How Do You Each Handle the Intellectual and Emotional Side in the Relationship

The notion of development has been hotly debated for centuries by men and women of knowledge, as demonstrated by the difficulty in accepting the theories of Darwinism.  Within relationships, this concept becomes even more significant, because if you understand the notion that you are developing a relationship, then you are better prepared to understand how to manage that development.  The simple reality is that we are not stagnate creatures.  And we develop both emotionally and intellectually, with the objective of each within a relationship developing both. 

Describe within your relationship how each handles the emotional and intellectual side.  

by Tim Kellis

www.HappyRelationships.com

What If Your Spouse Gets on Your Nerves

Periodically I will post from Q & A Sessions I have on blog interviews.  Here is a question about what to do if your spouse gets on your nerves:

Dorothy Says:

So excited to see Tim out there! I just received his book in the mail…this book is excellent! I’ll throw a question out there to Tim. Tim, your book is about understanding your mate in order to improve the relationship. What if it’s impossible? What if you are with someone for 13 years and he just gets on your everlasting nerve? What if your daughter (not his) hates him and you side with your daughter? Is this a doomed relationship?

Tim Kellis Says: 

Dorothy

You bring up an excellent question, and one that shows how difficult marriages get with divorce, the notion of a child from a previous marriage.

I do want to address the question first of him getting on your nerves. Because we are so much more educated now than ever before many more of us are cognizant about what we can find wrong with our spouse. The quote I use in the book to demonstrate this point is:

“Our present condition is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; constitution without a name; and what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependence…The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases.”

What this in essence is saying is that you can argue over anything. Unfortunately the notion that you can find fault over anything leads to your relationship developing into a regressive state. And the reason for this is the perspective of the person being critical, which is backwards because of the fear that a subjective behavior which is not thought of ahead of time by the one behaving badly, could result in problems. The reality is there are 3 types of behavior, 2 which should result in anger, and the third which unfortunately cannot be resolved. If your husband is behaving illegally or immorally then you have every right to get angry with him, but if you are getting angry at him because of subjective behavior that you fear might lead to problems then you might be looking in the wrong direction.

And as far as your daughter goes, the only thought I have is the need to work together with your husband to handle the issue with your daughter. After all she is the youngest. Unfortunately I do not know the issues between the 3 of you, but in divorce you have to also deal with her other family, something I suspect may be a source of the conflict. Again, the goal is for the parents to work together raising the children, not the children and one parent battling the other parent.

Dorothy this may raise a few more questions so feel free to post them.

Thanks

Tim Kellis

www.HappyRelationships.com

Forgiving Your Parents: An Excerpt from the Book

Here is an excerpt from the book "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"  

A life-altering conversation

Only about a month later I would have a conversation with my friend Kent that would change my life forever.  I call this day the most important day of my life.  I had an epiphany. 

My plan with buying a house was to find roommates to help with the mortgage payments.  I had done this in Virginia.  I had two roommates which made my mortgage payments quite low.  In Dallas I convinced Kent to move in one of the two spare bedrooms I had.  I had bought a large three-bedroom house with two living areas on the west side of the Dallas/ Ft. Worth Airport. 

Shortly after Kent moved in we stayed up late one night talking about our different upbringings.  We sat up literally for hours in a tête-à-tête; each of us trying to prove who had the more difficult childhood.  The only problem with my argument was that every time Kent mentioned his problem he ended by saying he still loved his father.  And the point of his comment was that his father had to be more difficult than mine because it was written in the article in the pool house.  Plus, except for my dad’s many prejudices he is really a nice guy, which is the best way to describe him.  Today my dad gets along with everybody even my mom.  When he is not mad he is like a big teddy bear. 

