The Insanity of Traditional Families

July 22nd, 2011

Families are changing. And that’s not all bad news. I have a theory that rising divorce rates, declining marriage rates, and the growing acceptance of variations of the family model (single parents, grand-parent guardians, gay parents, etc) are really quite normal. At least normal in the sense that this shift away from a traditional nuclear family, with rigid gender roles that place undue burden on women, is the beginning of a march back to better outcomes for more children.

 

If you are still captivated by the belief that a “traditional” nuclear family, that is, one with one father who is male, one mother who is female, and children who are biologically related to those two, is the very best thing for humans to be raised in, you are not alone. I was convinced of that myself. And I still believe if a single parent does not have an elaborate support system of family and friends and a good economic base, children would be much better off living with two parents who hold a biological interest in their welfare.

 

But there’s something even better for kids and it has little to do with a family model that looks like an episode of Leave-It-To-Beaver. The idea that a lone woman should be left alone in a tract house in the suburb for fifty hours a week with a screaming bunch of small, hungry children is insanity. No wonder the news is chock full of stories of mothers abusing or murdering their children, or why postpartum depression is the darling diagnosis of our generation.

 

To understand what is “natural” for our species, there are a few physiological and anthropological facts about homo sapiens that you need to know. I might remind you that for roughly 3-million years some form of humanoid lived a nomadic hunter/gatherer existence. We have been farmers for less than 7500 years and we’ve been laborers and office workers for about two hundred years. Our biology hasn’t chanced as fast as our environment and our supreme intelligence expanded and was nurtured during the hunter/gatherer phase of evolution. This phase moved us along. I believe that in recent years intelligence, empathy and ability to connect and bond is on the decline. (I’ll explain more later)

 

These are the six pieces that will help you solve the puzzle of what is most natural for human child-rearing:

 

1. Human Babies Take a LONG time to Mature. A sacrifice for walking upright is that homo sapiens give birth to extremely immature offspring. Most animals are up of all fours and running with the herd just hours after birth. Humans take 3-5 years on in arms and close protection to keep them safe. A huge burden to mothers.

 

2. Mothers Can’t Always Count on Fathers. Human’s have the widest range of paternal investment of any primate. A father’s investment in his own offspring ranges from a single deposit of sperm to a doting “Mrs. Doubtfire,” the Robin Williams film character who gets a job as his children’s Nanny just to care for them.

 

3. Hunter/Gatherer Mothers Worked Outside the Home. Of course her workplace, the Savannah, was a baby friendly environment because she wore her baby to work. When that little bundle became ambulatory she would leave the toddler in the encampment with sisters, older siblings, cousins, uncles, and grannies. And she worked only about twenty hours a week.

 

4. The Grandmother Gene. We are the only species except Orca whales who has menopause, 40-50% of a woman’s lifespan where she is active, healthy, wise, and nurturing.

 

5. We Hand Our Babies to Others. We are the only primate that will hand our baby to a stranger minutes after birth. Try wrestling a baby chimp from his mother and you’ll lose an arm. She holds and baby clings for at least nine months with no one being allowed to touch. Humans are quick to share their burden.

 

6. One in five women do not bear children themselves. There are currently 20% of women in their 40′s in America who are not biological mothers.

 

Get the picture? If Dad couldn’t always be counted on, Mom needed to earn a living, and neighbors, relatives and grandmothers were available, how do you think families looked? No way they consisted of two adults in a hut with their children.

 

In fact, according to my favorite anthropologist, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, of University of California, Davis, it was this co-operative parenting that helped our brains, emotions, and social structures become so advanced. In her book, Mothers and Others, she blows the lid off any notion that a nuclear family is anything but a recent invention by farming and industrialization. And she makes a clear case that early life exposure to CONSISTENT multiple attachments is the best thing for children. The wider variety of consistent faces that an infant had to decode and communicate to without words, the smarter the baby. I put the word consistent in caps because attachment injuries and separation anxiety are very damaging to children, and emotional stress prevents brains from developing to their fullest capacity.

 

So, when I hear about the modern villages within urban settings that are cropping up with single parents, gay parents, concerned uncles, and grandmothers nearby, I exhale. The apocalypse is not near. Babies are being loved. Far more important to a child’s development is consistency of attachments, emotional connection of caregivers and number of interested adults. Now that’s natural!

