What have planets got to do with it?

[IanGray]

I was thinking the other day about a book entitled; "Women are from Venus Men are from Mars." The author states that in a relationship, women try to change men and mould them into acting as there ideal man would. It struck me that in my experience, most people are trying to every one else's nature.

Every one attempting this fails to realize that change comes from the inside/out. This seems to me a recipe for a relationship disaster.

:)Any thoughts folks

Ian

[totchune]

I was thinking the other day about a book entitled; "Women are from Venus Men are from Mars." The author states that in a relationship, women try to change men and mould them into acting as there ideal man would. It struck me that in my experience, most people are trying to every one else's nature.

Every one attempting this fails to realize that change comes from the inside/out. This seems to me a recipe for a relationship disaster.

:)Any thoughts folks

Ian

I think the book is popular in the US because it is an accumulation of cliches, totally superficial, a real crowd pleaser.

However it is very arrogant and presumptuous for anyone, male or female, to attempt to change another...people are either compatible or they are not. To "work on a relationship" means usually just that: changing another.

I believe a very precious and healing aspect of love is total understanding and acceptance of the other. If we can't have that, we don't belong with that person.

Many people just don't belong with one another, that's why they have to "work" so hard at changing one another, and why they have so many "issues" with one another.

That's called a neurotic struggle, "working for love", coming from a fundamental feeling of not deserving love. That's a childhood issue, an old struggle, like, "if I could only change my daddy, make him into a loving and attentive daddy, may be he would love me at last", or "if I could become the perfect little boy for my mommy, may be she would accept me, love me and make me feel safe" (and vice-versa along gender lines).

[wolfcamp]

Some time ago, my GF and I were discussing these books and this topic. We agreed that some women try to change men into something that resembles their ideal, which in the end is destructive to the relationship. Then, she off-handedly said that most women try to change men into women, meaning that they want men to act and respond as they (women) would act and respond. In other words, when a woman sets out to change a man, they do it from their own base of existence and understanding, and they try to get men to act as they themselves would act. Women would be happier with Martians if they acted more like Venusians. While I don't agree totally with this concept, I think there is some truth to it.

Ironically, I have a much happier relationship with my girlfriend than I had with my two ex-wives specifically because she allows and encourages me to just be the person I am.

[wolfcamp]

However it is very arrogant and presumptuous for anyone, male or female, to attempt to change another...people are either compatible or they are not. To "work on a relationship" means usually just that: changing another.


I think what it really should mean is: changing yourself.

[totchune]

Then, she off-handedly said that most women try to change men into women, meaning that they want men to act and respond as they (women) would act and respond.

I believe there is a lot of confusion regarding gender roles...I don't think men and women are fundamentally different, but that the differences are learned through conditioning, from a very young age...

How else could we explain, for example, why women cry when they are angry, and men express anger when they should actually cry? (generally speaking, of course, it's a tendency, not a universal pattern).

Because girls are taught anger is not feminine, and boys are taught tears are not masculine...but every human being can get angry and can cry.

Men can also talk and communicate, and express sensitivity and empathy, but they are taught these things are not masculine...they are conditioned to believe a "real" man expresses love mainly through sex, not through complex emotional and psychological intimacy...Men are actually conditioned to fear their inner feminine nature much more than women are taught to fear the masculine within. Few people question a woman's femininity, but a man's masculinity is constantly under scrutiny, at least by mainstream society.

Actually, the feminine is everywhere under attack, and has been for centuries within patriarchal cultures, both within men (Anima) and through the oppression of women.

I think, ultimately, women will not be "liberated" as long as men are not liberated from this idiotic conditioning and profound insecurities about what it means to be a "real" man...women just want men to be authentic human being, rather than one-dimensional caricatures of masculinity.

Too bad some women are now turning into being caricatures of femininity as well, with huge fake boobs, fake lips, fake everything to look like Barbie dolls promoted by the media as role models.
It is, by the way, revealing to witness how some transgendered men often express caricatures of femininity, which is one of the reason why they make society so uncomfortable, because they are reflecting the complete absurdity of our gender conditioning. It is like society looking at itself in a distorting mirror, and seeing the absurdity of what we consider "feminine" or "masculine".

[totchune]

I think what it really should mean is: changing yourself.

Perhaps, but why do you need to change yourself? Unless someone is a mass murderer or any other kind of psycho or sick individual, why change?...We can evolve, grow, expand, but only on our own time and according to our own nature, not to someone's else or society's expectations, particularly when they oppose who we are, which they often do.

[bityme]

Perhaps, but why do you need to change yourself? Unless someone is a mass murderer or any other kind of psycho or sick individual, why change?...We can evolve, grow, expand, but only on our own time and according to our own nature, not to someone's else or society's expectations, particularly when they oppose who we are, which they often do.