Just like my conversations with Laurie I went through the litany of complaints about my bad parents.  I started out by saying my parents did “this”, explaining one of the many faults I had found with my parents, and he would respond by saying that “my dad sent me to military school, and I still love him”.  And I would say, “but my parents did something else”, and he would say his father never showed any love for him, and he still loved his father.  I would bring up something else my parents did that destroyed my childhood, and he would respond with “my father never had the time to attend any of my school events because he was so busy at work, but I still love him”.  This one really hit home because my dad never missed any sporting event I had ever played in.  He loved his sports and seeing his kids involved in them.  Like I said, this went on for hours.  He broke me down.  I ran out of arguments, and for probably the first time in my life I admitted I was wrong. 

The conversation brought me to tears.  Ten years would pass before I would cry again.  What Kent taught me that wonderful night was the pain I had as a child didn’t matter.  They were my parents and they taught me what I needed to know about life to be successful.  They did the best that they could with their limited resources and we turned out to be pretty good kids.  I actually got on the phone with them in tears telling them how much I loved them and thanked them for being such great parents.  I even called up Laurie in tears telling her of my epiphany about my parents. 

This was important to me because it opened up my mind to my future.  I no longer had the anger of my childhood clouding up my conscious and unconscious mind.  I could look at life objectively.  I learned what is probably the most important lesson in life.  I believe that maturity actually begins when you come to this realization.  Mental growth really begins when you let go of the painful memories of the past.  The difference between a truly healthy positive mind and an unhealthy negative mind is the healthy one has forgiven his or her parents for being parents.  There have been no rulebooks on raising kids.  My parents thought the best way was with the belt, but they did it in love. 

The reality is most parents love their children, they just might not be able to show it but you cannot live the rest of your life blaming your parents or anyone else for the problems in life.  If you think about your parents from their perspective you would probably have to understand that your parents love you, regardless of how they treated you, they brought you into this world.  Think about that!!! 

I have looked back at that lesson for many years and have been forever grateful for the lesson Kent taught me.  This lesson brings me to the point of this book.  I have learned the most important thing you can teach yourself to have a healthy mind, which is an absolute necessity for a healthy relationship.  If you can forgive your parents for the way they brought you up then you can get over the past and begin to live for the future. 

Again, it is faultfinding vs. problem solving.  Faultfinding is having those negative experiences of the past and then having you interpret that they may occur in the future, except this time it is not by your parents but by someone else, your partner.  If you want a happy and healthy relationship then it is absolutely essential that you look at your partner for who he or she is, not by who your parents are.  Your partner is obviously not your parent. 

Problem solving is looking at each problem as it occurs objectively, with an open mind, without the painful experiences caused by someone else.  Life is actually quite simple today; we are the ones who make it more difficult.  We can eat.  We have houses over our heads.  We have cars, cellular telephones, all of the trappings in life.  But getting along with our partner is actually easier than not getting along.  We don’t need to make life more difficult than it really is. 

Since that conversation with Kent I have never found fault in anything my parents have ever done to me.  I have actually looked at all of the good things they have taught me.  I am not a bad person, and it is thanks to them.  I like to joke that my goal in life is to simply stay out of jail, though seriously speaking my parents have taught me how to live a morally good life. 

If you can get over your past you can live your future!!!  

by Tim Kellis

www.HappyRelationships.com

Can Love Last: The Fate of Romance Over Time Book Review

Can Love Last: The Fate of Romance Over Time
By Steven P. Mitchell, PhD.

Introduction:

If Radical Honesty is ridiculous to the point of being hilarious, then Can Love Last: The Fate of Romance Over Time by Stephen A. Mitchell, Ph.D. is equally frightening. What is amazing is the book is so intelligently written!

Dr. Mitchell expands Nietzsche’s theory in Thus Spoke Zarathustra that God is dead (Zarathustra was an ancient philosopher who philosophized on the concept of monotheism, or the belief in one God) written just before Nietzsche went crazy, by concluding the relationship is dead, that long-term love is impossible.

How does he do this? Dr. Mitchell elaborates that the only path to a long-term relationship is by deadening the emotions by taking Freud’s sexual theory to its fiery conclusion. 

