Dennis Prager

To be admired by the women they love
12/19/2010 – Dennis Prager -

It is said that the one question about men and women that even the great Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, could not answer was: What do women want?

Whether or not Freud actually admitted his ignorance on this question is irrelevant. The very popularity of the anecdote testifies to one incontrovertible fact: A lot of men don’t know the answer.

It is probably fair to say that a lot of women also don’t know the answer. If they did, all they would have to do is tell men. That would solve the riddle — and make most men and women very happy.

So, to the extent that this is a great riddle, it is so because most members of both sexes seem not to know the answer.

Adding support to the widespread belief that what women want is close to unknowable is the underlying presumption that just about everybody knows what men want.

The number of Internet jokes that portray women’s wants as complex and men’s as simple is a testament to how widespread these assumptions about the two sexes are. Three examples illustrate this:

The first example is the one that begins: “HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN.” Listed beneath that heading is this: “Compliment her, respect her, honor her, cuddle her, kiss her, caress her, love her, stroke her, tease her, comfort her, protect her, hug her, hold her, spend money on her, wine and dine her, buy things for her, listen to her, care for her, stand by her, support her, hold her, go to the ends of the Earth for her.”

That long list is followed by: “HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN.” And listed beneath is this: “Show up naked. Bring food.”

The second Internet example: “Q: What is the difference between men and women? A: A woman wants one man to satisfy her every need. A man wants every woman to satisfy his one need.”

And a third Internet example shows a box divided into two parts. Under the part labeled “Women” are 40 dials and knobs. Under the part labeled “Men” is one switch, marked “On-Off.”

As with most generalizations, there is much truth to these. Nevertheless, I take issue with both presumptions: that what women want is a riddle that would stump the Sphinx and that what men want is so easy it could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

In fact, I believe that both are relatively simple to answer (though neither is simple to achieve).

What does a man most want? Answer: He most wants to be admired by the woman he loves.

One proof is that the most devastating thing a woman can do to her man is to hold him in contempt. That is so devastating to a marriage that, over time, it is often more toxic than an affair. I am fairly certain that more marriages survive an affair, as difficult as that is, than contempt. Of course, this goes in both directions, but when a woman shows contempt toward her man, his very manhood is called into question.

My father and mother were married 69 years. As my brother and I have heard countless times, “She put me on a pedestal” was the quality my father most often cited in describing what a wonderful wife my mother was. She admired him, and to him that was everything. On the other hand, in describing her love for my father over all those years, my mother never once said, “He put me on a pedestal” (despite the fact that he constantly praised her). Rather, she always spoke of what a “great man” he was, how “brilliant,” etc. Of course, this is just one example, but I think it applies to the majority of men and women.

The obvious upshot of this thesis is that in order to gain a woman’s love a man must make — and keep — himself admirable.

Boys know this instinctively. Studies that have observed boys and young men reveal how much harder they work at anything — sports come immediately to mind — when they know girls are watching them.

That is why many single men in our society (often erroneously but understandably) place so much emphasis on what car they drive: They want to impress women. Yet, men couldn’t care less what car a woman drives. In fact, for most men a woman arriving on a first date in a relatively inexpensive car renders her more desirable than if she showed up in an expensive luxury car — unless the man is looking to be supported by a woman. But few women are attracted to a man they know in advance they will have to support.

So, although the Internet jokes are right about men wanting sex, it isn’t sex men most want from their woman. They want to be admired — and sex is one manifestation of a woman’s admiration for her man. When a man is regularly denied sex, in his eyes that means that his wife does not hold him in high esteem. Worse, he actually feels humiliated as a man. That, not the sex per se, is why regular denial devastates a man.

So, then, if what a man most wants is to be admired by his woman, what is it that a woman most wants?

That is the subject of the next column.

But here’s a hint. If we begin with the assumption that men and women are made to bond with one another, what she most wants must be in some way related to what he most wants.

As we shall see, it is.

HT: NRO

In them, he declared unconstitutional the federal definition of “marriage”—the union of one man and one woman. This traditional definition prompted the judge to opine that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship between [the federal definition of marriage] and a legitimate government objective.”

