marital

Do Women Ever Admit That They’re Wrong?

Ron Johnson communication, Connection, Development, emotional maturity, family, Feelings, love, marital, men's issues, mindfulness, relationships, Self-Awareness, social esteem

Do Women Ever Admit That They’re Wrong? What an outrageous question, it must seem. I would never have thought of asking such a question, which of course, is not a question, but rather a rhetorical question suggesting that women don’t ever admit that they’re wrong. This rhetorical question came to me from the even more outrageous statement underneath it when he frankly said, “I don’t think women ever admit that they’re wrong. It made me think, and the more I think, I have come to believe that there is some important truth in this statement, however outrageous it sounds. Let me discuss a number of things that might relate the thinking that many (certainly not all) women don’t seem to admit to ever being wrong. I want to start with a short essay on the whole concept of being “wrong.” I will discuss some cases that I have had over my years, some very recently, some many years ago where I encountered women who couldn’t seem to see, much less admit that they had done or said things wrong. Then I want to consider possible causes of this phenomenon, how men contribute or perhaps even cause this phenomenon, how women indeed know that they are wrong but fail to communicate that fact, and finally what men and women might be able to do in order to deal with this phenomenon.

What does “wrong” mean?

There are at several ways of understanding the simple word “wrong”:

  • Saying or doing something that you determine is wrong
  • Saying or doing something that someone else says is wrong
  • Doing the right thing despite there being a law against it (like Gandhi challenging British rule in India and MLJ challenging white rule in the South)
  • Doing something that is right one day and wrong the next or vice versa
  • Doing something that is wrong even though you didn’t know it was wrong
  • Doing something wrong because you don’t know how to do it right
  • And probably lots of other kinds of “wrong”

Examples

Most of my practice is devoted and dedicated to men, namely performing psychological evaluations with men, helping men understand and communicate themselves, and generally helping men be better men, fathers, husbands, workers, and friends. A modest amount of my work is with couples, some of whom I have seen off and on for years, some of whom I saw just once or twice, and some of whom I have more recently seen. Positions, ages, and other identifications of these people have been changed but I have endeavored to keep the essence true to the people as well as this outrageous consideration that women can’t admit that they’re wrong.

Jim is a pastor, which his wife, Patty, has been largely pastor’s wife with all the duties that that role requires, mother, housewife, and grandmother. These folks, both people of immaculate character, originally came to see me some 25 years ago, worked with Deb and me collectively and individually for a few years and then didn’t return until a couple of years ago. I won’t describe the marital challenges that were presented but theirs was not the terrible phenomenon of yelling and screaming that sadly so often typifies unhappy marriages. They had, however, not found a way to actually understand each other and deal with much that was truly in need of repair, both individually and then collectively. Importantly, Jim suffered a modest amount of sexual abuse as a child even though he came from a pretty good hard working farm family (the abuser was a coach and relative of the family). Patty came from a very repressive family where emotions were almost never spoken and her mother was probably schizophrenic as well as frequently threatening suicide. When Jim told Patty that he loved her during their later dating years, she said that she didn’t “understand why” he would say something, then saying that she had never heard such a statement from anyone. There has been much that we have discussed during our recent hours together but perhaps the most common talk has been that while this pastor has been in very significant pastoral and administrative positions, he has failed to keep Patty informed as to their consistently declining financial status to the point that they would file bankruptcy aside from his ethical/moral reaction against that action. He continued to feel terribly ashamed of what he has done over these years, much of which has been to afford Patty way too much liberty in spending, both on herself, traveling to be with her adult children, and giving to her children and grandchildren. So, as a result, much of our conversation has had to deal with Jim’s feeling bad about his lack of financial scrutiny and Patty’s disappointment in him. I once asked her if she felt any responsibility of the excessive expenditures, many of which came at her hands. Her response: “I left all the financial matters to Jim,” which meant that she took no responsibility for their financial dilemma. We might call this a bit of old school mother/housewife view of money, but it turned out to be more than that the more I questioned Patty. We might call this kind of “wrong” one where the person (Patty) didn’t actually know that it was irresponsible of her to spend money that they really didn’t have. Hearing Patty’s taking no responsibility knowing how much money they had in the bank, I asked her if she could tell me of any time where she had been wrong. To my immense surprise, she said that she couldn’t think of such a time. I heard, “Of course, I know that I am a sinner,” but this was soon qualified when I asked her if she could actually think of a “sin” that she had committed. She couldn’t think of one. This still amazes me, but I know that Patty worked diligently and successfully not only keeping all her feelings to herself but being carefully guarded on “not doing anything wrong” when she was growing up so as not to disturb her mother.