 

 

 

Real Men Hate the Word Love

July 22nd, 2011

Have you ever noticed that I talk about relationships all day long and I only rarely mention love? And when I do, it is usually to caution that it is a delusion intertwined with sexual attraction. Or, I remind you that love is a verb, not a noun. An action word. Not a state of being. Long term love is an intellectual commitment, I say. Could I sound any more unromantic?

 

Hey, and speaking of romance, I normally dismiss flowers, chocolate, fine wine, and high heels as  simple accoutrements to delusion. I should also tell you that my “brainy” ideas about love have garnered me a group of male readers who say, “finally a woman who gets it.” Men do love to make rational sense of things that are so irrational.

 

But do I really get it?

 

I certainly have some textbook notions about how biology and psychology get all tangled up and sometimes make people do things they shouldn’t be doing. Running off with a paramour when a perfectly good spouse is right in front of you. Staying with an abusive spouse because of love. Jumping into bed with a Casanova because you will be the one to change him. Thinking that a loss of sexual energy is a loss of love. And, my favorite transgression of love’s delusion: Dragging children through our delusions.

 

Could love really be that dangerous? Must it always involve some form of heartbreak, dysfunction, boredom, loss, or even violence? And if that is the case, why do we march right back into the fire when we should know better?

 

I have some of the answers.

 

Psychologists would say that love is a seeking out of early womb experiences and infantile bliss. A baby’s play and cuddling becomes an adult sex life. Parts of our brain consider a lover a kind of mother, a nurturer, a protector, even an executor of boundaries. We feel safe and cared for in a love relationship.

 

We do it, that is, fall in love because it is the single best chemical high in our lifespan. At least, the best high that both genders can experience. We women, also get to do childbirth, which is pretty darn close to experiencing heaven and hell at the same time. But love is different. It is shared with an adult.

 

Both genders can experience love together. Love. An unconscious handshake between too souls who agree there is more to this world than work, play, and food.  It is an exchange of mutual projections that when executed well, is better than any Academy Award winning movie. Love may be a delusion but it is one of the best ones we have. And sometimes it’s all we have. With so many people losing faith in old religions, I wonder if love is becoming our new religion. And what is faith after all? Merely a belief in something that we have little scientific proof of. I would venture to say that we have far more proof of love’s power than many religions do in their folklore. The selfless acts of love that happen every day are real, observable, and can bring us to our knees in awe of the God-like powers within humans.

 

Now I will really go out on a limb and say that Love (look, I’m using a cap now!) can feel like a spiritual experience. All we can hope for, is that each new love relationship will bring us different challenges. We hope that as we grow we will not become trapped in familiar, unhealthy patterns that get us stuck. Delusion or not, love is something we should all sign up for. It’s an antidote to fear, horrific TV news, sickness, and other suffering. Love is the answer. And when life gets us down, when we feel, shame, loneliness, victimized, pressured, indecisive, or angry, love is the only choice that will work every single time. It won’t always have an instant result and it won’t always come back directly to us with the precision of a ping pong ball, but a loving act will change our biology and change the world. One selfless act at a time. Don’t fear love, nor waste it thoughtlessly. It is the biggest gift you will ever receive.

Found An Old Flame on Facebook? Yah, You and Everybody Else.

July 22nd, 2011

In the last few weeks, three married friends have confided to me that they have searched for, and found, their first love on Facebook. In my small world this number represents a huge trend, so I’m going out on a limb to guess that this is going on all over the country. I am backed up by a recent article on Time.com that quotes other people who are doing it and who don’t live in my neighborhood. So, it’s real. But, why is this happening? And how dangerous is it?

The “why” is pretty simple for me to understand. Our first love affair, whether it was consummated or not, was an enormous emotional event. Those powerful memories of young love and sexual arousal stick for life, so the opportunity to revisit those feelings is pretty darn seductive. Add to that the fact that the largest growing group on Facebook is made up of users aged 35-54. While their college aged counterparts used social networking  to find people in other classes, older Facebookers, use it to find people in other parts of their memory banks. Case in point, although I grew up in several cities in Canada and now live in Los Angeles, I am hosting a cocktail party this week for Facebook friends from my elementary, high-school, and college years. Some live here now and some are flying in. None of them know each other. I am the only connection. I’ll let you know how that one goes.