Well put! Very often that evolution, growth, and/or expansion involves questioning ourselves; trying to deal with feelings or desires which some portion of society avoids or thinks is wrong. Relationships become "at risk" when either party is unable to understand the evolution of the other. Unfortunately, in our puritanical, gender based society, the response to that evolution is different. Generally, the man looks at the woman and says: "You weren't like that when I fell in love with you." The woman, however, looks at the man and says: "Why can't you be more like this or that?"

In either case it is a lack of understanding or acceptance of the evolution. One party doesn't like the fact that the evolution is taking place and the other feels the evolution should move in a different direction.

[elian]

The whole Aquarian underculture that is out there is what this book appeals to - if you don't know what I'm talkin' 'bout try watching a few episodes of the old "Star Trek" episodes. Chivalrous men and damsels in distress that make up the "new camelot".

There are a certain group of people out there who still don't know what makes women or men behave in a certain way. Instead of making an honest attempt to communicate - or maybe because the behaviors are so "taken for granted" they envelope the whole idea in some sort of "sacred and confusing shroud of mystery" - similar to the way that US society deals with "sex" - there are some things "we just don't talk about" and just live with. Personally I think this is a very stoopid immature attitude to take..if you don't know how someone is feeling you just ask.

The book tries to muddle its way through explaining what they assume is "the way men/women think". They are trying to navigate the difference in the learned behaviors of our culture.

In the last 30 or so years in the US people have stopped wanting to learn scientific information and instead now prefer to be entertained - they buy into the illusion of the pseudo-world that marketers have created for us to exist in and be concerned about. People like stories, so explaining the differences in culture between men and women in a romantic, mystical way appeals to someone who is looking for some light reading.

[Orlando157]

I always liked Uranus ..... :bigrin:

[elian]

I think my new put down line is going to be - "Step off sonny, when I was your age Pluto was a planet!"

[IanGray]

The whole Aquarian underculture that is out there is what this book appeals to - if you don't know what I'm talkin' 'bout try watching a few episodes of the old "Star Trek" episodes. Chivalrous men and damsels in distress that make up the "new camelot".

There are a certain group of people out there who still don't know what makes women or men behave in a certain way. Instead of making an honest attempt to communicate - or maybe because the behaviors are so "taken for granted" they envelope the whole idea in some sort of "sacred and confusing shroud of mystery" - similar to the way that US society deals with "sex" - there are some things "we just don't talk about" and just live with. Personally I think this is a very stoopid immature attitude to take..if you don't know how someone is feeling you just ask.

The book tries to muddle its way through explaining what they assume is "the way men/women think". They are trying to navigate the difference in the learned behaviors of our culture.

In the last 30 or so years in the US people have stopped wanting to learn scientific information and instead now prefer to be entertained - they buy into the illusion of the pseudo-world that marketers have created for us to exist in and be concerned about. People like stories, so explaining the differences in culture between men and women in a romantic, mystical way appeals to someone who is looking for some light reading.

I would not call this book light reading. Boring and easy to forget is a more accurate description.

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is a book that is better written and presented.

Ray

[evilpanda]

i seem to remember the author gray getting his doctorate in psychology through an internet course. his books have been successful because people think that reading something that cost 13 bucks and swallowing a little blue pill will solve all of their relationship problems.

[12voltman59]

This book was one of those pop-psychology self-help books that was so popular for so long---that may be fading a bit now--but then again----we have books like the Pastor Rick Warren and his mega-hit book "The Purposeful LIfe"--which is a Christianized verson of self-help pop-pysch.

[Falke]

Ironically, I have a much happier relationship with my girlfriend than I had with my two ex-wives specifically because she allows and encourages me to just be the person I am.

Same with my wife,and it does go vice versa. If you really feel you have to change the person you are with as they annoy you to no end over some mannerism they have. Then maybe it's time to CHANGE the person.

[IanGray]

The problem with self-help books is that they promise a quick fix for everyones problems, which is why they are successful , as everyone is looking for a quick fix. I know from experience that to achieve anything worthwhile, takes a lot of effort over a lot of years. I picked up the guitar in 1969 and I am still learning. Any books I have which give me guidelines on how to play I review now and again.

If a book is read more than once fresh insights are gained and it therefore follows that a self-help book should be studied regularly.

Ray :)

[MarieDelta]

Ok,

I'm gonna step in here.

The past few years have taught me to be something of an expert in matters of gender.

Not saying I know everything, but I do know quite a bit.

The differences between men and women, are almost negliable, compared to the differences between two women, or between two men.

The thing is gender isnt and on off switch, isnt either/or, isnt a win lose game.

Gender is a spectrum, like sexuality, and peoples behavior is all along that spectrum.