This might seem like an extreme case, but it is not. I have often found that women can admit to “not being imperfect and making mistakes” on the one hand but not being able to admit to anything specific that they said or do that was untoward.

Jan and Sam came to me recently, but more accurately, Jan came to me voluntarily and Sam came to me with the proverbial female hand in his back as he entered my office. Jan’s complaint was that Sam simply did a lot of things without her knowledge, much less approval. She noted that he made a “major change in profession” that affected the family finances (positively, have you) but he hadn’t informed her of the change. Sam, like many men is exceedingly independent having grown up in a family where he was ignored and rejected by his stepfather, so he learned to do things on his own, quite successfully for the most part. Jan grew up in a family where “everything was perfect and the family was always first.” These differences having been said, what ensued (and is yet ensuing) is Jan’s singular interest in Sam’s “problems” while admitting that she “is not a perfect person, I know.” When I do an intake assessment on a couple, I meet first with the couple, and then individually with each partner, the latter meetings devoted to their individual social histories. But in this case, Jan evidently informed my secretary that “one hour simply won’t be enough” even though I usually can accomplish what I need to learn about one’s social background in an hour. When I met with Sam, we hardly needed the whole hour but I learned of his history, not nearly so much, however, about any kind of problem in the family, but how he coped with it. When I met with Jan, I couldn’t keep her on the topic of her life because she spent the entire hour talking about what was wrong with Sam, and because I needed a second hour regarding her own history, I had a hard time getting anything substantial because of her desire to tell me more things that were wrong about Sam including her concerted belief that he suffered greatly as a child and had “issues” because of the suffering. When I met with the two of them together to give an interpretation of my findings and the psychological test results, it was functionally impossible for Jan to admit to any kind of error, even the tendency she has of seeing only what was wrong with Sam. Again, I was amazed that she, a very intelligent professional person, couldn’t see that she might be a bit “wrong” in being overly critical.

I see another professional couple, the woman a physician and the man a successful salesman. Simply stated, I have had to work diligently to get the woman to see that she has any significant part in the breakdown of the marriage. Granted, the man, like so many men, has a tendency to get angry at a drop of the hat, but much of his anger is his wife’s relentless telling him what to do, what is wrong with him, and otherwise criticizing him. When I was recently with them, I couldn’t get by her saying, “I am only telling the truth. Why can’t he hear it? Why is he so “defensive?” Why is he “defensive,” I thought? Because you are criticizing him all the time. Interestingly, the woman admits that she has “an anxiety disorder,” but is unwilling for me to tackle the origin of that anxiety even though the origin is her obviously seriously dysfunctional family. She comes from a family where, like Jan with whom I just spoke, where she couldn’t say anything of how she felt, whereas the man comes from an alcoholic, angry family where he learned to drink and be angry from his father.

Enough about what is “wrong” with women not admitting that they’re ever wrong. What about the men in their lives?

The men who contribute to women’s inability to admit that they’re wrong

Most of this has to do with the fact that we men have not been raised in a social environment where we talked about feelings, particularly feelings that were hurt, disappointment, discouragement, and sadness. These words, and the important concept underneath these words, were simply not part of the male environment in which we were raised. The typical male environment is one of some kind of competition, often academic or athletic and sometimes social. It is very hard to be raised as an introverted boy because boys are supposed to be extraverted. It is hard for a boy to be in school where the 3 R’s are all hard for him. It is hard for a boy to be raised where he’s got the 3 R’s but not the athletic interest, much less the ability to play sports. And importantly, it is very common for the emotions of joy and anger to dominate a boy’s emotional environment, thus abandoning the emotions of fear and sadness. Girls grow up with fear and sadness all the time especially in middle school (junior high) and are not good at being angry. This social environment leads to men being openly angry with everyone potentially and women taking a more circuitous route of channeling anger into criticism, not unlike the drama and gossip they learned about in middle school.

So we have a kind of unconscious conspiracy among men and women with the whole business of feelings and the subcategory of emotions: men get angry and feel joy; women get sad and feel fear. Granted, this is a blanket statement, but more true than false. And when men really find sadness, they become profoundly depressed leading to the fact that men are six times more likely to suicide than women despite the fact that women are 10 times more likely to threaten suicide. And when men find fear, they are quite overwhelmed with it. When women find anger, they turn it into vitriol neglecting their own part in whatever the discussion was.

