disaster seeker accepts punishment each time he commits the sin of announcing disaster. In this way he is made aware of the frequency with which he makes remarks of this sort.

Ordinarily, it is easy to overlook gloomy predictions because if they are incorrect (as they usually are) they are soon forgotten; only if a disaster occurs is the prediction recounted over and over. As Disraeli pointed out, it is easier to be critical than to be correct. The punishment can be of any sort as long as it is genuinely annoying-for example, having to set the alarm and do twenty push-ups at three in the morning, or (for the husband) doing the dishes for a week.

Second, the disaster seeker is required by the other spouse to predict everything (in detail) that will go wrong with the projected activity. The other spouse notes these remarks down and have the forecaster initial them. After the event, the couple reviews the list together, checking the accuracy of the predictions. Usually, the disaster seeker cannot bring about the fulfillment of all his gloomy prophesies.

What has to be recognized about the disaster seeker in order to cure him is that, much like the average neurotic described by Freud, “he makes worse the very thing he seeks to cure.” The disaster seeker may have a temporary feeling of independent security when he is able to exert control over his spouse’s actions by the use of dire predictions, but he also loses, since he gives up the privilege and pleasure of being able to be dependent, to count on someone else whom he has placed in a position of authority or confidence. He cannot downgrade his spouse without reducing his own chances of finding succor in the marriage.

Harry should insist that Shirley observe one of the marital imperatives: Don’t argue with me on my own time.

By this we mean that when one spouse is making a complaint, he should not allow the other to answer with a cross complaint. The two complaints simply cancel each other out, and nothing has been settled. If Shirley also has a complaint, let her bring it up on her own time, not while Harry is asking for a change.

This is a simple but important marital imperative. Never break this rule, for each infraction invites another infraction I remind each other, hold up a hand and say “Beep-Beep”! Do anything, but don’t exchange complaints at the same time!

Harry should be firm about his right to complain even if Shirley appears not to recognize that she is cross complaining. Consciously or unconsciously, the cross complainer is aware of the nature of his tactics. If he refuses to admit what he is doing, more stringent methods of confrontation must be employed. A simple yet effective device is the following. When one spouse has identified the other as a cross complainer but the other will not cease the practice, the first spouse should announce: “I think you are capable of recognizing my right to complain on my own time! The next time you cut into one of my complaints, I’m simply going to leave the room. If you follow me, I’ll simply leave the house.” This apparently rude behavior is very effective because the cross complainer needs an audience to reassure himself that the other’s complaint has been stifled by his cross complaint. When there is nobody in the room, the transaction is incomplete; the cross complainer is frustrated, and therefore in a better position to see the destructive nature of his tactics.

The following method is helpful in reducing the impact of this destructive technique in a marriage.

The “healthy” spouse insists that the “sick” spouse visit a competent physician, and accompanies him on the visit. If he is already under a physician’s care, arrangements must be made for a consultation with a specialist not known socially by either husband or wife. This is necessary because the family physician too can be fooled, as a result of his wish to be helpful and of his own doubts. He may unwittingly be helping the “victim” to preserve the “illness.”

If a clean bill of health is forthcoming, the complaining spouse must be forced to live in a way befitting a healthy person. If some chronic physical condition is present, clear rules on diet, the amount of exercise permitted, and so forth, should be obtained from the physician, so that the “sick” spouse cannot exaggerate the degree of his illness. It is not unkind to push a spouse into good health. It is far less kind to nourish and encourage illness by falling for such a destructive technique.

One of our colleagues was upset by his wife’s constant use of vague aches and pains to avoid any activity which did not interest her, and decided to do something about it. First he took time off from work to have his wife thoroughly checked at the Mayo Clinic. The physicians reported her as “healthy in all respects.” When they returned home, he made careful arrangements for his wife’s financial care, and moved out of the house, telling his wife that he would not return because her imaginary illnesses were too much for him.

