A reader turns me on to a blog site by therapist Dr. Robert Glover. I like him. I like his encouraging energy. He reminds me of me, the way he is always writing, reaching out to the world and saying,
A reader turns me on to a blog site by therapist Dr. Robert Glover. I like him. I like his encouraging energy. He reminds me of me, the way he is always writing, reaching out to the world and saying, “Hey, let’s think about this together!”
A reader turns me on to a blog site by therapist Dr. Robert Glover. I like him. I like his encouraging energy. He reminds me of me, the way he is always writing, reaching out to the world and saying, “Hey, let’s think about this together!”
But finally he writes a blog that makes me want to fuss with him a bit. I hope he understands that I do this only with people I greatly admire. Here’s the blog that has piqued my critical reflection: http://bit.ly/1zucG5y.
Read it. Then come back.
My critique is simply this, Dr. Glover: You have overstated your case.
You are absolutely right, of course, to say that healthy women are attracted to a man who has a well-developed sense of self. A man with layers. A man who chooses a rich, full, multidimensional life. A man with a dynamic fraternity — an inner circle of close guy friends with whom he regular connects and enjoys being a guy. A man with a vocation — a meaningful and faithful way that he shares his gifts with the world. A man with hobbies, interests, perhaps an art form.
Of course our wives/girlfriends don’t belong on pedestals. A woman is not a Greek mythological character. They’re just women. I’ve always thought the chief reason we put anyone “on a pedestal” is to get them out of the way. It only looks like a compliment. It plays out more as a strategy for manipulation and distance.
I’m in particular agreement with your emphasis on masculine leadership — a man with a plan! Several years ago, I diagnosed my mate’s toilet problem: a bolt had rusted and broken. Couldn’t find the part at Home Depot. I found it online, and ordered it. I told her, “The part will be here next week. I’ll fix it then.” And then I surprised myself when I said firmly, even fiercely, “And if I find out that you have called a plumber and paid $100 for him to fix it, I am not going to be happy!”
She turned, eyes dancing, head turned at a coquettish angle and said, “That kinda turned me on.”
Yes, yes and yes, Dr. Glover.
But it’s your metaphor that I find incomplete. Intentionally or accidentally, it’s a metaphor that, in my opinion, begs to affirm and participate in what I call this culture’s “Idolatrous Individuality.”
You say that your preferred and suggested metaphor for a great life partnership (or love relationship) is that a woman should be “the icing on your cake.” The cake, then, is the man’s life, for which he alone is responsible. The inference being that the woman, too, will bake her own cake. Two cakes, side by side, each enjoying the other as “icing.”
OK. When the Green Bay Packers win, it’s icing on my cake. When I get a refund from the Internal Revenue Service, it’s icing. When my four-team parlay card hits, it’s icing. When my plane is on time. When I see a rainbow or a hummingbird. When readers lets me know they appreciate a column I’ve written.
But, my life partner? Icing?
Strictly speaking, Dr. Glover. I don’t want the love relationship you’re proposing. Literally interpreted, I would consider it a kind of cowardice in myself. An emotional immaturity.
The great adventure is finding the gumption to allow your life partner to become so special, unique and important to you that you want to bake one cake. Together! A cake called We.
Although it is literally true that only I am responsible for my own happiness, it’s erroneous to think my happiness will ultimately be located anywhere other than in the joy of interdependent intimacy — finding the one person upon whom I can absolutely rely.
And considering it an honor that she thus relies on me.
I am not responsible for my mate’s happiness. But I’m damn well responsible to her happiness.
Our current culture is replete with conversation about how we cannot love anyone until we love ourselves. We keep talking as if “I” and “We” can be reduced to dichotomy.
It can’t. The only way to be happy in life partnership is to cultivate a solid selfhood (differentiation). But the only way to have real progress in the journey of differentiation is to throw yourself headlong into the mystery of intimacy. Relationship!
I want to be in a life partnership where I bring my cake, such as it is. She brings hers. But, at the center of the table, you will see the cake we bake together.
And every day, the best “I” that I have will be found in service to “We.”
Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Las Vegas Psychiatry and the author of “Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing” (Stephens Press). Contact him at skalas@reviewjournal.com.