Thus did one of the bright lights of our federal judiciary hold that marriage as it has been defined for at least two millennia cannot be justified under any conceivable factual scenario. That wasn’t all: He added that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the [traditional definition of marriage].” Apparently, male-female biological, psychological, and emotional complementary has never caught the judge’s notice.

So how did we get to this bizarre, insulting opinion.

In the early 1990s “marriage” was defined as the union of one man and one woman all across America. However, great concern arose nationally when the Hawaii Supreme Court appeared to be on the verge of declaring its traditional marriage law unconstitutional. The fear lay in the possibility that a same-sex married couple from Hawaii might move to another state and successfully demand recognition of the Hawaii union under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In response, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Most famously, it modified the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause so each state could determine its own marriage policy without concern that another jurisdiction—like Hawaii—could use the U.S. Constitution to overturn it. At present, 29 states have adopted constitutional amendments to explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Twelve additional states have statutory laws restricting marriage to this historic and natural definition. Thus, a total of 41 states explicitly define marriage traditionally either through their state constitutions or by statutes.
DOMA contained another provision, however, that defined “marriage” and “spouse” for federal purposes. It was this statutory enactment that was the subject of the legal challenges in Massachusetts.

This simple provision reads: “In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This definition is neither brimming with prejudice nor irrationality.

The House report accompanying DOMA noted that “‘marriage’ appears in more than 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and the word ‘spouse’ appears more than 3,100 times.” It added that with “very limited exceptions, these terms are not defined in federal law.”

The report also made clear that this federal definition would not “have any effect whatsoever on the manner in which any state…might choose to define these words.” No existing federal provision using the two terms had ever been enacted with anything other than the traditional meanings in mind.

Therefore, DOMA was not changing the law. Rather, with Hawaii seemingly preparing to redefine “marriage,” Congress believed the federal meaning of the terms should be made explicit.

DOMA’s constitutionality was widely accepted in 1996. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois of the Clinton Justice Department concluded that DOMA “would be sustained as constitutional” and that there were insufficient legal issues raised to “necessitate an appearance” by a Justice Department representative at the bill’s hearing.

In stark contrast, President Obama’s Justice Department has been undermining the law in its filings since the summer of 2009. The current administration has told various courts that it favors repeal of the law and considers DOMA “discriminatory.” It provided a primer in a footnote on the current literature showing that same-sex parenting is every bit the equal of male-female parenting. With a legal defense like that, who needs enemies?

The two decisions by Judge Tauro were so poorly reasoned that most observers believe they will certainly be appealed by the Obama Justice Department. Based on their previous statements, however, any effort to have Tauro reversed is likely to be half-hearted. Thus, it will be up to private parties and the states that have acted pursuant to DOMA to defend the traditional marriage definition as friends of the court. One can only hope and pray that sanity will prevail at the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

HT: Human Events

by Fr. George Morelli | 3/15/2007

Christian marriage is an exalted vocation. Marriage, as the Apostle Paul taught, replicates the relationship between Christ and the Church where Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride. Bridegrooms are called to love and care for their bride with selfless commitment. “Husbands love your wives,” St. Paul wrote, “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:21).

Love is relational, and the icon of pure and undefiled love is the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). We catch glimpses of the nature of this love because it overflows to mankind, particularly in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. St. Paul described this love as kenotic (self-emptying), particularly when Christ forsook the prerogatives of divinity to assume human nature in order to save mankind. The love was so certain, so sure, and so complete, that it led to His death on our behalf.

In Christian marriage, authentic and true love seeks to replicate the type of self-sacrifice Christ revealed to us when He became man and dwelt among us (and which is still expressed today in Christ’s faithfulness to His Church). Self-sacrificial love conforms to the Great Commandment to love our neighbor more highly than ourselves in so doing we also love and honor God (Matthew 25:36-40, 1 John 4:19-21). This kind of love between husband and wife, even if imperfectly practiced and not always realized, constitutes what St. John Chrysostom called the “small church” and as such ensures the health and stability of the family in raising children (Chrysostom, Homily XX).

These lessons are affirmed in the Orthodox wedding service. In one part of the ceremony the Holy Spirit is invoked to: “Unite them in one mind and one flesh, and grant unto them fair children for education in thy faith and fear … ” The spiritual goal of marriage is never divorced from the parental vocation. Love, when properly understood, is always directed toward the neighbor, first to the spouse and then to the children.