After several weeks the spouse recognized that he meant what he said. She began to play golf and engage in other activities possible for a healthy female. Nearly a year, and one girl friend, later the husband invited her to go on a trip to Europe with him. When they returned after six weeks, they moved to a different house together. Now, some ten years later, they have apparently passed the critical years and the marriage has prospered. While it is unusual for a spouse to be so direct, action of the sort taken by this husband is the basis for many cures.

There is a place in the best of marriages for occasional bluntness or even rudeness. Occasionally, even an out-and-out fight may be in order; as long as it falls short of homicide, it will probably leave both spouses refreshed. At times we all let relationships become complacent and limited by incomplete transactions. Our garage man, for example, may take us for granted, and for a while we accept his “Sure, sure, Mr. Smith, I’ll take care of it,” but often he does not take care of it, and makes endless reasonable excuses instead. Finally, one day we blow up and say, “God damn it, Barney, get that carburetor fixed or I’ll take my business elsewhere.” As a result of this explosion he has more respect for us, we have more respect for ourselves, and the limits of the relationship have been clarified.

Similarly, in marriage there is no miraculous method for carving out a relationship without occasional struggles. One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, and one cannot make a marital relationship without breaking some of the other spouse’s expectations and built-in preconceptions, and forestalling his very human tendency to try for a foot when a few inches have just been offered.

In the case of Eloise and John, the issues John raises are never dealt with directly by Eloise; when a conversation ends John never knows whether or not he has scored a point, whether or not his wife has understood him.

It is important to remember that Eloise doesn’t recognize what she is doing, As far as she is concerned, she is attempting to mollify an unreasonable man and to delay his demands by placating him. Her manner suggests to John that she will do anything he desires, but somehow or other, she usually manages to change the subject under discussion, and she never fulfills her implied promise to do what he wants. By behaving inconsiderately while appearing to be considerate, thoughtful, and patient, she is slowly driving John to distraction: he never knows definitely what he can realistically expect from her.

This pattern of behavior is a tried and true one, used in diplomacy when one nation is trying to stall another on some urgent matter. Attempting to drag out an incomplete transaction, the nation will counter the other’s proposal with something like, “But do you really think that such a thing is moral?” or “Please define precisely what you mean by peace.”

The incomplete transaction is a serious form of faulty communication. The reader will recall from a previous chapter that every message has at least three aspects: the report aspect, the command aspect, and the context aspect. For two people to communicate effectively, the listener must understand all three aspects of a message correctly. If they conflict or are incongruous, understanding is impossible. The person receiving an incongruous message must ask for clarification if he is to understand and react appropriately.

In the example of Eloise and John, there is an incongruity in Eloise’s messages. The report aspect says one thing, and the command and context aspects say something else. What John has failed to do is to clarify the command aspects of her messages. When she says, “I’ll do the very best I can,” the report she is giving appears to be one of willingness. When she did not act accordingly, it becomes clear that though the report aspect conveys one message, the command aspect conveys another:

“I don’t think it’s good for you,” or “I don’t think it’s necessary,” or something of that sort. Each time John accepts the report aspect of her message without clarifying the command aspect, the problem increases.

John is just as culpable as Eloise. He says he needs more clean shirts, and Eloise states benevolently that she is saving money. The issue of money is irrelevant and tangential. John has sufficient income, and laundry bills are no problem. Yet he fails to respond to this issue because Eloise’s benevolent tone sidetracks him. Possibly the circumstances of his own rearing have made him susceptible to apparent benevolence, and his experience with Eloise had reinforced this response.

Spouses, who wish to eliminate the destructive pattern of incomplete transactions, should practice the following exercise.

If both spouses are collaborating in the effort to change this pattern, each must make a special effort to listen to the other’s statements; and when a statement is not absolutely clear, the confused spouse must query it, indicating, for example, that the meaning or the context is obscure, or that the tone of voice seems to imply something that doesn’t fit with the words.

If a spouse feels that this method is too dangerous or confusing, or that he is not up to practicing together, he can practice by himself, analyzing in writing the kinds of things the other spouse does with words and meanings that are confounding and confusing.