My work with men, which as I said is my primary work, is almost always about helping them know the breath of their feelings, like hurt and disappointment, and then the underlying emotion that is always sadness. I have heard many men say, “I’ve never told anyone this before, but….” And if I am really helpful with men, I help them conquer anger…entirely helping them understand that anger is always secondary behind hurt, disappointment, and sadness. And all of these feelings are based on something that one loves…and has lost. So, the task in helping women get over their seeming inability to admit to being wrong lies primarily with men getting over being angry all the time and admitting that they have a “love problem,” as I say, namely having lost something that he has loved but also having skipped the sadness that should always result from any loss.

My singular suggestion to women about being wrong is this: You might be “right” with what you see but wrong in saying it, which can then tend you to see primarily what is wrong with him more than what might be wrong with you.

Love IV: I See You

Ron Johnson emotional maturity, Feelings, love, marital, mindfulness, relationships, Self-Awareness, Spiritual

Deb and I have many statements that occasionally comprise elements of our many conversations, some of which I noted in a previous blog called Racks and Cutters. Thinking and writing about love these days reminded me of a statement that we heard in a movie that has stuck with us. The movie is Avatar and the statement is “I see you.” The natives of the planet sometimes greeted each other with what amounts to a “hello” or “how are you” with a deeper statement: “I see you,” which meant that they “saw” (= understood, valued, and loved) the other person. Deb and I frequently “see” each other in this way, and I invite you to consider doing the same with the people you love. Perhaps you will “see” them better. So, how does one see people better, and how can I make myself seen better? And what does seeing have to do with loving? Perhaps this “seeing” thing is another undefinable thing, like feelings, time, and love. It seems so important in my trade, but even more important in daily life, especially around people who are important to us. “Seeing” is based on how you feel, what you see, how you react to what you see, what you do, and what you say. However, seeing someone also is dependent on whether that person is “seeable.” We will first discuss what you see and then discuss the being seen part of this process.

Seeing

What you feel

Again, I dare refer you to our little book, I Want to Tell You How I Feel, where we suggested the heart of saying how you feel is to know that there is a “something” inside of you that you want to say or otherwise express. Likewise, in this business of seeing other people, the element of knowing how you feel is the first and most important ingredient of “seeing” someone. Deb and I often tell budding therapists that the most important thing that they have to do is know how they feel when they are with a patient. But what does it mean to “feel”?

When we wrote the feelings book, we spent a good deal of time thinking and eventually writing about what this feeling thing actually means. Briefly stated, feelings erupt first in the unconscious elements of physical sensations and emotions, and then move into the conscious elements of cognition. To know what you feel, note these four elements: physical, emotional, cognitive, and active (or verbal). You will note that you always have these four elements of feelings but likely you gravitate towards one of them, say cognition or emotion. When you feel “something,” this something is not wrong, but it may not be clear to you why you feel it. I often feel quite emotionally moved, often to tears, when I hear someone tell me about themselves in my office. This is because I “see” the individual in front of me, something that we will shortly discuss.

What you see

When you understand how you feel, the next item in “seeing” is really believing what you see with the other person. You may see one of the four elements of feeling: physical, emotional, cognitive, or active. You may see what the person does. You may “see” what the person says. You may “see” something that doesn’t fit into physical/emotional/cognitive/active: you may have a “sense” or an intuition about the other person. If you are interested in the whole matter of relationships, which are always founded on some kind of love, you may see something that you really love, whether it is your friends’ actions, words, or otherwise. This kind of intuitional seeing is perhaps the most important of all because ideally your intuition does not depend on what you see physically, think logically, or feel emotionally.

Intuitional seeing be quite brilliant. It tends to come at what we must call a “spiritual” level. People often say something like, “I just feel…” or “I just know…” when they see something in someone by intuition. I must advise you that there are two very important matters when you have an intuition of someone, one beautiful and valuable, one dangerous. If your intuitional seeing is truly spiritual, i.e. godly and true, it is not wrong. The words that you come up with in this kind of seeing may be wrong. Everything we ever say that is primarily emotional is wrong in the sense of an imperfect reflection of inner feeling. But be careful with this kind of seeing because you will have an inclination to think too much or feel emotional too much. If thinking and feeling are fused into an intuition, you cannot trust the intuition. Thinking and feeling are part of you and your inner self, not a part of the other person. It is very hard to focus on true seeing rather than seeing through your own lens, like emotion, cognition, or some other judgment. This is not to say that you shouldn’t have emotion and thought but rather a recognition that when you see someone, it is not about you at all. It is not about what you feel emotionally or think cognitively. It is about the other person.