Details:

If you want to read a book that clearly shows the essence of the genre of relationship books consists of merely describing negative relationships, then this is the one to read. He first bases his theory of the relationship on Freud’s conclusion that we are animals just like the rest of the animal world. “…The human being is not even ‘master in his own house’: we do not even run our minds. Mind is…a ‘hierarchy of superordinated and subordinated agencies, a labyrinth of impulses striving independently of one another toward action.’” Unbelievably, the notion that our bodies rule our mind, that thinking is not an active process, is still believed in psychology today.

And when it comes to love and romance, well really sex, Dr. Mitchell states that Freud concluded our relationship problems were caused by a “psychosexual inhibition, a constraint in the capacity to arrive at and sustain desire itself, a kind of psychological flaccidity. A man might be capable of performing the physical act, going through the motions, but without passion, without intense desire.”

He follows this with a comment Freud made in 1916 that “Society must undertake as one of its more important educative tasks to tame and restrict the sexual instinct…Otherwise the instinct would break down every dam and wash away the laboriously erected work of civilization.”

In other words, the basis of the author’s conclusion of the relationship is it eventually peters out. Notice there is no theory from a female perspective. In a most extreme example of circular logic, the path to happiness is by developing emotionally to an extremely unhappy state-of-mind.

This theory is followed up with the conclusion a romantic, loving, harmonious relationship is impossible because, “it easily degrades into something else, much less captivating, much less enlivening, such as sober respect or purely sexual diversion, predictable companionship, or hatred, guilt, and self-pity.” In other words, because we are animals without the use of our minds then our biological beings eventually take over this predictable relationship we are supposed to have with the person we fell in love with.

This book is an extremely significant cop-out on the psychological industry’s inability at understanding the problems in negative relationships to the point of being able to fix them. “Romantic love has been regarded as, at best, a brief prelude to a more stable, ambivalent love.”

Does the author use case studies to present his point? Of course he does, but his case studies are the most extreme of any written. Amazingly, Dr. Mitchell points out that childhood traumas provide the foundation for the problems, but does he fix them? No. A number of his male patients are impotent. One requires the services of a dominatrix for sexual relief while another masturbates in public.

The author does give us a hint of his own psychological health when he states, “the momentary aggressive fantasies I generate in relation to strangers are nothing compared with the intensity of the homicidal fantasies I harbor toward those I live with and love most deeply.”

So does this book help unhappy couples? Not even close!

by Tim Kellis

www.HappyRelationships.com

 

Radical Honesty by Dr. Brad Blanton Book Review

Radical Honesty 
by Brad Blanton, PhD.

Introduction: 

If you want to find a book that clearly demonstrates not much more than a degree is required to publish a book on relationships, look no further than Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton, Ph.D. Please keep in mind the words in quotes do actually come from the book.

Even the person writing the foreword to the book has trouble with its contents. The foreword begins with “I don’t agree with everything Brad Blanton has to say…”

Details:

This book is also one of the best examples of authors revealing their own insecurities in the writing. Dr. Blanton wears his over-sized ego on his sleeve, like a badge of honor. As he explains in the section on why he is writing this book, “I am writing this book to become famous…I want to be smarter than anyone else. More precisely, I want to be thought to be smarter than everyone else.”

He shows his intelligence with his fantasy about being questioned on a morning talk show about his book. “I love to imagine putting down one of those dumb-assed interviewers on the morning talk shows for their sniveling, wimpy ways, pushing people to hurry up and say something…I love hating them because it makes me certain that although I may be bad, I am not as fucked up as those people.”

He then follows up with “I want to make money from writing this book…I am already rich but I’m greedy and I want more than most people have.” In one section where he teaches his patients the process of telling the truth he says, “the client loves me and thinks I am greater than Socrates.” “Every asshole who writes a book is a neurotic megalomaniac just like me.”

Does anything else need to be said about our Dr.?

The basic tenet of the book sounds like it makes sense. If you want to have a successful relationship then you must be honest with your partner at all times. Sounds simple enough. After all, the unfortunate fact about people with insecurities is they hide behind what psychologically is referred to as the “true self” with a “false self”. As Dr. Blanton states many times throughout the book, “how we are all liars”. Although, he must have some crystal ball to know that everyone lies. He apparently doesn’t realize people in positive relationships are always honest with their partners. After all, they have nothing to hide because they do not behave in a manner their partner would not agree with. The person who tells the truth is the most free, most alive kind of adult human being you’ll ever see.