If a spouse finds himself the recipient of a tangential answer, like Eloise’s response to John about his shirts, he must firmly insist on the substantive outcome. For example, if Eloise states with her persuasive and benevolent pleading, “But, honey, even if you have plenty of money it’s silly to throw it away on laundry!” John must reply with something like, “Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. What I hear you saying is that you refuse to send my shirts to the laundry and would rather have me wear a dirty shirt to the office than spend another quarter. Is that what you mean?”

Eloise probably will say that this is not what she means; she is just trying to be a good wife and help John save money. If John accepts this answer, the result once again is an incomplete transaction, and the destructive effects of her apparent benevolence spread out a little further. Here John must reply with something like, “I know, Eloise, and I appreciate your point of view, but I definitely need more shirts, and I want the laundry to come to the house every week to pick them up. From my point of view, you’ll be a good wife if you arrange to have my shirts clean. Now will you or won’t you do this for me?”

If this method is followed, the incomplete transaction pattern will gradually be eliminated. The vice president of a large company reported in an article that after simple techniques of this sort for clarity of communication were introduced throughout the organization, the board of the company estimated that within several months’ efficiency rose 40 per cent.

Unfortunately, our American notions of romance, chivalry, and ladylike and gentlemanly behavior make it difficult for young couples to believe that fighting is permissible-and may even be necessary. H husbands and wives are to clarify what each other’s limits are-determining how much can be asked for in anyone time period without evidence of immediate return, and who (correctly or not) believes he is doing more of the giving-and if they are to find answers for the many other relationship questions that arise, there is no alternative to frank talk or action, even at the risk of temporarily damaging the relationship.

To put it simply, the motto of young spouses (or any two people) trying to work out a relationship should be, “If you can’t tell someone to go to hell, you can’t love him very much.” It takes courage to shake the status quo, but if the relationship isn’t worth a risk to improve it, it is bound to be forever limited and burdened by its own stagnation.

If a husband and wife-Miriam and Ken Thompson, let us say -agree that they are predominantly a status-struggle type of couple and are frequently engaged in stressful competition, they can learn to enjoy great cooperation and to function less competitively by practicing the series of exercises which follows. These techniques will not completely eliminate status struggles, for such struggles are necessary from time to time when issues arise for which rules have not yet been agreed upon. But the practices we suggest can help limit the struggles to appropriate areas, and make the marriage correspondingly more workable. Let us stress that the spouses must go slowly. They must not attempt to change their marriage overnight. After all, psychoanalysis not infrequently takes six to eight years. These exercises should therefore be taken slowly, step by step, over a period of weeks.

First, Miriam and Ken are to sit down together and compile a list of the various duties performed and roles filled when they are home together over a weekend. Such activities as cooking, cleaning, entertainment, and helping the kids with schoolwork will be listed. Miriam and Ken probably will discover that status struggles occur when both attack the same problem at just about the same time, as when Ken is helping Johnnie, their son, with his homework and Miriam cannot refrain from putting her two cents’ worth in.

For the sake of experience and practice they should plan for the next several weekends to divide functions and tasks rigorously, agreeing in advance about which spouse is to take charge of each particular duty. For example, it may be Ken’s job to drive the kids to their swimming lesson every Saturday and to mow the lawn, while Miriam goes to the laundromat and arranges for a baby-sitter for Saturday evening. (The matter of choosing the type of entertainment will be discussed later because this is one function that cannot be assigned to a particular spouse as part of a role.) Miriam and Ken may find during several weeks’ trial that they have to do some shifting of tasks. Perhaps Miriam is better at helping the kids with their English homework, and Ken with their mathematics. If Miriam accepts the task of attending the PTA meeting on Wednesday evening, perhaps it will be desirable for Ken to take charge of providing for dinner on that night. Since he does not cook, this may mean taking the family out to dinner, or having a simple barbecue.