What you do with what you see

This is very delicate because if you really see something in another person, something deeply spiritual has happened: you have seen the person’s soul. When you see someone’s soul, you see God, or perhaps a part of God or a reflection of God. You are in the holy of holies that is spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is a very sacred place and you need to see it as godly and sacred. It is also a very private place, not one that you enter without great respect and caution. Hopefully, you see that this kind of seeing is deeply spiritual and very real but not something that we very often do for many reasons, not the least of which is that most people do not allow themselves to be seen. So, if you really see your friend, hold your breath, hold your thoughts, hold your feelings, and just observe this wonder. It will be wonderful.

Wonderful as it is to see someone, this is not generally a time to say anything. Rather, it is a time to feel something. I use the term “feeling” in its four components (physical, emotional, cognitive, and active), so depending on your own tendency to experience and express your own feelings, you will “feel” one of these four things. Keep your feelings to yourself. This is not a recommendation to repress your feelings but rather to value them and govern them so you can keep your focus on “seeing” your friend.

If you trust your intuition and keep your own feelings at bay, you have the opportunity to see the person…if that person is “see-able” (we’ll get there in a minute). Now comes the remarkable thing about seeing someone: You will love the person you see. No doubt about it: if you see someone, really see the person, you will be compelled to love the person. I won’t attempt to define this basic human need/experience of love because it is simply to profound to be defined. Love can be felt, and it can be carefully expressed. But love has to first be felt before you can decide if and when you say something about it. If you see someone and come to have this godly experience of loving the person, this experience is good in and of itself. You don’t have to say it; you don’t have to do anything. You just need to feel it. People tend to do this kind of seeing and loving with infants and animals although people with what we call naturalistic intelligence can also do this kind of seeing and loving with nature. Other people have love for property, ideas, or activity. But our focus is not so much on non-personal elements of love but rather the love that comes naturally and unavoidably when you see someone. Grasp it. Name it. Feel it. If it is good for you to see and love, it is good for your friend to be seen and loved.

When you see and ultimately love your friend, you are being something like a therapist to that person. The English word “therapist” comes from the Greek word, therapeuo, which means healing. Good therapy is healing, and the best of therapy comes from seeing…and the natural addition of loving the person you see. This happens to me all the time, in fact so often that I feel truly privileged to see and love the people I see. Sometimes, granted, I get lost in my thoughts or emotions, but when I’m at my best I see and love without trying to do so. The best therapists have found ways to encourage a spirit of openness to being seen. Unfortunately, many therapists don’t know how to understand and value this seeing, much less manage it. This leads us to our next discussion: how can we be “seen”?

Being seen

I want to be seen

There is a real oddity about this whole business of being “seen” because it seems that sometimes we want to be seen and other times we don’t want to be seen. Let me try to make some sense of this conundrum because it really does make sense. Furthermore, there are people who want to be seen by everyone and there are people who want to be seen by only a few people. We call the former “external” people, otherwise known as extraverts, and we call the latter “internal” people, otherwise known as introverts. Furthermore, there are times when I want to be seen and there are times that I don’t want to be seen. And there are things about me that I want to keep private and others that I want to be public. Setting aside these differences in psychological type for a moment, I will assert that everyone wants to be seen, but at the same time don’t want to be seen. Finally, there is the further paradox of wanting to be seen but not wanting to be open enough to be able to be seen. This is what I see with most of the people I see. This is wanting it both ways, something that often plagues us as humans, like I want to have a job I like but I want to make a lot of money that doesn’t come with doing what I like. Or, I want to be safe at all times but I want the things that come from stepping out of my safety zone. Let’s examine this paradox.

I am afraid of being seen

A book written not long ago was entitled, Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am (J. Power, 1969), but there have been many more books and articles written about why people are afraid to be open. In a nutshell, I am afraid to be seen because I have been hurt in the past when I was seen and I don’t want to be hurt again. Sometimes, people can remember why they are afraid to be open and some cannot, but more importantly, most people have been hurt many times over many years when they have been open, so it is natural that they would be reticent about being open again. I won’t elaborate on this experience of how people have been hurt in the past because it lies beyond the scope of our current discussion aside from stating that resistance to being open is always related to unfinished hurts. I must also defer you to previous writings about what the term “unfinished hurts” means.

So, if I am reticent to be open, how can I be seen, how can I be loved, and how can I be healed? I can’t be. I can’t be loved, really loved, healingly loved without being seen This is why people with so-called mental health problems (a term I almost never use because of its negative implications) rarely overcome these problems: they can’t be open, so they can’t be loved, so they can’t be healed. Good therapy makes an attempt to engage this process of seeing-come-loving-come healing. Good parenting, good friendships, good partnerships, and good marriages do the same. But even in the best of therapists’ offices, it is difficult for people to be open because they have just been too hurt over too many years and to go there is frightening. Just as often as people actively resist being open, they don’t actually know how to be open.