Problems in Marriage: Entitlement
The Evil One relentlessly seeks to corrupt the love of Christ. Marriage and family, because of the complexity and immediacy of the social relationship, is a fertile field for such corruption. In case we think the potential for spiritual corruption is overstated, consider that it can happen between Christ and His Church as well. St. Paul reminded the Corinthian church: “I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (1 Corinthians 11: 2-3). If the Church can defile its communion with Christ, we certainly can defile our communion with one another.

One subtle corruption is the feeling of entitlement (Morelli, 2006a). Entitlement is when the spouse or parent feels they deserve love, companionship, happiness, honesty, obedience, etc. Entitlement works hand in hand with expectations. When an event occurs in which one family member does not feel that others lived up to what was expected of them, feelings of anger and being used result.

From the outset, it should be noted that some events fulfill expectations that are desirable and often good. The problem occurs when the events themselves become a test of whether or not expectations are met. In clinical terms desirable preferences have transformed into demanding expectations where the failure to meet the preferences results in emotions (usually anger) that impairs the ability to attain desirable goals. Often the resolution to this conflict is to change the goals. In fact, what is really needed is a shift in perception from demanding expectations back to desirable goals.

A few examples may help us understand entitlement. A mother feels entitled to love and respect from her daughter: “After all I am her mother.” A father feels his son should listen and take his advice: “I am the father; he should listen and do what I tell him.” The same is true of a husband and wife: “I am his wife; he should … ” or “I am her husband; she should … ” When family members do not meet our expectations we may feel the right to be angry. Alternatively, we may feel that we are unworthy because our expectations are not met and respond by feeling angry, depressed, etc. Either way, any one consumed by these emotions will not be very good at bringing about the outcomes they would like (Morelli, 2006d).

The key here to understanding entitlement is to see the word “title” imbedded in the larger word. Whenever we make a demand based on our title (eg: father, mother, husband, wife, etc.) we operate from an entitlement perspective. The solution is to realize that a title is no guarantee of specific behaviors.

The antidote to demanding expectations is to develop preferences for and about our family members based on love, that is, preferring the good and welfare of spouse and child, i.e, preferring rather than demanding that children honor their father and mother, or preferring the mutuality of love and respect between spouses. Instead of conceptualizing our expectations in terms of an entitlement, we can frame them as invitation that others may accept in order to help themselves.

Our Lord never forced anyone by using His title. Instead, He recognized that obedience and respect are freely given. In the same way the recognition that all people freely offer obedience and cooperation lifts preferences above a battle of the wills because the demanding expectation is diminished. People often “dig in” when they feel coerced into particular behaviors because they feel they need to save face and protect their self-identity.

How can spouses and parents forego demanding expectations and still bring about desirable behavior among family members? First of all, spouses and parents are more likely to be effective in bringing about the desirable preferences they seek if they are not consumed by anger and depression. (Morelli, 2005c, 2006c,d). Second, the most effective way of bringing about appropriate family goals is to state the desires clearly and the consequences if the desires are not met (Morelli, 2005b, 2006b). Although Jesus did not use His title to coerce certain behaviors, He was clear about the consequences of heeding or not heeding His words.

Take the example of a child speaking disrespectfully to his father to understand how the lesson of this parable could be applied. In the framework of demanding expectations, the parent could be expected to respond to the disrespect in emotional terms, probably anger perhaps even a tirade because his title of father is not acknowledged properly.

A more measured and ultimately more constructive approach is to step aside from the entitlement and the demanding expectation it engenders and state the problem in terms of desirable expectations. The father could say, “We do not talk like that to one another, you were told before if you said that disrespectful word, you would not be able to watch TV tonight, so tonight there will be no television, tomorrow you can try again.” Consequences, not emotional outbursts that result from disappointed entitlements, bring about desirable behavior changes and strengthen family life.

The Orthodox Christian marriage and family vocation is to be a spouse and parent in the imitation of Christ. Entitlement is the subtle work of the Evil One and undermines and may even destroy the unity necessary to meet the goals of this divine vocation. Direct, teach, and most importantly love your spouse and family with intelligence, mercy, forgiveness, in the same way that Christ loves His Church.

