Speak Without Interruption &#187; Men&#8217;s Issues

Curing Alcoholism

TimKellis — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:30:09 +0000

Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage

If you would like to get your therapist’s head spinning ask him or her what it means to be cured and watch as your therapist struggles to answer that question. The unfortunate reality is the psychology industry, with its biological foundation, has not yet defined what it means to be mentally cured. What makes this notion even more amazing, is the rest of us as a society knows the answer to this question, to be happy with yourself. To clarify, though, individual happiness has nothing to do with the level of wealth or looks, but is an internal quality where the individual finds balance in his or her perception of self against the backdrop of the rest of society.

I wanted to discuss one psychological problem to demonstrate my point, the notion of alcoholism. Modern medical definitions describe alcoholism as a diseaseand addiction which results in a persistent use of alcohol despite negative consequences. The Journal of the American Medical Association defines alcoholism as “a primary, chronic disease characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking.” According to Wikipedia it is estimated that 9% of the general population is predisposed to alcoholism based on genetic factors.

In other words, alcoholism is defined as a biological disease defined by the genetic makeup of the individual. Alcoholics Anonymous’ basic text, known as the “Big Book,” describes alcoholism as an illness that involves a physical allergy and a mental obsession. And of course the mental obsession occurs because of the biological makeup of the brain. Because of this definition there is no attempt on the professionals part to “cure” the alcoholic. In fact, the 12-step program in AA basically teaches people that they have a disease and must give their lives up to God to manage their disease, despite the fact that the fourth step involves clarifying those experiences from the past that have caused the mental problems in the first place, in what is called the “moral inventory”.

As an outsider to the psychology industry, but one who has done a lot of research on the basic tenets of the industry, I am completely amazed by the lack of any mental approach to mental problems, again an apparent contradiction in terms. What makes this notion even more amazing to me is the discovery of the work done by Carl Jung, the one-time heir apparent to Freud, and the greatest psychologist who has ever lived. I claim Jung’s greatness because of the simple fact that he tried, AND SUCCEEDED, in curing people, despite the fact that he had to hide his accomplishments from his peers because of the scorn he felt he would get with his claims.

I wanted to share one example with you, where Jung was able to cure an alcoholic. Here is his description of this case.

“An American colleague sent me a patient. The accompanying diagnosis read ‘alcoholic neurasthenia.’ The prognosis called him ‘incurable…’ The patient came for consultation, and after I had talked a little with him I saw that the man had an ordinary neurosis, of whose psychic origins he had no inkling. I made an association test and discovered that he was suffering from the effects of a formidable mother complex. He came from a rich and respected family, had a likeable wife and no cares-externally speaking. Only he drank too much. The drinking was a desperate attempt to narcotize himself, to forget his oppressive situation. Naturally, it did not help.”

“His mother was the owner of a large company, and the unusually talented son occupied a leading post in the firm. He really should long since have escaped from his oppressive subordination to his mother, but he could not summon up the resolution to throw up his excellent position. Thus he remained chained to his mother, who had installed him in the business. Whenever he was with her, or had to submit to her interference with his work, he would start drinking in order to stupefy or discharge his emotions. A part of him did not really want to leave the comfortably warm nest, against his own instincts he was allowing himself to be seduced by wealth and comfort.

After brief treatment he stopped drinking, and considered himself cured. But I told him, ‘I do not guarantee that you will not relapse into the same state if you return to your former situation.’ He did not believe me, and returned home to America in fine fettle.

As soon as he was back under his mother’s influence, the drinking began again. Thereupon I was called by her to a consultation during her stay in Switzerland. She was an intelligent woman, but was a real ‘power devil’. I saw what the son had to contend with, and realized that he did not have the strength to resist. Physically, too, he was rather delicate and no match for his mother. I therefore decided upon an act of force majeure. Behind his back I gave his mother a medical certificate to the effect that her son’s alcoholism rendered him incapable of fulfilling the requirements of his job. I recommended his discharge. This advice was followed-and the son, of course, was furious with me.

Here I had done something, which normally would be considered unethical for a medical man. But I knew that for the patient’s sake I had had to take this step.

His further development? Separated from his mother, his own personality was able to unfold. He made a brilliant career-in spite of, or rather just because of the strong horse pill I had given him. His wife was grateful to me, for her husband had not only overcome his alcoholism, but had also struck out on his own individual path with the greatest success.

Nevertheless, for years I had a guilty conscience about this patient because I had made out that certificate behind his back, though I was certain that only such an act could free him. And indeed, once his liberation was accomplished, the neurosis disappeared.”