The procedure described here sounds very simple and mechanized, but in carrying it out, most couples will find to their surprise that although they have been assuming that each has his assigned tasks, actually-except for the most obvious ones-tasks have not been clearly assigned, and that status struggles occur when husband and wife attempt to take over a task at the same time, or when one interferes with the other’s performance.

The couple will soon discover that even after weekend functions and tasks have been divided, many areas of dissatisfaction remain. This is most often the case in matters involving idiosyncratic taste or choice such as the selection of a movie. Status struggles occur in the choice of anything upon which one places cultural value. It is always possible to argue that it’s better to go see a Shakespearean play than a gangster film.

In situations of this sort, many unnecessary status struggles can be eliminated if the spouses agree to alternate in choosing the evening’s activity, with each in turn accepting without adverse comment the selection of the other.

After the status strugglers have weathered a weekend in which the labor was broken up into tasks for each, they are ready for the next step, the assignment of areas of competence rather than specific duties. This change introduced a relative freedom into the system, because areas are not as confining and controlling as specific duties. The trick here is to realize that a good cook is no greater than a good accountant, that the successful gardener isn’t superior to the careful housekeeper. In order to work out areas of competence, the spouses must have made enough progress to be able to agree on a number of important areas which must be taken care of if the family work is to get done, to recognize that the question of someone being better than someone else is not relevant.

Here is a method for assigning areas of competence. The spouses sit down together, and one tells the other what he did best-what situation he handled most competently-over the weekend. If the other agrees, this may be considered one of his areas of competence. For example, the wife may say to tile husband, “The way you kept the children from quarreling was marvelous. I think it would be a great thing if you could take over the discipline of the kids over the weekend because by the end of the week I’m somewhat weak and frustrated with them and probably not very effective.” If he assents, she is free to take over another matter; the husband may now suggest that she keep the family financial records, since she handled them neatly and systematically over the weekend and he finds bookkeeping a boring chore.

After trying a weekend during which areas rather than tasks are assigned, the spouses review the allotment of areas; some shifting, or at least a few slight changes will probably be necessary and these should be discussed at this time. The next step will then be to decide how to share responsibility in those areas in which some overlapping is inevitable. One such area is shopping, since an individual out for other reasons may stop to “pick up” something, thus doing part of this job. Child rearing is another area in which both parents are usually involved.

Many status struggles involve the question of who is doing a better job of disciplining the children. The fact is that the mother is with the children a great deal more than the father is, therefore her values will predominate despite her husband’s best efforts unless he has intimidated her completely, and the husband’s frustration is evident when he tries to impose his values upon the children during the infrequent periods when he is with them. In the effort to eliminate status struggles over the children a good first step is to assign the father complete charge of their discipline when he is present on weekends. His wife will often be dissatisfied with his approach, but only by stepping out of the picture does she make it possible for him to experience the burden of total responsibility for child discipline. The chances for settling into a compromise are much improved once one recognizes that it is all very well to wish the children were behaving in a certain way, but it is quite another matter to put forth the effort to get them to do so.

Spouses who attempt exercises of the sort just described will recognize, in all likelihood, that in their efforts to bargain and to divide responsibilities, they end up competing over who can fulfill his share of the bargain better. But though it is still competition, competing to cooperate is one step forward, for it leads toward more positive interactional patterns and gives one less of a sense of struggling with the other spouse over fruitless and never-ending “issues.” Issues are usually smoke screens hiding a more basic disagreement over who “cares the most” or who is being “more thoughtful.” The many status struggles occurring over particular issues may, indeed, be reflections of the basic status struggle implied in this central question.