I don’t know how to allow someone to see me

Why is it that people don’t know how to be open? Basically and simply because they have been hurt too much when they have been open. The hurt that people have experienced has been in the form of criticism and judgment. They had times when they have been open but the person with whom they were open was not capable of loving them. More importantly, the other person didn’t really see them, much less love them. The other person saw something that they didn’t understand or didn’t like. But they didn’t actually see the person: they only saw something that was a reflection of that person, like what they wore, what they said, or what they did. Most failure to develop a spirit of openness comes from a myriad of times of having been open only to have been criticized and judged. You see, when someone criticizes you or judges you, they are not seeing you; they see something about you, like what you said or did, but they didn’t see your soul. In some cases, people have never been seen, which is the tragedy that often leads to what used to be called a character disorder, now called a personality disorder. These people are not truly disordered; rather, they are not developed. They have not developed because they have not been loved, and they have not been loved because they have not been seen. Whether in a therapist’s office, the living room with a family member, or in a park with a friend, they need to be seen. It is very hard for people to be open when they have long ago forgotten what it was like to be seen and loved, if that ever even happened. They have to learn to be open. And it will be painful.

Learning to be open

This is intrinsically difficult for most people, difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is the aforementioned personal history of having been criticized or judged, or worse yet never haven seen. What happens in these circumstances is that the brain takes over and protects you from further hurt and harm. By the way, the brain does not distinguish hurt and harm; it is all the same to the brain and it is to be avoided, quite naturally if you think about it. Furthermore, the brain does not know time, so everything that is potentially hurtful or harmful is felt by the brain to be in the present. This is the cause of all anxiety, which is fear of future hurt, while anger is the feeling of past hurt. But the brain does not distinguish past and future from the present. It is all in the present. So the fear of openness is a brain function that has to be challenged by the mind, and it is not easy to do. This brain/mind duality is the cause of your “being of two minds,” “feeling one thing and thinking another,” “thinking in two directions” and many more paradoxes of mind/brain functioning. Learning to be open is a challenge because your brain is protecting you from hurt/harm thinking that the danger is in the present. The brain has logged the hurt that you experienced when you were open and damaged as a result.

Learning to be open needs to come in stages. You have to learn when to be open (not when you’re drinking or at 2 o’clock in the morning), where to be open (not in the grocery store), what to say, if anything, when you’re open, and with whom to be open. Importantly, most people are intrinsically dangerous to you when you are open because most people simply don’t trust what they see, much the love that seeing might engender. Rather, they get overwhelmed with their own thoughts and feelings and possibly their own hurts. So, when I suggest you need to be open to be seen and loved, I offer this suggestion with great caution because you shouldn’t do it with most people at most times and in most places. Know your audience and you will be seen.

If you are going to try to be open, you might need to instruct the person in front of you how to see, how to keep criticism and suggestion out of the picture and just see. Try this once or twice and you will likely fail, or the listener might fail. Then try again, maybe with the same person, maybe with a different person, maybe in a different place. You need practice. What you will find is that you will be hurt many times, but then you will also be seen and love at other times. It is worth the risk. Then there is the possibility that you and your friend can see each other, know each other, and ultimately love each other…better. Remember the previous blog: Not Loved Right. Perhaps you can be loved right for the first time in a long time.

Being open with each other

This is the ideal, especially in intimate relationships and it can be done. For instance in my current and recent past I have seen many couples who do not see one another because each of the partners does not allow themselves to be open for fear of being hurt, which is itself based on some earlier life event that was very damaging. Then over time, each of these people hurt each other more leading them to come to my office for “marriage counseling.” They don’t need marriage counseling. They need therapy, they need to be healed, and most importantly, they need each other to heal each other. For example:

  • Couple A. She is a very successful professional person who lived with a very angry father. As a result she comes to anger too quickly skipping the hurt that always underlies anger. The man came from a very abusive and restrictive family with a stepparent who was clearly abusive. This led to him being afraid of being open and being hurt more.
  • Couple B. He is a very devote pastor who came from a sexually abusive family with all that goes with it, namely sexual dysfunction. She came from a family much like the previous man’s family where she could do no right and learned to be so careful with what she said or did that she essentially never says what she feels…again, for fear of being hurt again.
  • Couple C. She is very extraverted and outspoken having been raised in a largely good family but one in which he was given the permission to speak his thoughts and feelings, so much so that she has a tendency of expressing herself with little understanding, much less any regard for the impact of his speech. He is much more introverted and came into the family without much privilege to say how he feels. Unfortunately, he saw that his potential wife was a stable and fun person but most probably did not really love him. Rather she saw her as a good partner. Over time they both hurt each other, so much so that the man is divorcing his “good” wife with a great amount of hostility
  • Couple D. Both parties came into the marriage with wounds from their previous marriages and saw the goodness of each other but not the wounds. Unfortunately, these wounds not only failed to heal, the people in the marriage hurt each other for years without meaning to do so and with little awareness of how what they said or did was hurtful, adding flames to the fire of hurt from their previous marriages.