As for the finding the “first love” trend, there’s even a name for it. The Boston Phoenix calls it “retrosexuals”, meaning people who are opting for recycled love. This is all well and good, if both parties are single. The media is full of stories about divorced people taking a second stab at love with their first fling, but what if there are marriages and vows involved? Oh, yah, that. How dangerous can an innocent email exchange be?

Hugely dangerous. The problem starts when you first hit that “friend request” button. You have betrayed your spouse and are now entering the uncharted waters of an emotional affair. I mean, you’re not looking up the geek from eleventh grade who got you through algebra. You’re looking up the hot guy or gal you once lost sleep over. There is an emotional connection with maybe even some sexual memories attached.

The next problem is what to do when he or she answers your cyber call. Do you start an emailed, intimate foray into your emotional world? Do you look for ways to meet? What about if you keep it boundaried and chat lightly about your family and his/hers? Still dangerous, people. Take the example of a married woman who has found her former homecoming king. Even if she and her husband went so far as to invite he and his wife over for drinks, there’s still an affair if the unsuspecting husband doesn’t know the full value of his wife’s feelings for the man he’s handing a beer to.

Besides putting yourself (and your marriage) in the path of a potential affair, looking up an old flame isn’t always as rosy as the anecdotes in today’s media. All humans change across the lifespan, physically, intellectually and emotionally. You are two very different people now. The likelihood that sparks will fly in your condo as well as they did behind the bleachers, is pretty small. Relationships tend to be time and place sensitive.

So, with all that said, I will now disclose that the only reason I can sit up on this soapbox is because my first love, Carl Brittain, isn’t on Facebook. I know, because I already tried to find him.

Fire up that flame, ladies and gentlemen, at your own risk. Just be prepared to give some business to therapists and divorce attorneys.

Why Do Famous Couples Fascinate us?

July 22nd, 2011

The headlines strike us first: J-Lo’s and hubby split. George Clooney on the market again. Madonna losing her latest boy toy. Tiger Woods has had affairs.

The love lives of celebrities are the cash cow for most popular media. The biggest click-throughs on even hard news sites like The New York Times are often celebrity love. Why do celebrity relationships titillate us? Most of don’t have lives that involve an entourage who leaks, press who churn gossip, paparazzi who ambush, and much time spent in private airports hiding behind very large sunglasses. So comparing celebrity relationships with ours might seem fruitless, and even a bit grandiose. I mean, when was the last time we worried that our husband might be seduced by a starlet at a Hollywood Club?

 

Could it be that we are just as voyeuristic as the journalists who collect the dish for us? Are our lives so boring that beautiful, wealthy people are our main source of entertainment?

 

The answers to those questions are more complicated than a straight yes or no. There certainly is a great deal of entertainment value in watching Godly beauty struggle and morph into human tissue. But I maintain that our lives are not so dissimilar. Most adult Americans experience intense love, great heartbreak, regretful, angry outbursts, and moments of loneliness. We are the fortunate ones who don’t have to read about it on CNN.com with our morning coffee, nor see a bad photo of ourselves beside the article. (For the record, whenever I blog about celebrities, I tend to choose the most flattering photo I can find, even if the mainstream press has pinned them a villain. It just seems like the most humane thing to do.)

 

We may not have the drama of a media spotlight, but we can certainly sympathize with a celebrities’ relationship problems. People gossip in the real world too. Partners have affairs with co-workers not unlike any on-set romance. Divorce is just as ugly when the child support payment is less than a star’s monthly shoe expenditure. And we sometimes wear dark sunglasses when picking up our kids from school because we can’t find the strength to let our “in crowd” see our pain.

 

Celebrity news makes our pain feel, somehow, normal. Our very real human emotion of empathy helps us have a shared emotional experience when we witness a celebrity’s love life. Suddenly we are not alone in our own journey. And we are comforted by the knowledge that money and fame do not protect us from relationship problems. And it is that emotional experience that keeps us hooked on entertainment news. The habit isn’t dangerous, unless we find ourselves silently rooting for tears and humiliation, or if we hear a voice calling us sit outside the gates of their mansion. :)

 

But for the most part, we empathize and understand that their problems are much like ours. So, when J-Lo battles a scorned ex in court, we can think of our own divorce woes. When Jessica Tom and Katie face the challenges of balancing work, family and parenthood, we know those feelings. When Tiger and his wife face the stress of growing a family and staying in love, we get it. We are all human and there is some comfort knowing that we share joy and pain.