But there are some genetic factors, inherent in the gender system. "Some" I said. What these factors are and what their effects are , is open to speculation.

[codybear3]

I always liked Uranus ..... :bigrin:

Maybe you do, Orlando... But you never did say "whose"... :eek::paw::paw:

[veganbigmac]

Some great posts. I haven't read this book myself, but I know that when I read something that doesn't wash I take a step back and try and be objective. Perhaps it's just the scientist in me, but I think gender is entirely physical, you either have one set of reproductive organs or the other. Beyond that isn't your gender, but rather your identity/personality/true self/"or whatever you want to call it". Thinking that men "should" act this way or that, and that women "try and change men" and blah blah blah is a load of hooey. Trying to change the way a person acts in a relationship is not a phenomena restricted to women acting on males, it goes both ways.

Gender roles as excuses for behaviors persist because they make it easier for people to think about complex issues (like relationships) in simpler ways. This type of dichotomous thinking is much easier to deal with than actually confronting the multitude of thoughts and emotions that surround relationship issues. Also, by making problems external they allow people to avoid dealing with internal conflicts, which are far more difficult to confront.

I guess to summarize...People don't like to think deeply, books like this allow them to circumvent an inconvenience like introspection by aggregating many issues into big, easy to handle thoughts.

[AmericanBeauty]

They don't have anything to do with relationships which is why astrology is total BS.

People want simple answers to complex ones, or they are lazy and don't want to actually have a relationship or do any of the work that comes along with having a relationship.

Anyway this is a book for heterosexual couples but if you are in a gay or lesbian relationship, just translate it to meet your needs.

[totchune]

I guess to summarize...People don't like to think deeply, books like this allow them to circumvent an inconvenience like introspection by aggregating many issues into big, easy to handle thoughts.

It is part of the consumer society, simplifying complex issues and creating boxed concepts that are easy to consume...1,2,3 and voila! here's your magic answer, and put it on Opra or doctor Phil!
Add to this deeply-ingrained American anti-intellectualism, and you get this sort of popular culture...that makes you want to throw up.
You can also see this in political campaigns...it is grotesque how politicians are given a script to talk down to the populace and simplify issues to kinder-garden levels...extremely insulting, but many unfortunately fall for it every time, they can't even tell they are being insulted!...
Where did I put my ripe tomatoes, rotten eggs and extra shoes?

[hudson9]

I think people are being a little hard on this book. The book was not about women trying to make men be more like women, or women more like men, but rather about the differences in how many (not all) men and women communicate, and how those differences (whether the result of social conditioning or brain chemistry) can get in the way of men and women communicating -- particularly when there is an emotional component present.

Are there differences in communication "style" between men and women? Probably -- although as someone already said, there's probably a greater range of difference between individual women or individual men than there is between men and women "in general." Kind of like how the National League used to be a "low strike" league vs. the American League's "high strike" (until both leagues went to the same chest protectors) -- overall a slight difference, but actually a greater range of differences between individual umpires.

Are the differences due to socialization or biology? Probably both! There has been a lot of study lately about the impact of competing evolutionary factors on sexuality -- i.e., the evolutionary advantage of non-monogamy in propagating an individuals DNA, vs. the enhanced survival of offspring when 2 parents stick around (at least in the jungle!). Don't yell at me -- yes, this is an oversimplification, and again (as relates to the "characteristics" of male vs. female) there's a greater range of difference....(etc.!)

This is all even MORE complicated by the fact that, as science is discovering, even the question of male/female anatomical gender is more complicated than just which kind of plumbing or even DNA one has... but rather is a complex interaction between DNA and the soup of hormones present in utero as a fetus developes. The heredity/environment interaction is more complex than anybody ever imagined!

[vittoria]

I was thinking the other day about a book entitled; "Women are from Venus Men are from Mars." The author states that in a relationship, women try to change men and mould them into acting as there ideal man would. It struck me that in my experience, most people are trying to every one else's nature.

Every one attempting this fails to realize that change comes from the inside/out. This seems to me a recipe for a relationship disaster.

:)Any thoughts folks

Ian

I dont think it had anything to do with planets per se... according to mythology, Mars was the god of war and Venus the goddess of love. Its just that those are planetary names now.

[IanGray]

I have reached the section where the author explains how to score with the opposite sex. This includes buying flowers, remembering birthdays and telling someone that you love them etc. This is fine if you enjoy doing this and the person you are dealing with is secure emotionally. However, if someone needs constant reassurance that they are loved by such means, it tells me that the bonds that hold two people together are not strong enough.

No, a relationship that works needs to be deeper than that. My brother thinks that if he finds a woman who he can talk to easily, he has found that special person. This is wrong as such a special bond is deeper than mere words,which makes it difficult explain. IIf anyone meets such a person they will just know. It has taken me a lifetime to realize this.

Ian