Blanton’s logic is the only way to remove the insecurities of the false self is to be honest about the sources behind the insecurities. He does begin by discussing the psychological problems of adults who have been raised as children by unhealthy parents. Honest enough.

The book takes an amazingly bizarre twist in logic after this. First he explains that moralism “is characterized by hysterical faith in the mind. We are all sick to death from moralism. The world of human beings may die from it.” And later, “Moralism is a disease in which ‘good’ and ‘bad’ become more important than ‘alive’ or ‘dead.’” Unfortunately, the Dr. doesn’t understand one extremely significant key to the positive relationship is treating your partner in a moral fashion. Treat others as you would want to be treated, i.e., empathy, is a central tenet to the teachings of religion.

In wonderful Freudian fashion, the book attempts to explain that the mind “is a terrible thing; waste it,” dutifully following the most basic premise of the founder of psychoanalysis. He follows this with “Minds are developed and lead us away from the experience of being,” trying to conclude not that the mind is nonexistent, but it is the source of our mental troubles. “The secret of the good life is not suffocating in the mind’s bullshit.” He really shows his own mental state when he declares, “The mind resists freedom. Freedom is antithetical to mind…The mind is a bullshit machine.” He sums up his theory of the mind in his description of “growth from birth to maturity consists of: 1. the birth of being, 2. the growth of the mind, 3. a period of domination of the being by the mind, 4. liberation of the being from the mind, and finally 5. a mind used by the being.” In other words, he is saying the mind may develop but the goal of the positive relationship is to suppress it by letting our bodies and brains dictate our behavior!

The most illogical aspect of this book is the author’s attempt at justifying anger as part of his truth-at-any-cost theory. “The wayanger is expressed has everything to do with the outcome of an argument.” He basically states that if you tell the whole truth and express your anger directly at the cause when doing so then you get over the anger and move on.

So what is the cause of the anger? That he doesn’t cover. Also, he states that if you don’t express your anger then you must be denying it. Honest Brad doesn’t realize that if we are going to get over our anger then we must figure out its source, not rationalize its existence. But his logic, “We human beings are all selfish and unfair and it’s worse than useless to pretend we aren’t.”

So what is his psychological theory on mental problems? “Neurosis is essentially a refusal to accept what is happening in the present. Neurosis involves denying the truth about any form of excitement, here and now,” committing the same blunder of mainstream psychology by not understanding how yesterday’s negative experiences impact today’s thoughts and feelings.

And how successful is he with his patients? He describes one couple he had been treating because the guy decided to leave his girlfriend to move in with another. He convinces the scorned woman to meet with this ex-boyfriend and tell him the truth about her feelings. They talk together, they sleep together, he returns to his new girlfriend. Afterwards she feels okay, he commits suicide! After all, “No change matters…All change is futile…avoiding change…is an equally futile way to live.”

The most incredible section is his advice on sex. The first bit makes sense. You should tell your partner everything about your sex life from the past. This is as important as anything else in your background positive couples share with each other. He also says couples should be open about their desires together. Fair enough. But then he rationalizes sex with other people. “If you do have sex with other people together or separately (italics mine), be sure to tell each other what it was like for you and how you felt and feel about the other person…Whether you are monogamous or polygamous is not the most critical factor in having a successful couple. Whether or not you tell the truth is (italics his).” He further states, after all, “one-night stands are just as good as lifetime relationships.”

So how successful has Dr. Blanton been? He has been married four times. Also, he comments about kicking patients out of his office if they do not follow what he tells them to do. “What bothers me more and more is that even though we are right, if we kicked everyone out who deserved being kicked out for not cooperating with us for his or her own good, there might not be anyone left, including ourselves.” Now there is a revelation!