These are but a few examples (identifying information adjusted) of how people fail to be open and thus fail to be seen and eventually loved. In my work with all of these couples I am attempting to help them be open with each other so they can be seen, loved, and healed. I can’t do it myself.

I leave you with the admonition previously stated that you need to be loved as we all do. To be loved you need to be seen. To be seen, you need to be open. To be open, you will be vulnerable to hurt and love with about a 50-50 chance for either. It is worth the bet. You are older now, and even if you were terribly wounded as a child, as an adolescent, or in your previous relationship, you can weather the storm of hurt better. Moreover, you just might be loved…and healed

Why Did She Leave Me?

Ron Johnson Development, Discovery, emotional maturity, Feelings, marital, men's issues, mindfulness, relationships, Self-Awareness

My wife left me…again. Yesterday. Bummer? Not exactly. She has a tendency to leave me every now and then. She loves to go to “her canyons” in UT and hike. Sometimes she has dragged me along or allowed me to travel and hike with her. Once she left me and went to Portugal to hike. She called me up and said, “I am so glad you’re not with me.” After a pause she then said, “I miss you terribly. I wish you were here.” I use this as an illustration of the centrality of paradox, and particularly of paradoxical feelings. See? She was certainly glad that I wasn’t with her, mostly so she could go at her own pace, do her own thing, and be alone. As an introvert she really enjoys her time alone. She particularly enjoys the two days of the week that she doesn’t see me except for early AM and late PM when I go to our Madison office. She is usually seeing clients on those days, but also enjoys puttering around in her garden or green house…again without my intrusion.

This time when she has left me, her destination is not so clear. When she left yesterday morning, she said that she “thought” that she would go to St. Croix, WI, about 4 hours away at the beginning of the Ice Age Trail that goes 1000 miles across Wisconsin. I doubt that she will walk/hike 1000 miles, because she would have to walk back another 1000 miles to get her car. I expect that she will walk or hike for a while and then God knows what she might do. Go north? Go west…maybe to the canyons? Decide to come home? I’m sure she’ll be OK with whatever she does because she is a person who trusts her feelings. Note that her “feelings” are not just an emotional experience but a deeper personal experience that we call “spiritual”. When I tell people about our tendency to “trust our feelings” and “just go west” or something, most people are envious, while others are appalled that we don’t have a plan. Planners are people we call “high boundary” people, who like boundaries, rules, and plans. Low boundary people like spontaneity and freedom. Both are good ways of life. The difficulty comes when a high boundary person is trying to plan what s/he might do with a low boundary person, who would really rather “just go.”

Enough about Deb and me. This blog is about several men I have known who have been “left” in one way or another. You might resonate with one or them.

The woman seeking a divorce after a long marriage

Jane left Jim after 34 years of marriage. She struggled with leaving him for at least two years that I know of (she saw Deb for s while she was trying to figure out what to do about being largely unhappy in her marriage. Jane did what many women do (and perhaps some men as well…but that’s another story): she stayed married far longer than she should have stayed married. In Jane’s case there were several factors, all of which amounted to what other people would think if she got a divorce from Jim. There was the “Christian” disapproval of divorce. (Actually, this was evangelical Christian disapproval. Many mainline Christian churches, as well as Christian denominations have a place for divorce, find it valuable and godly, but not so with many evangelicals despite the fact that there are nearly the same number of evangelicals who get divorced as there are non-evangelicals.) Many evangelicals seek to justify a divorce on so-called biblical grounds, namely a singular statement Jesus seemed to have made that divorce is justified in circumstances of adultery. I knew one woman who got a divorce justifying it on these “grounds” because her husband had been using pornography. She asked a “Baptist” (read, conservative, evangelical) pastor if pornography was, indeed “adultery” and was glad to see that she could divorce “justifiably.” In Jane’s case, she did not seek this artificial reason for divorcing Jim. She is quite introverted by nature and introverts have a distinct tendency to keep most or all of their feelings to themselves.

