FamilyLife Forums

In this thread I wanted to look at the distinctive ways men and women function.
 The reason this is important is that it is crucial to the well-being of a marriage. In the past, on these forums, any such discussion has tended towards a kind a gender war that risks falling about in a slugging contest. I thought about posting in the family sector, but in the current climate of banning thought better of that. I would have preferred that, but prudence has prevailed, to send me here.

About 2mths ago  -   I've been sitting on this that long ( waiting for the dust to settle)  - in the evening church service,  the sermon was curtailed, and in it's place the audience was invited to contribute whatever was on their mind that seemed relevant to the theme. So a 15 -20 minute period was devoted to that.
What was interesting, and significant, was that all the contributors were women. Not one male voice was heard. That was not lost on me. Later, when talking to a couple, the wife said she had noticed that, but the husband hadn't.

Why it triggered my mind was that it accords with what many christian marriage writers and speakers have been saying about aspects of marriage. In particular, the chorus of complaints from wives about their husband's lack of action in spiritual leadership in the home.
Taking that evening exercise as a starting point, women seem to be ready to act out their spirituality, while men are somewhat reluctant. Just why is that so prevalent? When this goes on for a number of years, it sets up a pattern that is hard to break. All the while the wife is slowly losing respect for him, and the husband is backing off in equal proportions.
There has been a suggestion that it springs from a man's uneasiness about his sexuality. Allan Meyer, author of "Valiant Man" program says:
" The successful management of his own sexual appetite is the biggest challenge a man will face in his lifetime."  Among the factors he identifies are that it impacts on a man’s sense of dignity, and on his spirituality.

Then, 3 weeks ago, another speaker, who heads up a family/marriage ministry, was speaking at church, and he said "Most men think they are abnormal".  He had been speaking about addictions, and that would have included the power of the sexual drive. Part of the  reason they think they are abnormal is that men tend not to talk about their personal urges.
So if  a man is struggling in that area, he will not be up to giving spiritual leadership.

But there are other differences between men and women that impact married life. I will get onto those in the a subsequent post.

Reading the requests on this Men's forum, asking for advice on how to influence a wife who is reluctant to continue in the marriage, brought to mind an interview with Leonard Sax, which was conducted by a local magazine about 4mths ago.
Pediatrician and psychologist Leonard Sax, in his 2005 book "Why Gender Matters", challenges the prevailing accepted view of gender flexibility and fluidity. He says that over the past 25yrs, those differences have been discounted. But he believes the differences are hardwired. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6941270/

For christians, we understand that the bible makes it clear that "God made them male and female". They were separate creations, yet belonging to the same species of human being. That separate beginning should alert us to something significant. That does not mean we ought to endorse everything that human history has ascribed to men and women. After all, humanity is Fallen, so some of the way women were regarded may have been tainted by that sinful bias in the human race.
As an antidote to the imbalances of history, a modern attempt was launched which went to the opposite position that all differences were constructed and imposed by society. Getting rid of those is where the answer lies.

By education, men and women have been deemed to be equal, which is intended to mean there are no significant differences, apart from the physical genitalia. So while at an intellectual and philosophical level gender compatibility has been enforced, it seems to me that at least at an emotional and relational level, wives still act like the females they were created to be.
Husbands, especially, are nonplussed by this apparent contradiction of the popularly accepted ground rules. I see that perplexity in the situations brought to our attention on this forum by husbands. I want to expand on that in subsequent posts by referring to Leonard Sax's ideas.

In the N T, Peter urges husbands to "dwell with their wives according to understanding". That suggests that it is something specific to wives that men need to know. And that knowledge has to be sought out and made operative in their marriage relationship. If it takes knowledge, then that knowledge has to be acquired, it does not come to us unless we have been taught it.
We are not born with that knowledge. That is not saying we are not born without gender differences, just that the understanding of their significance for marriage has to be learned.

It is ironic to note the paucity of men speaking out and then expecting a response from men here.

I too wish to avoid blame and a possible slug fest.  I don't know enough of the subject to debate whether it is men's sexual identity which prohibits them from speaking.  I will simply suggest some alternate explanations for why men are reluctant to speak.  Yes, I said reluctant because that presupposes that men actually do have something to say but decide to hold their tongue.  This is contrary to the notion that men have nothing to say.

A reason why I am reluctant (I know this applies to other men too) is because of previous tongue lashings from women.  Another is an almost automatic assignment of blame and then launching any further discussion from that base of developing negative associations of the differences between men and women.  Another is the mindreading game of establishing intent a priori.