The messages from this case are numerous. First, you clearly see the impact of an imbalanced relationship between a child and a parent. Again, if you cannot mature as an adult, if you are still your parents’ child, if there is still a negative emotional bond, then you cannot be free to become who you are, which is absolutely essential if you are going to find the nirvana of life, happiness. We all must emotionally move away some day, although unfortunately many adults have not grasped this concept. They still let domineering parents control their lives. Granted the process can be very painful and scary.

Also, we clearly see the financial impact on mental health. In today’s society with its economic structure financial concerns play a huge part in its mental health. It is up to individuals to come to grips with their own financial position. Unless you are Bill Gates there is somebody in the world who has more money than you. You either learn to live with your finances or you change, improve your finances.This is also a binary decision. This man had to break from the financial grips of his mother before he was able to find himself.

Another most significant element of this case is that it refutes today’s biological assumption of alcoholism and drug abuse. The psychological understanding of alcohol and drug problems is they are biologically based, and there is nothing you can do about it.Common sense, on the other hand, would say the opposite, and Jung proved it! There are sources to most of our mental problems, particularly with the population in general, or else there would be many, many more serious psychological problems today. After all, if you think through the biological conclusion because we have such a long tradition of wars then you would have to conclude the murder rate would be significantly higher, because our biological selves would have developed and perfected the art of murder. This is not the case within our society. But the problems of alcoholism and drug abuse do have their root causes. As soon as this man left the grips of his mother he quit drinking. Why do you think so many people who return from wars develop such problems? They develop mental problems because they are trying to anaesthetize their experiences. And other people who are dependent on substance abuse are that way because of some earlier psychological trauma.

And lastly, Jung also had to deal with the ethical dilemma of having to take part in the breaking of this insecure bond between mother and son. Of course it is not illegal for a mother to maintain her grip on her son, but it does present a very difficult psychological problem. Again, the purpose here is not to blame the mother and it is impossible to explain to the son until he gets through the psychological grip his mother has on him, that Jung was doing this to cure his patient, which is supposed to be the function of psychology. So what does Jung accomplish? He makes the couple happy again. The patient’s wife was “grateful” to Jung.

What is dumbfounding to me, though, is to read in the psychological texts the circular logic used by the professionals to rationalize this biological conclusion. In my last blog comment on the notion that men are biologically predisposed to cheat, the author begins the article by describing a prior article where the author, who is also a psychologist, tries to explain the mental causes of intimacy problems, the man is angry with his wife. The author then states that this conclusion finds fault with the man because of the anger. The author then elaborates on the biological reason men cheat with the obvious inference that because the root causes are biologically-based there is nothing men can do to refrain from cheating.

In other words, if the industry were to take a mental approach to curing people then it would be finding fault with those individuals, but the biological approach yields no faults…and no cure!!!

by Tim Kellis

Sex Surrogate Article in NY Magazine

Decision Time

steve sangirardi — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:52:20 +0000