I think the more important thing about the situation with Jane is that she has never really been happy with her marriage to Jim. They shared a house, raised children, both worked professionally, and went to church faithfully. But from what I learned from Jane, albeit with intuition and conjecture, is that she should have married Jim. Or if she married him, she should have been honest with herself and with Jim that she had made a mistake marrying him. It is possible that 34 years ago the marriage could have ended quickly and found way to survive and thrive. But Jane stayed married, and I think she was never happy with him. Indeed, the two of them are quite different in personality but there seem to have been some deeper issues that Jane was not able to see. Sadly, now her perspective is that the marriage was wrong because Jim did this or that, didn’t do this or that. Indeed, Jim has made some significant mistakes in life as well as with Jane, but these divorce-related, attorney-aggravated attacks on Jim are a rouse. I think…and must say that I “think” Jane has never liked Jim and could never bright herself to admit to it. In a nutshell, Jane has not been honest with Jim about this, and probably has not been honest with herself. The theme of some women (and again, possibly many men, I suppose) not knowing how they feel (unhappy), or unable to express it, or unwilling to act on it.

The woman who “couldn’t do it anymore” and left

Mary and Matt were in a second marriage for both, each have suffered in previous marriages and each having children. They had been married for 15 years when Deb and I began to see them. From what I understand, Mary almost immediately talked about how Mike did this or that, or didn’t do this or that. But Deb is no therapist who allows any client to complain for long, so after the first sessions of complaints, she set the stage for Mary, namely to talk about herself, mature in her self-understanding and emotional awareness, and then to do something. Mike came to see me with the notorious “female hand in the back” syndrome, meaning, “You need to see the therapist.” Indeed, Mike was figuratively pushed into my office but we made a bit of progress, particularly on his tendency towards expressing anger easily, an almost universal phenomenon with the men that I see. I say that men have “A” problems, namely anger, avoidance, addiction, and accommodation. They usually don’t know how to express their deeper feelings, much hear feelings from anyone else. Mike cane for a while, and then Deb insisted that Mary and Mike come to see me together. I did my best, but I couldn’t get Mary beyond doing what so many people do, talk about the other person. I hear something like, “I’ll tell you how I feel. Mike….”
Wait a minute; I thought you were going to tell me how YOU felt, but all you did was talk about Mike and his alleged problems. I didn’t make much progress because it was quite obvious that Mary’s position was that Mike should somehow “change” in some unknown way. It seemed like she was saying, “I married you the way you are; now change.” After a particularly difficult session where Mary came after me with a vengeance because I was attempting to give Mike some hope in the marriage. I talked to Deb about the incident and said to Deb that I was either going to make a direct challenge to Mary or quit marital therapy altogether. Deb pleaded with me to do neither, and then she saw Mary the next day. Deb reminded Mary that therapy was not about the other person but about oneself, and furthermore Deb insisted that Mary “do something.” But Mary said that she didn’t know what to do. Neither did Deb.

That night Mary met Mike at the doorway and said, “I can’t do this anymore” and the proceeded to leave the house and go to their cabin for the night, perhaps permanently. Mary soon called Deb frantically two or three times, sobbing and overwhelmed that she had “fucked up” and didn’t know what to do .A few hours later Mary texted Mike without his response, and then again and again, and then called him. Mike apparently did not think he could talk to Mary expecting that it would be more of the same, namely he was “the problem.” But such was not the case. Somehow, in what we consider to be a “spiritual engagement,” she had found a way to see Mike for who he was, and then saw that she not only loved him, but also liked him. She came home after a sobbing-filled phone call, they talked for hours, and came to see me the next day.

I don’t really know what happened with Mary but her “doing something” turned out to be the right thing, namely doing something. Sometimes you have to move forward so that you can do a 180 and move backward or perhaps to the right or left.

The woman who left the perfect man

I’ve been seeing a 30-something man who has been very successful in business. He is honest, hard—working, expressive although introverted by nature, and generally kind to the people in his life. He has, unfortunately, not been very successful with women including the most recent female relationship, which lasted about nine months. Previously, he has had relationships that lasted a couple of years but never has been able to sustain anything with a woman long enough to establish a real bond and eventually a commitment to a life together. It appears that he has suffered from a phenomenon that I will next discuss, but more importantly, he is a good “catch” for any woman because of the ingredients just noted, like independent success in work, honesty, commitment, and genuine kindness. Guys like this often fail to sustain long-term relationships because they are so attractive to women, often women who are impressed with the guy’s physical appearance, vocational status, or general kindness. Who would leave such a man? This is the question Jack asked me when he came to see me because he was just at the end of this 9-month long relationship with Sidney that she ended, but for reasons that were not clear to him. She spoke of his being great in all areas but then said that “she was not ready to commit” and “needed to find herself.”