Our mind is the great gift from God. How can we rationalize not using it?

 

What Does Valentine's Day Mean To You

What does Valentine's Day mean to you and how can you take advantage of its message to improve your relationship?

All comments are welcome.

Thanks

Tim

Another Media Inquiry: When the Woman Makes More Money Than the Man in the Relationship

Here is another media inquiry, requested during the time that Hilary Clinton was still running for president.  The question concerned what to do in a relationship when the woman made more money than the man.  

We just may have a First Matey in the White House. In this day and age, is there still a sticking point when the wife is more successful than the husband? We've seen Academy Award-winning actresses losing their men after winning the little golden one. How is Bill going to deal with Hill being the big chief? University professors, marriage counselors who are psychologists/psychiatrists/M.D.s -- I need good studies or long-term experience to back up statements about the pitfalls of a wife's super success. Have the times been a-changing? And how to make the marriage work? Also, if you are a woman who is success-driven, what kind of men should you look for? 

Well, the primary purpose of the psychology industry is supposed to be to help individuals within a marriage learn how to have a balanced ego.  Unfortunately, because of Freud’s biology conclusion this message is lost.  And a woman who is more successful than her husband is a perfect example, given the financial pressures on marriage today.  Because of the lack of focus on balancing the ego the industry has also not embraced another concept, and that is happiness is not possible if the individuals define themselves by what I call the 2 false Gods, looks and money.  If you define yourself based on your looks or level of income, then you will not be able to find happiness within your marriage.  What this means with our question above is that you cannot define yourself based on your job, whether a man or a woman.  If a woman is using her status with her job to gain power in the relationship then the relationship cannot be balanced.  

And if the man is intimidated by his wife’s success then he cannot find balance in the relationship.  In fact, this brings up one of the more humorous points with marriages, the situation where the woman does make more money than the man, and the man is intimidated.  Are you kidding me!!!  I would be doing high-fives all the way to the bank if my wife made more money than me.  I just do not understand men who are intimidated by a successful wife.  There is not balance in that situation. 

Here is the way I answer the situation in the book:

The best way to look at the interaction of the partnership is that both people in the partnership have exactly fifty percent of the say in the decision making process.  No one person can tell the other person what the solution to the problem will be.  Both perspectives must be taken into consideration.  If you are not able to see the perspective of your partner then you cannot understand the other side of the discussion.  The right relationship is a fifty-fifty partnership between two people where the outcome of the discussion is what would be best for both people on an equal basis.  If you want ten dollars and the best solution for both of you is for you to have nine dollars then you get the nine dollars, and you understand why!  The path to happiness leads directly through the road of compromise. 

No this does not mean that you do half of the dishes and she does the other half, or you decide where to go to dinner on Tuesday evenings and he gets to decide on Thursday evenings, or that you both must make exactly fifty percent of the income of the household.  Even more importantly, this does not mean that if you make eighty percent of the income then your partner must make up the deficit in another manner.  Pessimists would argue that if you structure a relationship based on thinking then you take all of the emotion out of the relationship, you get bored.  Common sense, though, would tell you the exact opposite.  

If you have a relationship based only on love then the only emotion that is growing in your unconscious is the emotion of love.  That other emotion, of unhappiness, is not even present.  Emotions are never stagnant.  They either grow or they shrink.  If everyday your relationship involves only love then you only grow the emotion of love.  Life is actually a lot of fun.  Guess what, you become happy.  Granted life is tough because of this and because of that, but is it really that tough?  Getting along with your partner is actually one of the best investments in life you can ever make.  It is actually free.  You can only get there though if you develop a relationship based on the psychological notion that both get to share equally in the thinking and the feelings that go into developing the emotional bond called love. 

Getting The Love You Want, A Guide For Couples by Harville Hendrix, PhD Book Review

Getting The Love You Want, A Guide For Couples
By Harville Hendrix, PhD. 