In the first instance, I've been beaten down and/or scoffed and ridiculed.  As you have previously acknowledged, men have a predisposition to 'protect' women and are more apt to perceive a woman in a positive light than other males.  Even when a woman openly ridicules a man, there is that perception that the man most likely deserved it.  The result is she gets carte blance treatment and bares little consequence for her behavior.

In the 2nd instance, the scenario is typically one where a man speaks, a woman responds but from an apparent misunderstanding of the man.  This does not prevent her from continuing with whatever she has to say.  At this point, his original point of discussion is dismissed and the topic then relates to anything but his original intent.  And when he attempts to address the misunderstanding he then is accused of backtracking or other duplicity.  The conventional perception is now that he willfully misspeaks and cannot be trusted.

Lastly, and closely aligned to the 2nd, is how what a man says is perceived as leading or brandished as his attempt to deceive the listener.  As my wife was so fond of saying, Clarification is not required because miscommunication cannot occur.  Meaning she believed she understood me perfectly and now sees precisely my intent.  She nor other women I've tried to speak to seem to understand me so well that they know my intent even when I say otherwise. 

It is no wonder that men hang their head and remain quiet.  Too, it very well can be that in light of the "chorus of complaints" from women, men perceive the futility in speaking.

Dr Eggerich's work is based on a thorough understanding of Eph 6.  A wife's respect is not a feeling as much as a command from the Lord.  So while at least this man acknowledges the Lord's sovereignty in my life, I try to not conjure excuses or rationalizations for why I would not be obedient to His command.

Well, I suppose it does look like a big fat excuse for why I don't speak.  I'm blaming the harsh treatment I've received.  I suppose I could just keep on banging my head against that wall.  That would be the honorable and manly thing?

Personally I tend to think a lot of women want to marry a woman who looks like a man on the outside and a lot of men want to marry a man who looks like a woman.... and neither really works out well.

---

"I love my husband more than I love my children" ~ Ayelet Waldman

Your comment is quite astute, in an enigmatic way, boatman.
We live in the unisex era, and that has ill prepared us for the shock of female reality. I know we have skirted - no pun intended - around this topic before, but I wonder if many men are not up to speed with the intricacies of female logic.
It's often been said that men are simple creatures, and that women are more complicated. If that's a truism, then it  follows that the simple ones in that equation will be at a disadvantage, because theirs is the more difficult road.
Once upon a time women were women, and men were men, and never the twain shall meet, in the sense that the gender divide was seen as basic to all male/female interaction. Now, I know there were anomalies that grew up around that divide, and those needed to be sorted. But take the matter of attire, since I've alluded to skirt. Prior to the mid 20th century, it was rare to see a woman in trousers. That distinctiveness in apparel served to underline the mystique of femaleness, and a male would acknowledge that at every turn.
But now that is gone. So much so that couples entering marriage may do so blissfully unaware that the long buried relational ground rules will be surreptitiously resurrected, usually to the husband's disadvantage. ( I should add a disclaimer here, for the sake of those who could make a federal case out of my trouser comment. I'm not against women wearing trousers, I merely noted that as pointer to the gender blending process of modern society.)

Take the matter of dealing with disagreements.This is where the hapless husband is set for a wake up call. But by the time that wake up hit's home, he is probably sleeping alone, ruminating over just what went wrong.

Leonard Sax refers to what he calls the "startling differences between little boys and little girls". The magazine interview writer says, "We're talking about profound, unexpected, undeniable differences in the way boys and girls hear and see and think and feel and learn and fight and take risks.".
Sax "believes that boys and girls ( and men and women ) are wired up differently - and those differences can no longer be ignored".

 By the time the little boy and little girl reach marriageable age, those differences will have been blended, blurred, and buried. At that point they will ostensibly be functioning on a level playing field. Yet despite giving lip service to such ideals, as soon as conflict arises that level playing field develops a decided tilt, and no matter how much of a balancing act the husband attempts, he is doomed to be always playing uphill.

One of the things Leonard Sax identifies as a significant difference is how the respective genders hear. He mentions a study of newborns, where girls were soothed by soft music, but boys received no benefit. The boys were simply not hearing it.
In school, boys may not hear some of the teachers comments, leading to them having attention problems, and being behind  the girls when the marks come in.