Decision Time–Steve Sangirardi

From 1971 to 1976 I was involved with my first girlfriend, Laura. For the inaugural year of our relationship–I was a high school senior and she was a sophomore–we saw each other every day, except one when she had to go to an aunt’s anniversary in New Jersey; to compensate for the separation, we spoke to each other on the phone three times. The rest of the year, though, we saw each other every day much to the chagrin of my friends who said I had become p-whipped. I didn’t really care what they said. I wanted to be with Laura all the time and so I treated her like a queen. She was my first girlfriend, and the first song we ever slow-danced to was Chicago’s “Color My World” at a high school mixer at what was then Bishop Reilly in Queens.
Soon, I can’t pinpoint when, maybe when I began going to college and she was a senior in high school, things got very sour. We were constantly arguing, engaging in the most adolescent mind-games, and our relationship turned into a pendulum—if we weren’t fooling around like lizards in the backseat of my ’68 Impala because we couldn’t afford a motel room, then we were bickering, accusing, impaling, and of course s wearing that we would never talk to each other again. Through these difficult times, I never cheated on her and I don’t think she cheated on me either, reinforcing the illusion of forever.
In March of 1974, my sophomore year in college, disaster struck. Laura missed her period; she was two weeks late. Well, I had a few options. My first impulse was to get in my Chevy Impala, where all the trouble had started in the first place, and drive to the West Coast. So what if I were an escapist and never heard from again? If I married Laura, my life and hers would have been miserable. But prior to being a miserably married man, her parents and mine would have killed me and sent me down the aisle in a coffin. The very idea of marrying Laura terrified me. My part-time job as a bank teller wouldn’t quite pay the bills. My third possibility was an abortion which I did not believe in then or now. I may have been a Catholic school boy who ‘mingled’ with his girlfriend in the backseat of his Impala, but I was not a Catholic school boy who aborted embryonic babies. The fourth possibility was a miraculous one: maybe she wasn’t pregnant after all but only late. (It did cross my mind that Laura was pretending the whole pregnancy in order to torture me or even blackmail me down the aisle. That was wishful thinking. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that she wouldn’t pretend, plain and simple, because the last thing she wanted to do was marry the likes of me.)
What was poor ‘moi’ to do? I couldn’t focus in school, I couldn’t muster the courage to tell my parents or my best friend Eddie, I could hardly eat, could hardly sleep, could hardly enjoy the social pleasures because if I did find myself laughing and having a good time with other people…I would eventually remember the predicament I was in, like a patient with a terminal disease, and say to myself, “what the hell are you laughing about? Why are enjoying yourself? Your small problem hasn’t gone away and you can’t keep procrastinating like young Hamlet. You have got to make a decision. Soon!” Such things I said to myself. Then the Freudian tug-of-war would begin: the bad Id angel told me to get the abortion or run away to California; good Superego angel told me to marry her and endure my misery like a goddamn man. I felt like taking a hatchet to both of these angels. Laura didn’t help the situation either. Whenever I saw her during those two deadly weeks, she was moody, crying, moody, crying, and more than once mentioned that she knew a friend of a friend who performed cheap abortions. I was gallant enough to persuade her not to take that route. Putting a child up for adoption was better than an abortion, I told her.
Finally one night alone in my room I began praying like a demon, focusing all of my energy and will-power so that I could make a decision. I wanted to reach up through the clouds and shake the gods who had apparently ordained my predicament, although I was the one who chose to do the carnal act with Laura. I was the one convinced that at certain times of the month it was impossible for her to get pregnant. Ha! The Fallacy of the Rhythm Method! No one had twisted my existential arm when I made the back seat of my Impala a lounge for lizards and reptiles! All right, damn it, I told the gods, what was I supposed to do? I demanded an answer. Because it was a cloudy night, the skies were in the mood to reply. I had come to my decision: I would marry Laura because that was something my father would have done if he had gotten my mother pregnant before the appointed time. So what if the both of us were unhappy and living in her parents’ house for the next twenty years? So what if in twenty years when I took inventory of my life I’d realize that my choices had lead me to an unhappy state, shackled to a woman I didn’t love and who didn’t love the same things that I did? Marrying her, by all the gods and devils, was the honorable thing to do. As soon as I came to that decision, I felt a peace I won’t even try to put into words. I won’t say that it was a peace that passeth understanding because at nineteen years old I didn’t know what that phrase meant.
But w hat I do know is that no sooner did I decide to marry her than a streak of lightning flashed in the sky.
A scientist will say, of course, that the lightning would have come anyway regardless of my decision, and that very well may be true. But timing is everything in life, and for me and my subjectivity, that lightning bolt was an exclamation point at the end of my marital sentence! Whatever the case, I felt tremendous peace because the heart has reasons that reason knows not of. For the first time in weeks I felt a great calm, and, although being married at nineteen was going to entail tribulation, the lesser of two evils–Scylla or Charybdis–it was the right thing to do. Sometimes, God speaks in lightning.
Now while I was in my bedroom making plans for the future, my mother was downstairs in the kitchen dealing with the present. She was the one who answered the phone, called up to my room, broke my meditation, and told me that it was Laura. Well, I said to myself, why not break the news to the one who was going to be directly involved in my decision? I crept downstairs and headed for the basement. Taking the other phone and certain that my mother had hung up in the kitchen–I was not ready to break the news to my mom and dad which would have explained why I had been so grouchy lately–I crouched behind the bar and went into my whispering mode. Hello. My voice had the firmness of a man ready to=2 0launch his new career as husband and father.
Then Laura said with a smile that was so wide I could see it over the phone, “I just came out of the bathroom. Guess what just came?”
“Are you playing a joke on me,” I said, remembering the lightning.
“No, asshole, I’m serious,” she said. “You won’t be ‘playing’ daddy for a while. At least not with me.”
And then I said something that caused a big fight over the phone when the two of us should have been the happiest teenagers on earth: “O God, let it bleed…”
Two years later Laura eloped with the owner of a bar, breaking my heart and in the process sending me and my luggage to the wilds of Missouri.
Life on the planet.

Sex Surrogates: The “Logic” of Professional Psychologists Part 3

TimKellis — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:35:03 +0000

International Professional Surrogate Association

I am sorry to be so hard on the psychology industry but some of their practices done in the name of “science” bely belief, and I have discovered another concept ridiculous to the point of being hilarious.