Introduction: 

Another relationship book that has sold extremely well is Getting The Love You Want, A Guide For Couples by Harville Hendrix, Ph.D. Dr. Hendrix has been a featured guest on The Oprah Winfrey Show. She introduced him as the best marital therapist she has ever known. So does the esteemed Dr. impart some wonderful wisdom that really helps relationships overcome their difficulties? Well, yes and no.

The first statement he makes in his book that is yet to be understood in mainstream psychology is the position of the therapist in therapy. Because of Freud’s ego the therapist has maintained a position of status over a patient that has yet to be rescinded. If the industry were to understand this notion, then the path would be cleared for understanding the objective of therapy, balancing the ego. Dr. Hendrix’s wife actually realizes what their concept does when she states “you’re shifting the emphasis to the relationship between the couple, not the relationship between the client and the therapist.” Way to go Helen! Freud is probably turning over in his grave. To him, the individual patient was insignificant.

Details:

So what major breakthrough does he offer the reader? To his credit, Dr. Hendrix fully understands the impact parents have on the individual. He realizes that if one or both parents were either too loving or too remote then the child grows up to be a wounded adult, the personal history of the individual is the cause of the trouble in the marriage. What he does with this knowledge unfortunately does not help the reader other than pointing out this fact. Dr. Hendrix is also blinded by his heritage, the heritage of Sigmund Freud.

He, too, falls into the biology trap. “…we instinctively select mates who will enhance the survival of the species. Men are drawn to classically beautiful women…Women select mates…with pronounced ‘alpha’ qualities, the ability to dominate other males and bring home more than their share of the kill.” He does at least admit, “We select mates who are more or less our equals.” This, though, is the last you read about equality.

To him, the process of the relationship is nothing more than biological. He defines the processes as romantic love, the power struggle, transformation, and “spontaneous oscillation.” What is “spontaneous oscillation?” Friendship! Yes, the objective of the relationship, according to him, is not love and happiness, but friendship. Argue until you become friends.

At least he is not pontificating a dulling of the emotions. He even explains romantic love from a biological perspective, and what changes romantic love. “Scientists can’t explain the release of these potent chemicals [that are released in our brains when we fall in love], or what causes them to diminish.” Jung would call them the psychic energy called the anima and the animus. Falling in love is not a biological phenomenon.

And how does he develop his theory of childhood development? He argues we develop biologically, of course. He states that as children we develop our “old brain” as children, which causes the problems as adults. Does he then explain the only way to overcome our childhood traumas is by forgiving them? No, we cannot change our biological makeup.

What he does explain is that when we reach adulthood and find a mate we unconsciously choose someone who has the same negative character traits as our negative parents.

Unfortunately, here is where the logic becomes illogical. He does state when we find a mate we hide our insecurities. We reveal our “false selves” in new relationships when we have insecurities. “One bit of make-believe in which virtually all lovers engage is trying to appear to be more emotionally healthy than they really are.” What is so illogical about this point in the relationship is that because people with insecurities hide their insecurities until they become comfortable enough to expose them is, “how do you know that the person you fell in love with had the same insecurities that your parents had?” You don’t! The insecurities are not revealed until the arguments begin. Dr. Hendrix rationalizes arguments by stating you were looking for them in the first place!

How does he tiptoe around the subject? “It’s impossible to define precisely when the [power struggle] stages occur.” This is another perfect example of a cop-out for trying to resolve the arguments in the first place.

Harville doesn’t seem to grasp the objective of the positive relationship is to behave equally, not letting the relationship degrade into the power struggle. This “stage” is the figurative fork-in-the-road; you either take the road to happiness or the road to unhappiness, which is paved with the power struggle.

In an example of the illogic of a psychologist, Dr. Hendrix makes a statement about his patients using the term always and never by saying this is a “clear indication that [the patient] was in a regressive state,” which he then follows by stating his belief that “all people have a dark side to their nature, a part of their being that they try to ignore.” How does he know that everyonehas a dark side?

Until we explain the cause of anger we will not resolve the problems in our relationships. Does he explain the psychology behind the relationship? He doesn’t need to explain our relationships from a psychological perspective. In his mind, we are simply biological beings.