He goes on to say that there are some essential differences in how men and women experience the same sound. A wife will often complain that her husband has the TV or music turned up too loud.
That being the case, it is important for a husband to realise that his wife can be adversely affected if he talks to her in loud tones. He needs to adopt a soft gentle way of speaking. A woman can feel intimidated by a raised voice, yet such a raised voice can be normal for many men, the more so if he comes from a  family where shouting went unchallenged.

Again this indicates that the recent unisex culture has minimized the differences. At least it has in the world of male/female interaction outside of marriage.
 But once in the marriage, the time honoured norms set in place by the Creator assume their proper place in the woman's responses. She hates a loud man. But he does not know that due to having been educated into believing the unisex message. What happens is that she feels emotionally under siege, and when this continues for many years she progressively feels more distant from her husband. She recoils emotionally to find solace in other things/pursuits/people.
Then eventually she seeks relief by being apart from him, whether that means going out more often with her friends, or something more serious.
At that point in the marriage, attempting to turn back the clock can be very difficult. Once again prevention is better than cure, as many case on this forum would indicate.

Gentlemen, I can see it now, a 1000 years from now the very same conversation.  " I just don't understand my wife.".....   Lord help us now.

I read a very good book, "Different by Design, God's Master Plan for Marriage", which attempts to give understanding to the differences between the genders.  I say attempts because there are things about women we'll never understand.  In the book it describes our marriages as a garden, tend to it and it will flourish, neglect it and it will die.  I speak for myself but I was not the best gardener to my marriage.

I agree an once of prevention would have gone along way in my marriage.  I let some weeds grow, let the wall around my garden get knocked down in a few places and before I knew it my garden was over run and the weeds were choking all the love out of the marriage.  I was not a bad husband or father I just was not focused on the things that were important to her.  We were not the partnership we should have been.  Ironic in that she ended up taking the low road of infidelity, anger and bitterness.

While I have always been willing to speak up around others I have not always been so willing around my now ex.  I know I needed to be a better observer of her, to learn her ways and needs.  The two genders are just wired so differently.  It is up to us to learn and adjust.

I highly recommend the book: "Different by Design, God's Master Plan for Marriage"

Tim said, Gentlemen, I can see it now, a 1000 years from now the very same conversation.  " I just don't understand my wife."..... 

I wonder if Peter thought that. 

So why do men marry?  A guy does his best, she agrees to marry.  With the passage of time the condition is set, apparently he is not doing his best.  Outside of reducing himself to merely an appendage of her, how can it be said he is doing enough?  The incidence of marital strife bears that out.  As much as this sounds like a self-serving missive with the objective of calling attention to, "what about me", it is not.  My aim is to emphasize that a man and a woman are equal and together become greater than apart.  Why must a man bury himself as condition to subjecting himself to her whims? 

(It's highly probable that when a husband turns over control to the wife, it is she who now who 'wears the pants' and in this she does a very bad job.  Not so much because she is incapable but that she is out of her element.  Plus, the husband shall be the head, less than that is not biblical and subverts a tenet of God's will for us.  Unfortunately, I have first hand experience in this.)

What man would ever marry if they understood that doing their best was not enough?  That he must become a serf in her kingdom.  As if the marriage lives according to her pleasure.  I must strenuously disagree with this notion that men serve their wives at her pleasure which requires he subsume himself.

I do not think I neglected my wife to the extent that she decided to leave a marriage.  Of course, I'm just a man so feel free to discount my opinion.  Do men need to apologize for being male?  The man who kowtows to his wife will suffer, she will suffer, and the marriage will suffer for the marriage will be upside to God's intended will.

I caution the reader to not over react.  I do not believe a husband shall lord over his wife not do I imply that.  I believe such a husband is not fulfilling his responsibilities to his wife and to God.  The best course is to be diligent in developing an understanding of one another.  Ideally, this would allow for the differences to be recognized for what they are rather then being labled as intolerable weaknesses.

If it be true that we don't, or can't, understand a woman, it may be important to recognise that. Understand that we don't understand.That would be better than assuming we understand, when we don't!

I've heard of the book "Different by Design", but have not read it. But I think that not only have we lost sight of just what those differences are, we don't even acknowledge that the differences exist. In the sense that many men enter marriage with the belief that their wife will be a mate, as in mateship. That is, someone who will think and function just like them. So when some disagreement arises, as it will, even on the honeymoon, he may think that she will handle it on the same terms as he will.  This unisex worldview renders him pretty well clueless.