Before I go into that concept I do want to discuss what had been my all time favorite, and shows really the lack of understanding of the psyche of the individual.

One of the most common “disorders” is a notion referred to as obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD, where an individual becomes obsessed with a thought pattern, followed by a compulsive behavior. A “treatment” for this “disorder” is referred to as Exposure Response Prevention Therapy, or ERP Therapy, where the individual is exposed to his or her obsessive thought, followed by the prevention of the subsequent behavior.

Wikipedia defines ERP as follows:

Behavioral therapy

The specific technique used in BT/CBT is called exposure and ritual prevention (also known as “exposure and response prevention“) or ERP; this involves gradually learning to tolerate the anxiety associated with not performing the ritual behavior. At first, for example, someone might touch something only very mildly “contaminated” (such as a tissue that has been touched by another tissue that has been touched by the end of a toothpick that has touched a book that came from a “contaminated” location, such as a school.) That is the “exposure”. The “ritual prevention” is not washing. Another example might be leaving the house and checking the lock only once (exposure) without going back and checking again (ritual prevention). The person fairly quickly habituates to the anxiety-producing situation and discovers that their anxiety level has dropped considerably; they can then progress to touching something more “contaminated” or not checking the lock at all—again, without performing the ritual behavior of washing or checking.

The most common OCD is an obsession over germs. Here is a description from a book entitled “The Mind and The Brain” by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz describing the “therapy” for people with OCD over germs:

“In the United States, therapists in the forefront of developing these techniques have had patients rub public toilet seats with their hands and then spread-well, then spread whatever they touched all over their hair, face, and clothes. They have had patients rub urine over themselves. They have had patients bring in a piece of toilet paper soiled with a minuscule amount of their fecal material and rub it on their face and through their hair during the therapy session-and then, at home, contaminate objects around the house with it. In other cases, patients are prevented from washing their hands for days at a time, even after using the bathroom.” Yes, you read that right, a most incredible use of the word “science”.

I thought this would be the most ridiculous discovery of the “logic” of the professionals but I ran across another concept that I can’t decide is more ridiculous or not, the concept of “sex surrogates”.

Yes, this concept is exactly as it sounds. If you have trouble with the intimacy part of your marriage then you can get a substitute, all in the name of “science”. Here is how Wikipedia defines sex surrogates:

A sex surrogate is a member of a sex therapy team who engages in intimate physical or sexual relations with a patient in order to achieve a therapeutic goal. The practice was introduced by Masters and Johnson with their work on Human Sexual Inadequacy in 1970.

There is even a sex surrogate professional society, known as International Professional Surrogates Association:

SurrogateTherapy.Org

They even have a code of ethics:

Each member of IPSA, when acting as a surrogate, shall adhere to the following ethical standards:

1. The designation “surrogate partner” shall apply only in a therapeutic situation comprised of client, surrogate, and supervising therapist. A surrogate partner may be designated to act primarily as either a substitute partner or a co-therapist depending upon the agreement between the surrogate and the therapist.

2. The surrogate is responsible for fostering effective communication with the supervising therapist and the client.

3. The surrogate’s primary responsibility is to the therapeutic situation of which she/he, the client, and the supervising therapist(s) are integral parts. Within this situation, the chief focus and primary ethical responsibility is for the client’s welfare.

4. The objectives and parameters of the therapeutic relationship shall be discussed with the client by the supervising therapist and the surrogate so that the client may make informed decisions.

5. The surrogate’s relationship with the client is temporary; always within the context of the therapeutic situation and in association with the supervision of the therapist.

* The feminine pronoun is hereafter used here to refer to the surrogate, and the masculine pronoun to refer to the client, although both surrogate and client may be of either gender.

6. The surrogate shall recognize the boundaries and limitations of her competence. She will not attempt to use methods outside the range of her training and experience. If she thinks that the client will benefit from such methods, she will communicate this to the supervising therapist.

7. If a surrogate has a professional degree, certificate, license, or accreditation, which applies to other than surrogate work, the function of “surrogate partner” shall be primary while she is working as a surrogate. However, if there is agreement between the surrogate and the supervising therapist that other methods and techniques, within her competence, are appropriate for the welfare of the client, the surrogate may use these additional skills.

8. If a supervising therapist is not available and a situation arises which would normally require consultation with the therapist, the surrogate is responsible for taking appropriate action for the welfare of the client.

9. The surrogate’s responsibility for the welfare of the client continues until it is terminated by mutual agreement among client, surrogate, and therapist; or the client voluntarily terminates the therapy.