HT: OrthodoxyToday

After forty years of preferential treatment in schools and the job market, many women are now better-educated and make more money than men. These changes should surprise no one — especially not social science researchers. Those who work with the data know that there has been a profound shift in marriage itself and that marriage rates are declining. Many women are finding it difficult if not impossible to find a husband who is their financial, career, or social equal. With the decline in manufacturing jobs and their lack of higher education, many men don’t have the money or job prospects to marry. Yet much is being made of a new study by the Pew Research Center finding that the benefits of marriage are now greater for men than women.

This is news? Who hasn’t noticed the increase of single women, the increase of single mothers, and the cultural change where marriage is derided by the media and opinion leaders? Pew can tout the benefits of marriage for men all they want, but popular culture sends our young people — especially men — a different message. The Pew study notes that women are leaving school better-prepared for today’s job market, but the “same ole-same ole” educational priorities reign, and our boys are still getting a raw deal in school.

We’ve spent forty years pushing girls ahead and holding boys back. The big news of the Pew study is that we can finally discuss facts that previously were politically incorrect. The real cultural change that the study reflects is that after all these years, it is finally acceptable to point out that marriage is a good thing — even for men.

Fry and Cohn used census data from 1970 and 2007 to compare U.S.-born married couples ages 30 to 44. They found that this cohort of Americans is the first in U.S. history to have more women than men with college degrees — college grads in 1970 were 64 percent men, 36 percent women; in 2007, 53.5 percent were women and 46.5 percent men. During the period of 1970 to 2007, women’s earnings grew 44 percent, while men’s only grew 6 percent (though men, on average, still make more money, women’s income gains are sharper and the disparity has narrowed). In 1970, only 4 percent of husbands were married to women earning more than they; in 2007, 22 percent were in that situation.

During the current recession, more men are losing jobs than women, which will increase the income disparities. Not only is the unemployment rate for men higher than for women, but the gap that has opened up between the two is nearly three times as great from this recession as compared with the previous one — i.e., 2.2 percentage points compared with 0.8 percentage points.

During the period of the study, median household income increased 60 percent for married men, married women, and unmarried women, but it increased only 16 percent for unmarried men. The loss of manufacturing jobs is believed to be the primary reason for income losses for unmarried men without college degrees. Those with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent (compared to 28 percent gains by unmarried women).

The Pew authors and others acknowledge in the fine print that after forty years of women in the labor market, the changes in family life are becoming evident. This is explained by recognizing that most women did not work outside the home in 1970, while now, most do. The researchers also point out that change came because of the decline in manufacturing and male-dominated jobs and the expectations of college-educated women to have careers.

Other scholars are quick to add that it is not just the financial aspects of marriage that are changing. They quietly call women the “victims” of the educational and financial role-reversals — while their advances in education and career are increasing their authority and decision-making roles within the family, their increased education and money-making ability is also decreasing their ability to find a husband of equal economic and social status. In 1970, 84 percent of women 30-44 years old married; by 2007, only 60 percent married (and black women had even lower percentages).

Stephanie Coontz, research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, claims that men are discovering that they need marriage more than women “from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being.” Coontz attributes men’s willingness to marry “up” as evidence of the fact that marriage “is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well.” Other scholars point out that those who recognize the value of marriage are the better-educated men and women.

The Pew study notes, “Those with more education are far more likely than those with less education to be married, a gap that has widened since 1970. Because higher education tends to lead to higher earnings, these compositional changes have bolstered the economic gains for being married for both men and women.”

The Pew study describes current trends as a “cause” for the value of marriage increasing dramatically. They note that in 1970, the “typical man did not gain another breadwinner in his household when he married.” Today, married men have a wife’s income — an advantage the unmarried man does not have. The Pew study reports that “[t]he superior gains of married men have enabled them to overtake and surpass unmarried men in their median household income.”

Sure it does, but sadly, only the well-educated men and women are aware of these facts. By the time many of our young people wake up to these facts, they are no longer young, nor do they qualify as desirable, highly eligible choices in the marriage market.

. . . more