For most people, the main difficulty in being thoughtful is that they experience a hurt vulnerability when their thoughtfulness is not returned, or when they fear that it will not be returned. The result is the defensiveness described elsewhere in the book as reverse vulnerability. To avoid this fear of being thoughtful, and hence this reverse vulnerability, spouses should divide tasks and areas of responsibility in such a manner that neither can claim that he is being more thoughtful than the other or is being denied thoughtfulness by the other. If the reader will think back on recent arguments with his own spouse about who has done the most or who has worked the hardest or had the hardest day, he will recognize that the discussion rarely concerns actual man hours spent in labor; it usually involves some ill-defined question of who “cares” the most or who “gives” the most. Such scrapping represents the desire of each for recognition that he has contributed at least his share, the desire for a display of thoughtfulness and appreciation on the other’s part, but usually it leads only to further argument, recrimination, and status struggling. Therefore, it is desirable for each spouse to avoid merely thinking competitively about how to “beat out” the other spouse, and try instead to put himself in the other’s position and imagine how he feels, asking, “If I do so and so, how will Jane (or John) be made to feel?” This approach introduces a forward look into relationship behavior and drives home the knowledge that cooperation is not just a moment-to-moment thing, but also affects the future.

Some additional exercises to break down destructive status struggles over who is “more thoughtful” and who is “less appreciative” of the other’s thoughtfulness can be found in discussions of reverse vulnerability.

I have often thought that what helped our marriage most was that everyone was against it in the beginning.

We were introduced to each other when he was in law school, I in graduate school, both planning to spend the summer in Washington. We barely saw each other until we arrived in the new city, but June, July, and August were lovely with intimacy. In the fall we released other entanglements and, in the stressful routines of the university, depended on one another. Marriage gradually came to seem inevitable. We were adults (he was twenty-four, I twenty-three), committed to one another, ready to begin life together. What matter that his parents were Jewish and mine Protestant? Our families were much the same.

We proudly announced our engagement with a twenty-dollar turquoise ring, purchased because I thought something should mark our momentous undertaking. Then, innocent, we faced his parents, who, unreligious though they were, met our glad news with thin lips. We felt rejected, misunderstood, unappreciated.

My parents were little better. Although polite on the surface, my mother found every obstacle in the way of a wedding. An uncle was hardly civil.

And these were the relatives we heard from. We came to anticipate the anger of others-my grandmother of another generation, his aunt who celebrated each Friday with beautiful Sabbath ritual.

By spring that year, planning to marry in June, we realized ruefully that our envisioned joyful celebration, bringing a proud new law school graduate to my family and an accomplished graduate student to his, would not be as we had dreamed. My parents were unwilling to cooperate in any plans. His mother complained of the hurt to her family.

Ironically, some friends were little better. Why should I leave graduate school to marry? Why should we bother with commitment?

Before the combined weight of opposition, we were faced with an absolute choice: We could salvage life as we had known it, loving parents and grandparents, families, and communities. Or we could choose each other.

Without thinking about it very hard, we chose each other.

More than twenty years later, I see that choice as an act of unwitting wisdom. We entered marriage utterly committed to each other, already free of the strings and ties of the past.

With our decision made, events gradually turned around. A friend found a judge who happily volunteered to marry us. Faced with the possibility of her daughter’s wedding going on without her, my mother decided a home ceremony would not be so bad. His parents thought perhaps a rabbi’s blessing would be comforting, even if we were forbidden a Jewish ceremony. Our parents met each other cordially, discovering with pleasure that they shared common interests, bonded by an aversion to social drinking. (We had known how much they were alike, why didn’t they believe us?) The wedding took place, necessary forms were upheld, and we were free to begin our life together.

Now, looking back, I think the united opposition we faced was the greatest wedding gift of all. We started our life together with our relationship a healthy, strong organism, already tested, already mature. The marriage easily has withstood the irritating lumps and bumps of living and has continued to be a haven and home for us both.

lance heard marriage described as like a base camp in mountaineering, a place from which to gather strength for the assault on the peaks and a place to return for comfort or celebration. As we’ve gone through life, our marriage has seemed such a base camp. From it we each have gathered the strength and confidence to face challenges that must be faced alone, knowing the marriage, the home we have made together, is utterly secure.