 

The Kids Are Alright! Largest Study of Gay Parents Shows Their Children to be Well Adjusted

July 22nd, 2011

Gay parents love their children as much as any other parent. If you saw the film “The Kids Are Alright” starring Annette Benning, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo, you know that families shepherded by mothers who are Lesbians can look pretty average. The teens in the comedy are as well-adjusted and angst ridden as any “normal” teen, until they invite a heterosexual male into the mix — their sperm donor. And from there the laughter ensues.

 

Now there’s long-term research that backs up Hollywood wisdom. The longest running study on Lesbian and Gay families has found that children in those families are as well-adjusted and healthy as those who are raised in heterosexual families. The study, called The U.S.A. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) is the longest study of it’s kind. It has been going on for 24 years and follows children of lesbian families who received donor sperm. Launched by an international team, including lead researcher Nanette Gartrell, M.D., Distinguished Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law and Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatrist and Center of Excellence in Women’s Health, the researcher says she was motivated to begin the study because it was a first.”(I had) the desire to document the first generation of planned Lesbian families and follow the children from conception to adulthood.”

 

Results from Gartrell’s study and others show that far from abnormal, these children may even have a big advantage. Sociologists at the University of California reviewed data from 21 studies on Gay parenting, and found their kids may even be ahead of the game. Since lesbian and gay parents may show more understanding for social diversity and are less likely to behave in narrow traditional gender roles, the children tend to be more nurturing, less aggressive, more open to diversity themselves.

 

This got me thinking about what’s really normal for kids. After all, in terms of our anthropological roots, we’ve been an industrialized culture with religious mores for only a short period of time. In some ways we are trapped in the biology of our hunter/gather ancestors and that might be more “normal” for us. So what did families look like back then?

 

Some provocative answers to that question are in the 2009 book “Mothers and Others” by UC Davis professor, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (no spelling error). Often called the preeminent scientist on motherhood, Blaffer Hrdy blasts holes through any notion that humans ever survived well in small nuclear families. Instead she makes a great case for an elaborate system of parents, relatives, and even non-biological same-sex friends. She calls members of this extended family “alloparents” and gives plenty of stone cold facts about how humans evolved, gained intelligence and grew the capacity for empathy through multiple, consistent, caregivers. Makes us rethink the value of nannies and day care workers. In some ways, a large gay and lesbian community might look a lot like this ancient family model.

 

But before you think that the encouraging results of this study show that our culture is as “all right” as the kids in the study, Dr. Gartrell warns that one dismal fact came out of the study. Lesbian mothers have one huge challenge: discrimination. “The biggest challenge is protecting their children from homophobic stigmatization.” Some of the kids are targeted because of their parents’ sexual orientation.

 

In recent years, our national news has been filled with stories of  suicides by Gay adolescents who were subjected to bullying. It is sad to imagine that this kind of cruel, misinformed behavior could also extend to children with Gay parents. Despite this, Dr. Gartrell is optimistic about the progressive trend she has witnessed in her years at the helm the study, “In my lifespan, there has been an evolving and greater appreciation of diversity and fluidity in gender roles. I am hopeful that these changes will lead to less conflict globally.”

 

Amen.

 

Is Your Date Crazy? Here’s How to Be A Psychological Detective.

July 21st, 2011

When you meet someone online, through a set up, or on the street, you might consider physical attraction first, but next comes psychological health. People look for romantic suitors who have the emotional ability to be a functional love partner.

But how can you tell?

First dates are like great theater and if  dating awards existed, some people would win the golden champagne bottle. On early dates men are like a peacocks showing their tail feathers and women behave like perfect Barbies. We bring to the dating table the person we really wish we were. That’s why a few people are actually addicted to short-term, serial relationships. They crave the mating dance but the reality of a truly intimate relationship is intolerable.

www.ctspy.com/home_1.html

So if both parties are role playing, how does one determine what’s for real? Since dates don’t come with letters of reference from former lovers we have to rely on our own instincts to cut through the happy glow of the dating experience. There are few things you can listen for in the polite banter of a dating table, to give yourself big clues about what’s up for the future.