What happened to Jack has happened to many men who are good in many ways and “look good” to women. Women are initially attracted to the stability that such men offer, but eventually find the man “not good enough,” probably not exciting enough. Men like Jack are self-made, confident, and usually pretty successful in work but may not be all that some women want. They tend to attract women who they try to “fix”. This “fixing” comes after a few months in the relationship with the woman starts to be true to herself and displays the “deep hole” that I will describe next. I think that Jack couldn’t fix Sidney. More importantly, because of many women’s tendency to overly emotionalize, Jack was less emotional himself. More importantly, Jack is not emotionally mature himself, which means knowing what you feel, valuing what you feel, communicating what you feel, and governing what you feel. This, of course, leads to the man being able to hear and adjust to a woman’s feelings. Jack was good at listening but his tendency to fix Sidney didn’t work. It never does.

The women caused the man to leave

Many men become involved with women who have a “deep hole” in their soul. My previous blog was about deep hole people, whether male or female. Such people tend to be very attractive, often very sexually active, often outgoing, fun-loving, and very engaging. They are, in a nutshell, the bombshell woman that many men are attracted to…unfortunately. I don’t know how they develop this bombshell manner, but I suspect they have learned to “be attractive” to men, whether consciously or unconsciously. So they “get” men, but then they began to display the deep hole phenomenon that starts to deteriorate the relationship with the man. Like Jack, men usually try to “fix” these women, but there can be no successful fixing of the deep hole. It needs to be healed. Deep hole people, whether male or female, tend to be in relationships quickly but not successfully, sometimes going from person to person, often being promiscuous, and usually having some kind of addiction, whether behavioral or chemical. I’ve recently seen two such men and one gay man who was “left” by the deep hole man he was with for a few months.

In one case, the man was somewhat sophisticated in psychological matters and concluded that the proper diagnosis for his former partner was a “personality disorder.” That was probably right, but I don’t like the diagnosis as it speaks of what is wrong with someone rather than what is right, much what can be done about it. The other “left” man simply gave up on his deep hole woman after trying to fix her for years. Both of these men were exhausted, one still exhausted from the end of his relationship a year after it ended. What happened is that these men got so drained by the deep hole women in their lives, that they finally got a grip and ended the relationship. In both cases the woman protested loudly that she loved the guy in her life and promised to be “better,” but it was too late. They had drained the life out of the guy who was trying to fill the empty hole. The gay guy had a similarly deep hole person whom he left because he couldn’t tolerate his lover’s promiscuity anymore. He was driven to leave his lover just as the deep hole women had driven the guys to leave them.

The woman who left because the man couldn’t

Now I get personal. This is me. I am not alone in this category partly because many men really want to leave the women in their lives but can’t seem to do it. I was married for the wrong reason: I wanted to have sex, and at that stage of my life, I couldn’t have sex while unmarried. Perhaps, more importantly, I couldn’t deal with the sadness and hurt my wife displayed when I suggested that we break up…even “for a while.” I caved. My wife was a lovely woman, but I was the one who propped her up in many ways, encouraged her, and helped her make a life. Eventually, I got tired of all the work and began to drift away. I drifted into another woman’s arms, also a good woman, but perhaps also a woman with needs that I couldn’t manage. However wrong it was for me to have an affair, it was the only way I could see of getting out of a marriage to a “good woman,” but someone who was not good for me. You understand, hopefully, that I delete much of the rest of the story for reasons of propriety and privacy of all concerned. So my wife left me because I didn’t leave her. I most certainly shouldn’t have married her, and most certainly should have trusted my feelings in the very first year of our 14-year marriage when I suspected that I shouldn’t have married her. I didn’t trust those feelings and paid an enormous price, the price exacted by the scorned woman. I won’t give the details, but this is now 40 years in the past and no longer are important to me. There are many men who somehow get into a relationship or marriage on shaky grounds, stay in it too long, and end up being left by the women that they don’t really want to be with in the first place. You can’t blame the woman here.

 

My encouragement to men is always to trust their feelings, however murky these feelings are. This is the core of the work I do with men and it is the core of work Deb does with women. It is hard work, but it is valuable work. Many marriages wouldn’t happen, would end quickly, or would be healed with good therapy if the man could be honest with his feelings. We can’t blame the women for our lack of courage, wisdom, and emotional maturity. It’s not up to the woman to do something. And when it happens, it is up to the man to see what he has not seen, not been willing to see, or otherwise ignores. The men that I see in the “left man” syndrome need to look at themselves, not the woman. It’s not her fault.