I have not purchased the book yet, but I did skim through it at the book store. Is this the general theory of the book:
1) The man must develop a primary purpose in life that is NOT his wife or marriage. 2) The man must consider his wife "disposable", meaning that if she can no provide what he needs, he just moves on. 3) That women effectively want men that don't want them (needy).
If anyone has a better summation, I would love to here it.
I have read other Deida, not that book and no, that is not what he says. Number one is close the rest - no. Deida does talk about the man ignoring minor resistance from his wife and taking the leadership role but he also talks about understanding your W in a very intimate way. He never references one's partner as disposable but certainly does acknowledge that all people are not right for one another all the time. That is a far different stance. Cemar - when the book comes please read it in a flexible way. Read it with a sense of, "Hhhmmm, wonder if there is something to this?" You need to see things with a little more flexibility - your W, what you read, how you view things and you will go a long way toward improving your relationships.
Hopefully someone who read the book will respond about the actual content of the book.
I HIGHLY recommend that you read the book. I know you would just LOVE for your wife to read Sclessinger, but if you cannot incorporate the ideas of Dieda, then you are being simply hypocritical to expect your wife to take up Schlessinger.
Dieda says: 1. The man’s primary purpose is pursuit of his main objective, be that career, a hobby, the arts, whatever. 2. The woman is the inspiration for the man’s primary purpose. 3. The man’s responsibility is to share gifts with his woman that he achieves through pursuit of his primary purpose. 4. The woman’s primary purpose is the relationship.
All this is lockstep with what Schlessinger proposes, but from the male point of view. If Schlessinger is good for your wife, then Dieda HAS to be good for you. The problem I see you having with it is that you will have to take accountability for your role as the man and stop asking your wife to do that for you.
1) The man must develop a primary purpose in life that is NOT his wife or marriage.
I think he'd probably phrase it as the man *has* a primary purpose in life that is NOT his wife or marriage and that if he hasn't discovered it, he needs to.
Makes sense, right? If the man doesn't have the tools to make the relationship work why would he make it his primary purpose? That would be an exercise in futility.
2) The man must consider his wife "disposable", meaning that if she can not provide what he needs, he just moves on.
The man must pursue his purpose whether his wife is meeting his needs or not. He's not required to dispose of her.
3) That women effectively want men that don't want them (needy).
Women want men that don't need them (a concept repeated in a thousand other books). Women want men to lead the relationship (what "leading" entails is a topic for another thread). Women are needy for masculine energy.
TWotSM dovetails nicely with John Eldredge's Wild at Heart (hey to Lil), imo. Eldredge writes from a Christian perspective and says a man needs a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue and an adventure to live. Both authors say a man often seeks something from a woman that she can never give him (his masculinity). Eldredge says you have to get that from God and Deida essentially says you give it to yourself ("realize that you already have what you seek").
Like Dr. Laura, both TWofSM and WaH can be offputting due to the authors' styles and POVs. If you read any of this, you'll take from it what you're open to and ready for.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
Wow. Something about you has radically shifted. I could postulate on what it is, but then that would ruin the mystery. Whatever it is you've found, I hope you keep it. It's very cool.
Quote: Eldredge writes from a Christian perspective and says a man needs a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue and an adventure to live. Both authors say a man often seeks something from a woman that she can never give him (his masculinity). Eldredge says you have to get that from God and Deida essentially says you give it to yourself ("realize that you already have what you seek").
Jung says that a man's soul is feminine (anima) and a woman's soul is masculine (animus). When we fall in love, we feel that we have connected with our own soul-- that's why it's so powerful. We see our deepest self reflected back to us by our partner. That's why there's this sense of "coming home" and "finally, someone who sees INTO me" when we first fall in love (and in an ideal universe that feeling continues throughout the R, at least as an undercurrent.) The man's anima can serve as inspiration and muse for a lifetime of work, art, accomplishment... it's a very powerful force.
A sensitive, caring woman will respect the role she plays in carrying and reflecting her man's soul image and take it seriously. This is very cool stuff.
Books that help with the Jungian POV are "He" and "She," tiny books by Robert Johnson.
wow this is great stuff. all rings true. feminism may have been an important movement on some levels... but it seems as though most postmodern thinking has done away with the idea of roles and separate, innate gender personalities. even if this rings true in the female heart - there are WAY too many conflicting stories being told day in and day out on TV, film, and other media. our culture is saying the opposite of deida is saying. how are women to rebel?
let me just add i had a chance to check out this book at the bookstore on my lunch break it looks great. i read the chapter on decision making... really good stuff. definitely check this out cemar.
I have just purchased the book. I think he has some good ideas. But then I glanced at a couple chapters towards the back of the book, and it sounds to me like he recommends that men associate with young women and that older women are essentially "used up". Not sure how this can be applied in a christian sense.
Like I said, I have not read it completely yet. I will probably give it a review later on here.