Before I tell you an important secret kept mostly by psychologists, I want to remind you that there are no perfect people. Having a healthy relationship involves learning about each other faults and foibles, and accepting what you can. Understanding each other’s tender spots is what intimacy is all about. We’re all crazy in some small way. But what if someone’s faults and foibles involve some trait that is soooo contrary to your values. What if the person is violent? A spendthrift or miser? A cruel gossip? Highly insecure? A pathological liar?

The answer is this: Your date will often tell you their biggest flaw on the very first date. You just have to know how to listen.

To explain this, I’m going to use Carl Jung’s theory of “The Shadow.” Jung believed that we all hold a piece of our personality away from our conscious awareness because it is shameful, ugly, and intolerable. However, if left unattended to, our shadow can direct our behavior. Part of Jungian Psychology is to bring light to the shadow so that as we can become whole, we learn to accept and control or shadow.

While our shadow is still buried away in our psyche, however, we look for it everywhere in the environment. We find objects (people) who appear to carry pieces of our shadow and we point fingers at them. “Look at how awful they are! I hate people like that!” In truth, Jungian’s believe that this judgmental behavior is a weak attempt to get rid of our shameful shadow. To direct it onto someone else. Christians use the metaphor of the fallen woman about to be stoned to drive home the same point… Remember this passage? “He who has not sinned, may cast the first stone.” That’s perfect Jungian thought.

Now back to your attractive date. Listen closely for his/her negative comments about others. I promise you they are giving you a clue about their own shadow!

Here are some examples:

• One man told a date that he had recently heard a conversation at a bar between a man and a woman and he was sure the man was lying to her about how much money he made. He thought it was funny that the woman was so gullible and was lapping it up. Six months later: The story teller, himself, started behaving very badly when his spending habits clearly did not match the income he had bragged about in the early stages of dating.

• One woman told her date that her pet peeve was insecure people. She said, “I’d rather have a murderer in my bedroom than an insecure person at my door.” Two weeks later, she cut off all communication with her date because he had given her a tiny piece of constructive criticism that she, herself, couldn’t tolerate.

• Then there’s the cruel gossip, who always has dirt on others and particularly slanders other cruel gossipers! I know one woman who always ends her hurtful gossip with the line. “I’ll pray for her.” Clearly this woman is praying for herself.

So, if you’ve gotten this far in my blog, you might be wondering about your own shadow. Here’s a little exercise for you. Take a piece of paper and at the top write the name of someone you loathe. Then really focus on this person and make a list of all their attributes on that paper. Be very connected to your hatred for this person. When you are done, erase their name at the top on the page, and write in your own name. Then take a big gulp of reality. This is the shadow you carry, ladies and gentlemen. May we all learn to shine light on it.

Can Marrying Rich Make You Happy?

July 21st, 2011

There may be no point in marrying rich. Study after study shows that there is no direct correlation between one’s set-point happiness and wealth, except at the very bottom levels, when physical needs — food, shelter, safety — are compromised because of poverty.

But married people who foster intimacy in their relationships, no matter their income level, find not only happiness but health. Research shows that depressed singles receive greater psychological benefit — from things such as intimacy and emotional closeness — from getting married than those who are not depressed.

And for the married population, there’s a psychological benefit to taking those vows. People in committed relationships have been shown to be happier than those who aren’t, despite how satisfying their marriages actually are. Yep, in large group studies, even unhappily married people have a higher set point of happiness than groups of single people.

And happiness is contagious. Research done by an economist at the University of Warwick suggests that if you’re married to someone who is happy, then you are happy as well. The research concludes that happiness, like material things in a marriage, is shared. Marry a happy person and catch the virus!

Men Aren’t Adapting to Motherhood

July 20th, 2011

I think a lot about two things: the maternal wall and sexual hook-ups. Separately of course.

Ever since UC Berkley Professor, Joan Williams lit my brain on fire with her book “Reshaping the Work/Family Debate” I think about that mommy-wall a lot. Williams poses the idea that most women will never see a glass ceiling before they slam into a maternal wall – the systematic and subtle discrimination against mothers in the workplace, that causes some to “opt out” without knowing they’d been pushed.