Relationship Rescue by Dr. Phillip McGraw Book Review

Relationship Rescue 
by Phillip C. McGraw, PhD.

Introduction:

A book that clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of the successful relationship is Relationship Rescue by Phillip C. McGraw, Ph.D. What is so sad about this book is that he is so close to the answer yet still unable to understand. Today he is the highest profile psychologist in the industry but that doesn’t mean he comes close to really helping troubled relationships.

Because of his profile, though, he is the most colorful in his words and his writing. Unfortunately for his audience, he is even more emphatic about his beliefs, which turn out to be even more illogical than many of his competitors. This fact is most obvious in his section defining the myths of the relationship. Yes, even the esteemed Dr. Phil falls into this trap with his relationship book. In the book Dr. Phil first assumes that yes every relationship includes arguments. 

Details:

For example, he explains that it is “completely naïve and fanciful thinking” to believe serious disagreements can be resolved and that “In the twenty five years that I have been doing work in the field of human behavior, I have seen few if any genuine relationship conflicts ever get resolved.” Yes, it appears he is admitting that he has not solved one conflict in twenty-five years of practice!

So is he saying we just move on without any possibility of reconciling differences in relationships? His “logic” is that “If arguing is done in accordance with some very simple rules of engagement, it can actually help the quality and longevity of the relationship in a number of ways.” He cites numerous times throughout the book this belief. “…Whether you have arguments is not what determines the long-term success or failure of your relationship. It’s how you argue.”

In most of the rest of the book he elaborates on these very simple rules of how to argue as his new revelations. Without a platform of common sense, the logic of arguments is followed by suppression of the negative feelings behind the discontent, without any psychological explanation for the source of these negative feelings.

He also mentions, “Men are going to be men and women are going to be women, and no therapist can change it.” Dr. Phil actually reveals that therapy is not directed towards men by stating in a letter written to men at the back of the book, “I’m assuming that this letter is the first thing you’re reading in this book.”

On the positive side, this book begins his quest to help individuals become happy by explaining the path to overcome the troubles is the responsibility of the reader. Individuals must be happy with themselves before they can make the relationship happy.

In a section where he comes oh so close to discovering the positive relationship is a section entitled “Make yourself happy rather than right”. Ironically, in this section he cites one of the few case studies of a chief master sergeant father and a rebellious son in exhibiting the differences between being right and happy. Again, this is one of the few case studies cited. 

The father comments his son should obey him “because I’m the father, by God, and as long as he’s living under my roof, eating my food, and spending my money, I’ve got the right to tell him what to do and how to do it.” Does Dr. Phil follow up with successfully helping the father’s perspective? No. Two and a half weeks after this session the son dies playing basketball. Now of all of the examples he must have seen in his “twenty five” years in practice this is the only example he could come up with? Why wouldn’t he give an example of an unhappy man and wife with whom he was able to convey this message?

Dr. Phil has given up on relationship therapy as he mentioned on Oprah, though, because he realizes there isn’t anything he can do. He does try sometimes now that he has his own show. David Letterman even ribs Dr. Phil nightly on his show: Words of Wisdom From Dr. Phil, “I don’t know what I am doing,” “I’ll beat the crap out of you.” “Call your wife a bitch.” “90% of people are stupid.” Apparently Dr. Phil has now become an entertainer instead of a psychologist, sort of a Jerry Springer with a diploma.

Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus by John Gray Book Review

Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus                       
By John Gray, PhD.

Introduction:

Prejudice. One of the greatest gifts that has been discovered because of our wonderful system of democracy is the problem caused by having prejudicial beliefs. Prejudice breeds ignorance and contempt, results in anger, produces an overwhelming urge for power, blinds individuals from seeing the path to happiness, and in reality is the cause for the troubles within our relationships. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet breached the walls of the ivory tower of the psychology industry.