Now we have two children, both teenagers, a large house, two successful careers, a cat (universally recognized as exceptionally dim-witted), and a piano, among other things. My father has apologized to my husband. Both of my parents are now very close to him. Even after twenty years, his parents have not accepted our marriage, or their grandchildren. We are very happy nonetheless and look forward to at least twenty more years in each other’s company.

Some people are just so good it hurts-really hurts. The technique which we call pseudo-benevolence is one that can drive a spouse crazy in no time, and it is common in our society.

The pseudo-benevolent dictator may be the husband or the wife, or both; his identifying characteristic is that he imagines that he is an abundant giver and can anticipate or know the needs of his spouse. The problem is that the victimizer fails to recognize and show approval of the expressed needs or real desires of his partner. This behavior has something in common with the mind reading act described earlier, in that both rest on unclear communication and the assumption that one person ‘mows” what the other is really feeling, wishing, or thinking.

In one young couple we knew (whose marriage lasted less than five years); the husband brought frequent little gifts to his wife. One day he would burst in with a chocolate malt (his wife was on a diet) and say boyishly, “I thought you needed a treat!” A few weeks later, he ‘would bring home two tickets to a night baseball game because his wife had been wanting a night out (his wife hated sports and for months had been nagging to be taken dancing; her husband hated dancing). This went on and on. H the wife needed new clothes; the husband might surprise her by picking out a dress on sale which he “knew” was just right for her, even though she preferred to do her own clothes shopping. After every such gift, the husband would look expectant, proud, and pleased because he was being such a considerate person.

The wife played right into the game. Not about to be labeled the “bad guy” in this twosome, she would praise the husband for his thoughtfulness, and accept the gift. She seldom had the courage to object.

The pseudo-benevolent dictator sometimes senses that the happiness of his spouse is only feigned, so he may end up feeling just as depressed as the recipient. Since neither realizes what is happening, the giver may regard the receiver as ungrateful, while the receiver thinks the giver is super-selfish.

The person who believes he is benevolent usually does not recognize the discrepancy in his behavior. He overlooks the fact that “benevolence” based on one’s own fantasy of what the other person wants, or one’s own need to give, turns out to be dictatorship. It cuts the other person out, and any hints or clues the other delivers that he feels left out are ignored, or simply not heard, or seen as lack of appreciation. If the victim tries to press his point, the conversation may go something like this:

‘What do you mean I never do anything for you? I took you to the movies two nights ago.”

“But, darling, you forget I didn’t want to see that movie. I was tired that night and told you I’d rather go to bed early.”

“You did not. You just said you were tired, and I thought the movie would relax you.”

“But you were the one who wanted to see that movie I hate John Wayne movies!”

“Boy, see if I ever do anything for you again. Other wives never get taken out, and when I try to do better, you nag me for it. That’s the last time.”

The imputation of desire as illustrated here is not the same as responding to the spouse’s real needs, expressed or unexpressed. In some cases, a spouse may certainly give spontaneously without being asked, because as a result of past experience he knows that his partner desires a particular gift, or loves to cuddle at bedtime, or likes a certain meal especially well. If a person is genuinely sensitive to another’s needs, and gives to fulfill these rather than his own, he should rightfully be called-not a pseudo-benevolent dictator-but in romantic terms, a lover!

This destructive technique is especially effective against the spouse who is naturally aggressive and imaginative and seldom has the time to do everything he wants to do. The more the person is a success in his profession or business, and wants the same degree of control in his home, the more effectively this destructive technique can be used against him. It consists of subtly undercutting the efforts of the aggressive spouse in a frustrating manner which can’t be readily identified. Here is an example.

John Z. Alderson has a deep feeling of resentment toward his wife, Eloise. Whenever they are together he is ill at ease, frustrated, and in a smoldering sort of way, angry at her. John thinks about this often, with a sense of shame and guilt, for he cannot understand his feeling of frustration and annoyance at his wife.

‘Why should I feel this way?” his thoughts run. “Poor Eloise works so hard. She is a sweet, thoughtful person and certainly a good mother. I really have little excuse for being so angry at her so much of the time, especially since the things which annoy me are so trivial.”