But yesterday I read about what should be near ideal conditions to support families. They exist for women professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After being criticized for employing too few women the school has made valiant strides to right some wrongs of patriarchy. MIT gives a yearlong leave to parents without dinging tenure. Day care centers are right there on campus and extra dough for child-care is part and parcel with business travel.

And some MIT women are still complaining.

According to the New York Times, “They express frustration that parenthood remained a women’s issue, rather than a family one…. Administrators say some men use family leave to do outside work, instead of to be their children’s primary care giver — creating more professional inequity.”

To which I say, Duh! They’re men, not mothers.

Traditional feminists must hate me. Because I continue to look at biological predisposition before cultural imposition. I roll my eyes when I see studies that indicate “women aren’t adapting well to the hook-up culture.” Of course we’re not adapting to a male model of sexuality. We’re women and for millions of years sex involved high risk. The possibility for shame, STD’s, or eighteen years saddled with another mouth to feed. Sex is no joke for women. Hook ups ring with not-so-ancient chances for harrowing consequences.

And so now we’re wondering why men aren’t adapting to motherhood? It’s basic anthropology, folks. Three clues: Homo sapiens have the widest range of paternal investment of any primate, ranging from a doting daddy to a sperm donor. Four out of ten men may be biologically wired to cheat. And all men feel less guilt than women. Fat chance that most dudes would use paternity leave to parent. More like this could be a ripe opportunity to work on work, make some money, compete with other men, and maybe even earn access to a higher status pussy. (Forgive. It’s my favorite word.)

I know who’s going to comment on this blog. You well-rounded fathers who are changing diapers, driving car pool, and bringing home the bacon. You’re going to say I’m being hard on men. That I’m generalizing. And you’ll be right.

And I’m also generalizing about women. All women aren’t wired to nurture. Just last evening I chatted with a woman who said she cut her maternity leave short because she couldn’t stand to rock a baby for most of the day. (Part of me wonders if what she couldn’t stand was the loss of identity.)

The real problem is assuming any one individual is wired for any one gender-linked behavior, be it promiscuity or nurturing. But I’m a betting woman. And I believe in the laws of statistical probability. Most men just aren’t going to do a better job with a newborn than most women.

So, why reinvent the wheel when we can simply pave the road better? We should stop trying to turn men into good mothers and instead pay women enough to nurture or hire other women to help with hungry babes. Then men can go back to what they are so good at. What was that again? (Just kidding.)

Maxim-Style Misogyny in Inc Magazine?

July 17th, 2011

Something just angered me. I was sitting in bed reading one of my favorite magazines, Inc, the issue with real housewife, Bethenny Frankel on the cover. I paused to ask myself why a real mom needs a hip-hugging mini-dress and a margarita that panders to eating disorders (Skinny Girl Margaritas) to succeed in business. But that wasn’t what made me mad. I consoled my self with the fact that the editor of the magazine is a woman and I’m sure she and Bethenny are doing what women sometimes have to do to profit in patriarchy  – be as dumb as a fox slipping around the boys club nabbing their own economic power

 

Instead, what angered me was a really long and flashy article about a billionaire’s son,  21-year-old, Ankur Jain and his high-flying crew of college aged business “leaders” who travel the world in jets and porches using their father’s contacts to build companies while emailing in their college papers.  The article is called “Ankur Jain’s Perpetual-Motion Win-Win Machine – Meet the best-connected 21-year-old in the world and his many, many friends.” There were an amazing number of photos accompanying the piece. Thirteen in all. A patio lunch with guy friends in the Netherlands, a formal dinner at an Ambassador’s home, and photos of many clusters of men, young and old, in meetings and conferences. Then it struck me. Where are the women????

 

I put on my reading glasses. This called for serious tools to scrutinize the photos. I did find images of my female sisters. Only two were recognizable. One was a waitress serving the young men beer. The other was a laughing party girl with them in the back of a limo.  Except in the internet version of the article, the young women is cropped out completely. I nearly gagged. I read deep into the article and this passage is the main reference to women:

 

“Privileged young men are nothing new. It’s not extraordinary that Jain and his friends want to chase women, hang out with their friends, experience the best of everything, and maybe someday change the world. (It’s not extraordinary, either, that when they are talking business, there are few women around.)