In this regard, what a wife wants in a husband is an emotional rock that she can lean on. A husband who will be emotionally stable. One known trait of women is that they can experience fluctuating emotions. Her hormones vary. If her husband displays similar emotional variations she will feel uncertain about his ability to be trusted. If he reacts, she will feel vulnerable. If he raises his voice in response to hers, she will feel adrift without an anchor.
Different by Design applies to all humans, christian or otherwise.

This week I have been in contact with a non-christian couple who have 2 daughters in early 20's. I had dealings with them over a 3mth period a couple of years ago. They are very wealthy, yet are so considerate, gracious and courteous in their dealings with people. I've observed how they relate to each other, and I have yet to detect anything amiss. They work together in their business interests. I've never heard him raise his voice, adopt an accusative tone, or treat her in any way that is not respectful. Yet I  can imagine - just from the vibes I pick up - that she could easily whine or be emotionally vulnerable. But he has that rock solid equilibrium about him, and I'm sure she appreciates that.

Some 5mths ago I posted about a non-christian family - 2 generations of couples - where these same considerate traits were in evidence. In both those marriages the husbands were softly spoken, and I'm sure the wives knew that their husbands were emotionally reliable and trustworthy. That allows them to exhibit the usual range female emotional responses without the husbands following suit.
That is part of the understanding that men need. To allow her to have those emotional roller coaster rides without reacting.

It's not a case of her "wearing the pants", or him turning "control" over to his wife. It's about making allowances for the differences.That gets one out of that control freak mentality, which I think puts the marriage into a winners and losers bind. It should be a win/win scenario, with both winning each other.

What I have come to realise is that reading one book, or hearing one sermon on this is not going to bring much change, any more than reading one teach yourself book on a foreign language will give you a satisfactory grasp. It will take repetitive learning, maybe reading many books, and practicing and self monitoring to see a turnaround.

One of the marriage facts that has emerged from research in the past few years is that the longevity of a marriage is determined more by how the couple fight than by how they love.
(This is such an important topic that it deserves it's own thread. That's because a number of factors can be at work when conflict arises in a marriage.)

But there seems to be a difference in how males and females deal with conflict. Leonard Sax points out how this shows up in children:

" When boys fight, they're more likely to get over it quickly and engage again in friendly interaction tomorrow.
Girls fight far less often than boys....but when they do, watch out!  One girl will say to another, 'I hate you, I'm never going to talk to you again!' - and she won't, not for a year!
In fact, not only will she not talk to the other girl, but she will make sure her friends don't talk to that girl as well, and the entire playground will divide into taking sides.
Conflict is more serious for girls and often ends a friendship.
Whereas boys are able to use conflict as a means of moving on and building the friendship."

Sax comments on how schools have moved to outlaw the kind of rough and tumble games that boys have traditionally engaged in. He says, " The result is that boys come to see school as a place where you're expected to act like a girl."
"By simply outlawing rough-and-tumble were sending the message, "no boy stuff allowed here - school is not the place for boys to be boys".
So we even have the matter of fighting subjugated to the unisex mantra.

Once in marriage though, the instinctive male and female ways of dealing with conflict come into play. This is the Biggie for marriage. Now I know the stats on marital separation have been worked over on these forums, and there are always exceptions to the majority gender tends. Nevertheless, all the data indicates that more wives leave a relationship then do the men.
I believe that this different way of dealing with conflict has a significant role in the demise of a relationship.

Here's some anecdotal evidence.
About 4or 5yrs ago, I was visiting a family where the husband and wife were in a shaky relationship, with the wife being the less happy spouse. In fact she had mooted a separation, but they were trying to resolve matters. While there, the children got out the family photo albums and I was shown them. I spotted something, which in my opinion, was  significant to their marriage. A school class photo taken when the wife was about 7yrs old had small neat round hole in it. She had completely removed the face of another child that she had had a spat with. Her way of resolving the dislike she felt was to excise that person from her life. The hole in the photo symbolised that.
I thought - and even exclaimed, hoping she was listening, 'you were cutting people out of your life even back then'!,  but my comment was obviously lost, because a couple of years later she divorced her husband.

The other day I read a news item about a celebrity couple in the music business. The wife has called time on their marriage. Apparently the husband had worked on several tracks in her forthcoming C D.
But she is so determined to be rid of him that she is going to rework all the tracks that he had any input into. She wants no trace of him in her life. None of his fingermarks  will be tolerated, or allowed to remain on any of those tracks.
Wow! Is that a carbon copy of that cutting a hole in the school photo?