The very theme of the granddaddy of modern relationship books, Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus by John Gray, Ph.D., is the prejudice that men and women are different. In essence, what Dr. Gray is claiming is the key to the successful relationship is that men and women are different, if you want to be happy then you must realize this and simply get over it. Sadly, he couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Ah yes, say the critics of this prejudicial perspective.  The formative Dr. Gray is merely propagating a perspective that men and women should simply accept these differences, that tolerance will lead to loving and caring for each other through the understanding of these differences.  The only problem with this perspective is that it promotes prejudices between men and women.  Unfortunately Dr. Gray isn't a fan of history, or he would have known this. We have a perfect example that completely debunks his platform, the famous "separate but equal" decision in 1896 that kept African Americans and White Americans "separate but equal" until it was overturned in 1954 with the Brown v The Board of Education decision. 

The only difference is instead of different drinking fountains and restaurants we have different households, with our current culture of divorce. In fact, this book has probably done more than any other to help propagate our culture of divorce. 

Yes the idealism of tolerance and acceptance makes sense intellectually but unfortunately is impossible to implement. Promoting the difference between people only promotes the underlying fear of those differences.

Overview:

Ironically, he begins the book by claiming, “I do not directly address the question of why men and women are different,” which would add profound insight as to how to overcome those differences. Throughout the book it becomes extremely clear what those differences are. In his world, men only think and women only feel, which may be true of relationships in the nineteenth century but does nothing to help relationships in the twenty-first century.

In fact, to really help troubled relationships requires an understanding of the reverse that men can also feel and that women can also think. He does, though, contradict this logic, as he does with much of his “circular” logic, by stating that sometimes men do learn to feel “in order to become more loving and nurturing,” and that women do learn to think, “in order to earn a living in a work force.” His logic goes something like this; “Men mistakenly expect women to think…women mistakenly expect men to feel.” But can’t men feel and women think?

In fact, if this book is read with a critical eye the reader would actually feel incredulous over his logic. For women his comment that “Their egos are dependent not on looking ‘competent,’” says it all. He is asking women not to think as part of the relationship. So his advice for women is to forget their ability to think. After all, that is man’s work.

And he does the same for men with feelings. “When having a conversation with him at home, it seems as if only 5 percent of his mind is available for the relationship while the other 95 percent is still at work,” the place where men are supposed to think. In other words, Dr. Gray is trying to convince the reader men have only 5 percent of their brains available for feelings. He goes even further by stating, in essence, if men are not thinking then “he is drawn to solving little problems, like reading the news, watching T.V., driving his car, doing physical exercise, watching a football game, playing basketball, and so forth,” all behaviors that replace his feelings within the relationship. He even goes so far as to say that when a woman wants to engage in a discussion of feelings with a man, asking him “What’s the matter, honey?...he may feel insulted or repulsed.”

His advice for the reader then follows the logic that “Men need to remember that when women seem upset and talk about problems is not the time to offer solutions,” while “women need to remember that unsolicited advice or criticism…make him feel unloved and controlled.” In other words, the key to the happy relationship is for men to do their thinking but not associate with the women’s feelings and women can feel but helping a man think makes him somehow weak.

He uses this same logic when he explains that a man needs to periodically sink into his cave when he is upset while a woman retreats to her corner. What is true about his logic is when a couple argues a man does revert into the mode of thinking while a woman reverts back into the mode of feeling. Explaining this does not help couples overcome arguing. And again, he defends this point when he claims women want respect, respect for their feelings, while men want trust, trust that they can think. But don’t men want respect, and women want trust as well. Not according to Dr. Gray. This circular logic is repeated throughout the entire book.

The rest of the book is spent giving behavior advice, just like all of the others. Dr. Gray even goes as far as explaining a point system, both positive and negative, that men and women should use to keep score of their different behaviors. Does he explain the causes of behavior? No, like he states initially he doesn’t even discuss the “why”. He doesn’t even attempt to! So without the why, how can he provide an inkling of a solution? Again, he doesn’t.

Well, he did sell over 20 million copies. Why did his book sell so well? People in troubled relationships identify with his description of the problem. How many copies do you think he would have sold if he wrote a book entitled, Men Are From Earth Women Are From Earth?