 

It made me think of the film about the Facebook movie, The Social Network. Was I seeing Hollywood screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin’s imaginings of women from that movie? Where the most brilliant female minds at Ivy league schools were depicted as sex and drug crazed or simply insane. Somehow I can forgive a 50-year-old screenwriter’s college girl fantasies when he’s creating art.

 

But not Inc Magazine. This is a woman-edited business publication that regularly features female entrepreneurs. Why this misogyny here?

 

Then I searched for the author… Burt Helm. The net pegs him at age 28, a white male, who writes for Business Week and a former staffer at, yes, Maxim. Enough said. Then I laughed. A big belly laugh. The last of a dying breed of silly boys. When women rule the world, these dudes will be the easiest to covert as they’ll be easily distracted by our lingerie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Fights Help Love

June 25th, 2011

Let’s face it conflict is part of all intimate relationships. Parents get angry at kids. Wives get angry at wives. Brothers get angry at sisters. When I hear of a couple or family that “never fights” a red flag gets waved for me. And, I am quite assured that they don’t have true intimacy. When two separate people join together for common life goals, clashes are inevitable. But the presence of conflict alone is not an indicator of a relationship’s health. I prefer to focus instead on the  nature of how couples and families make repair. How do couples make up after a fight? With apologies, contrition, consoling and even laughter? Or is the aftermath of anger marked by silence, distance and a new rule to never speak about the subject of the fight?

 

Learning how to have healthy conflict is crucial to having emotional intimacy. But what exactly is healthy conflict?

 

Well, for starters, fighting fair means using words that identify your feelings rather than blame and point fingers. Easier said than done. Even though psychotherapists stress that we should focus on our feelings rather than level accusations, even the most educated of us resort to blaming sentences that begin with the word “YOU!” That alone doesn’t indicate a “bad fight” unless it is also followed by vicious name calling. Name calling is a bad sign. It indicates that one partner has temporarily forgotten the other’s identity and has substituted it by a skewed stereotype. It’s hard to drop those evil caricatures once our minds have created them. If you see him as a loser and tell him over and over, you are also rewiring your brain to believe this is true. One other thing to consider is the amount of voice time alloted each arguer. If the yelling is terribly lop-sided and one partner gets more air time, then something else is going on. Either intimidation by the loud mouth, or an emotional retreat by the other. Both things are not fighting fair.

 

As injurious as a fight can be, the biggest determinant of whether it is a “good fight” is the way repair is made afterward. There are many unique ways that couples come back into relationship after a fight. Notes left by the morning coffee pot, flowers at the office, and my favorite — off-the-charts make-up sex. But the important thing to remember is that love and respect can return.

 

Dangerous aftermaths include icy treatment for days on end. Little jabs thrown into unrelated conversations. Passive aggressive, retaliatory behavior. And worst of all, a fight that morphs into other fights that get flooded with material from old injuries. “Remember the time you…..”

 

The best way to learn to have “good fights” is to establish ground rules before any fighting begins. Men love rules of the game. It reminds them of sports and makes fighting a healthy challenge rather than a confusing battle with a scary, invisible opponent. Some ground rules might include, no name calling, no stonewalling, no fighting in front of the kids, no going to bed mad, and most importantly, scheduled make-up time the next day. It is also important to understand that each person has their own fighting style that must be respected. A man who walks out the door for brisk walk during an argument may not be rejecting you, he may be protecting you from a shift from words to action. Some people need a time-out to regroup and think during a fight. The time to talk about fighting styles, of course, is when you are not fighting.

 

Studies on couples conflict style show that the two most important ingredients to healthy fighting are empathy and humor. When you are feeling unheard, disrespected, or on the losing end of a power struggle, try as hard as you can to put yourself in your partner’s schools. Imagine you are on the other side of the dynamic battling with the likes of YOU. Best of all, is to find comedy in your tragedy. If you can muster the brain power, step outside your fight and imagine you are a fly on the wall. Reframe your dialogue as a script from a Saturday Night Live skit or a prime-time sit-com. Now look how silly you sound!

 

The most important ingredient during an conflict is the knowledge that love can return and that spirited negotiation is all part of building intimacy. When I once commented to my favorite bickering couple that I notice that there is love behind their arguments, the husband winked at me and said, “Not love. Sport.” Even in conflict there can be a bond and a secret agreement to respect each other.