The reader is now invited into the Alderson home.

It is seven thirty in the morning. John has just finished shaving and in a few minutes will go down to have breakfast with Eloise. He reaches into his dresser drawer for a clean shirt, but the drawer is empty.

“Eloisel” “Yes, dear.”

“How come I’m out of shirts again?”

“But, dear,” Eloise says, “by having the laundryman come just every other week; we’re saving considerable money on the laundry.”

Eloise’s remark doesn’t seem quite logical to John. He scratches his head and begins thinking that perhaps his own logic is faulty, although he doesn’t know what the error is. He grunts to himself, looks in the mirror, shrugs his shoulders, and rummages around in the laundry basket for an already used shirt. He puts it on, and selected a bow tie instead of a four-in-hand, because the bow tie hides the wrinkles in the soiled collar a little better.

When John has finished dressing he goes into the kitchen.

Eloise is humming happily to herself as she spoons coffee out of a two-pound can.

“Eloise, for God’s sake, I’ve asked you not to buy two-pound Cans of coffee. The damn stuff gets stale on us and loses its flavor. You know how much a good cup of coffee means to me.”

Eloise looks at him somewhat maternally. She shakes her head and smiles patiently. “But, darling, I couldn’t resist; I save twenty cents a can when I buy it on sale.”

“Eloise, I don’t give a damn if you save five dollars a can.

Stale coffee is stale coffee. Please don’t buy two-pound cans anymore.”

“Yes, darling.”

Twenty minutes later, as John is leaving for the office, he notices some cobwebs in the corner behind the sofa. Now he starts looking. His eyes go around the room, and he observes (as he has several times recently) that there is dirt behind all the furniture.

“Eloise!”

“Yes, darling.”

“When are we going to get the cleaning service?”

“But we’ve talked about it before; remember, the day after your birthday we outlined the whole plan…”

“Oh? Eloise, I think you work hard enough as it is, and if we both want a clean house, which I certainly do, why can’t we employ the cleaning service?”

“Oh, darling, you know how spooky I feel about having strangers in the house. Those cleaning men are always underfoot. They shove the furniture around, and I can’t do a thing while they’re here except stand around and bite my fingernails. Really, darling, I’d much rather do the cleaning myself.”

“I know, Eloise, but you’re terribly busy as it is now, with the children, and the PTA, and your reorganization at the Red Cross, and that business you’re doing for senile elderly people. I understand how important all these things are. But after all, there are only so many hours in the day, and you can’t be so active and keep the house clean too.”

Eloise looks at John. Her eyes grow watery. She bites her lips and says, “That’s all right, darling, I’ll do the very best I can. Anything I can do to help you by being a good wife, is what I want to do.” With this Eloise turns and walks into the bedroom to make the bed hastily before leaving for a meeting of the local Red Cross chapter.

John leaves the house and heads for his automobile. All the way to the office he finds his stomach growling. A throbbing ache is beginning at the back of his neck and spreading up into the occipital region. He feels rather bitter toward the world at large-but he knows only vaguely that it is related to his wife.

However oversimplified the above incident may seem, it does exemplify a particular behavior pattern commonplace in many marriages.

In this case, Eloise is a master tactician, even though she doesn’t realize it. By assuming the “one-down” position, by appearing to be considerate, thoughtful, and above all patient, she is slowly driving John nuts. He is angry and frustrated for no apparent reason, and so can only conclude (unbelievingly) that something must be wrong with him alone.

What has characterized their conversation is the absence of a completed transaction. No decisions have been made.

Eloise’s manner suggests to John that she will do anything he desires, but the logic of his past experiences with her indicates that she will not. He is completely frustrated and angry and doesn’t know how to deal with the situation. His own conclusions about it swing from one extreme to the other; sometimes he believes his wife is a liar, and at other times he feels there is something terribly wrong with him.

Both of his conclusions are correct. But husband and wife alike are unaware of what they are doing.