How does this affect married men? It suggests very clearly that they had better recognise this different female approach to conflict resolution before it gets too late. The average man trends to be nonchalant about conflict, in  that he can cope with some unresolved issues without it spelling doom. But a wife has to have it resolved speedily, if not within the marriage she will likely opt to quit. Once she has taken that action, the chances of her returning will be slim.

Anyway, fellow men, I invite your comments on this

Comment I will.  Where is the justice?  (Notice I did not say 'fairness".  I don't expect fairness and it is so deeply subjective that is untenable hang a position upon.)

I presume that practising Christians are no different than the world with respect to incident of divorce.  That is, there is a similar incidence of the woman leaving a marriage of two Christians as there is in a secular marriage.

Yet, as part of our belief there is adherence to the law.  God's law.  The world has only man's laws and obedience can be easily dispelled.  Yet the believer is held accountable far more than the world.  And this question of justice implies a system to hold one another accountable to the law.  Yet, Christian women are leaving their marriage in the same numbers as the world.  The only significant rationale I can conceive is that a woman is allowed carte balnche to seek her own way by way of the church's  hands-off policy.

Which brings me to this point; could it be that such a laiezz faire policy actually permits and perpetuates a disgruntled wife to seek her own lifestyle.  That she experiences emotions from frustration to resignation to wholesale disregard of the church.  She has found her husband lacking as head so she looks to the church leaders for guidance.  Either they cannot be found or seem to give tacit approval of her actions.  This emboldens her even to the point where she now believes she is doing the right will of God.

I believe it was the recognition of the differences in men and women that the Word addresses each gender specifically.  We all need leadership but women have a unique and special need and lacking fulfillment of that need, they seek their own way.  And given the propensity (Conflict is more serious for girls and often ends a friendship.) to hold those emotions, it is that much more important to recognize and resolve the conflict in marriage.  When the husband cannot--or he seeks aid--the church must step in swiftly and with certainty (AFTER they have gained a full understanding of the strife and conflict in a shakey marriage...otherwise they are half cocked and will yield the expected results.  Likely, their actions will hasten the demise of a teetering marriage.)

I don't think this is tangential to your comments.  Perhaps I didn't explian my thoughts very well.

...laissez faire...

Another important gender feature is the variation in the emotions.

Leonard Sax was asked about how boys and girls process feelings. This question arose from a reading of the book he wrote "Why Gender Matters".
In his answer he said:
"When you look at the brain areas involved with emotion in young children - whether they're girls or boys - you find that most of the activity is happening in the amygdala. This part of the brain does not make much connection with the part we use for talking, the cerebral cortex. If you ask a six yr old boy or girl, 'How does this story make you feel?', - they'll probably give you a blank look, or try and guess the answer you want to hear."

"But by the time a girl is about 12 or 13, you see a very different pattern on the MRI scan. In the girl, most of the activity associated with emotion has shifted from the amygdala to the cerebral cortex. That's where we process thinking and talking. So if you ask her now, 'How does this make you feel?'  that girl can go on and on about the sad feelings.
When it comes to emotions, the brain activity in boys, whether at 12yrs or 17yrs old, has not changed from when they were six. So talking about feelings is something that most boys aren't comfortable with."
So that's why boys are so uncommunicative!

From early adolescent onwards, a girls emotions are an enigma to boys.

As if on cue, and as luck would have it - again - I happened to hear FOTF on radio one day last week,  and the topic was this same gender difference.
It was billed as 'The differences that can strengthen your marriage'.

James Dobson introduced the program with these words:
"Sigmund  Freud spent a whole lifetime studying the human personality  - I think he was wrong about most of what he came up with - but he studied it and near the end of his life he said  'What does a woman want?'  He didn't have a clue!"
"I wonder how many men would identify with that sentiment!", added John Fuller.

"Well John, we need to talk about a very important subject today, with 2 guests who have written a book called "His Brain, Her Brain: How Divinely Designed Differences can Strengthen your Marriage." By Dr Walt and Barb Larimore.

Time prevents me adding anymore in this post.

formerlyalpha:

So that's why boys are so uncommunicative!

This may seem nitpicky but the explanation says nothing about why males are uncommunicative. It explains that they are uncommunicative ABOUT EMOTIONS.  There is a difference.  Leaving the statement as uncommunicative in general can imply an inferiority rather than a difference.

---

Chaz345