10. The identity of a client, and all information received from or about him in the therapeutic situation shall not be communicated outside the therapeutic triangle without the client’s expressed permission, except under the following conditions. Information about the client may be disclosed outside the therapeutic triad only:

a) when there is a clear and imminent danger to individuals or society, and then only to appropriate professional colleagues or public authorities;

b) for the purpose of professional consultation with appropriate professional colleagues, if the identities of individuals are disguised to protect confidentiality.

c) for presentation of information to professional or lay groups, if the identities of individuals are disguised to protect confidentiality.

11. Surrogates shall be responsible for adequate precautionary measures against the transmission of communicable diseases and infections. It is the surrogate’s responsibility to determine that the client has taken similar precautions.

12. It is the surrogate’s responsibility to ensure protection against conception.

13. Surrogates shall recognize that effectiveness in the therapeutic situation depends, in part, upon the surrogate maintaining independent, personally fulfilling social and sexual relationships.

14. In order to maintain optimum professionalism, surrogates are responsible for:

a) obtaining relevant continuing education;

b) seeking prompt and effective help when personal problems arise;

c) receiving adequate supervision for each case.

15. Each member of IPSA who imparts information either publicly or privately about surrogate

work or the organization shall indicate clearly whether the statements represent official IPSA policy or are personal opinions.

16. Members shall be aware that they may be regarded as representative of all surrogates and of IPSA even at times when they are not acting in these capacities. Therefore, their personal conduct should be such as to uphold the professional reputation of surrogates and of IPSA.

17. Announcements of surrogate services to the therapeutic community shall be limited to a simple statement of name, training, credentials and experience, address, phone number, a brief statement of methods used and times available. Current and former supervising therapists shall be identified only with their explicit permission.

Here is an interesting article from NY Magazine with the following title:

Healing Hands

A sex surrogate helps men get over their sexual dysfunctions by getting into bed with them. Is this medicine? Or plain old-fashioned prostitution served up with a spoonful of love?

Now there is logic for you. No wonder the industry hasn’t figured out the solution to the marriage problem, common sense is not part of the industry practice.

by Tim Kellis

Question: Is Marriage Dead?

Question: Is Marriage Dead?

TimKellis — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:48:37 +0000

Tim Kellis, author of "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"

I’m half way through my two month blog tour on relationships. The stops have generally been both interactive and productive. I’ve particularly like the stops where the topics were questions related to relationships.

I wanted to share one in particular, at the Long Relationships blog. I had stops on 3 consecutive days. The first day the questions was is marriage dead. I also want to add the dialogue that ensued. Here is the link to that blog post.

When you sit back and ponder for a moment “what is the biggest problem we as a society are dealing with today”, how would you respond? Is it global warming? Or maybe feeding the hungry? Or possibly our current economic situation?

While these issues get a lot of headlines I would actually have to say our biggest problem is the current culture of marriage. After all, we constantly hear that 50% of those who declare in front of family, friends and God “for better or worse” end up ending what began with such hope and promise.

What a sad fact that half of those relationships that begin with the belief that theirs will last a lifetime go through what can probably be described as one of the most heart wrenching experience any adult has to deal with. What makes this fact so incredibly confusing is this issue is also at the top of the list in the headlines.

How much airtime or print is devoted to the marriage issue? We even have a celebrity, Dr. Phil, who has made a fortune off of the problem of marriage. When one ponders this fact, one is only left scratching his or her head over the question of why? One has to wonder how we got into such a mess.

After all, our culture of divorce is only two generations old. Prior to that, the notion of marriage for a lifetime meant something. Couples took their wedding vows seriously. The family was the foundation that the rest of society was built on.

What changes have occurred in the last two generations that have caused such destruction in what is probably the most significant part of each of our lives?

This issue has to leave the reader with an even more significant question.

Is marriage dead?

JM Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 2:28 am

To be honest, I wouldn’t put the state of marriage above certain things. Why? Because the way people have raised the current young generation (not that the older ones are completely innocent – the children and young adults today were raised by someone…) is a big part of the problems we have today, including the state of marriage.

I don’t think marriage is dead, but I do think it’s not treated as seriously as it used to be by a lot of people. However, it is not dead as long as people like me and my husband and friends we know and love take our marriage very seriously – whether sworn before ‘God’, a god, gods or just sworn in front of family and/or friends.

Jenera Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am

Me and the hubby talk about this often. I don’t think marriage is dead but it’s on its way. There is this mentality that we can do what we want, when we want, and how we want. Society is not teaching to work things through. It’s acceptable to bail when times get tough.

Cheryl Malandrinos Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am

The problem with modern society is that we don’t have a real reason to focus on things other than ourselves. I had a discussion with an actor who used to be on a show set in the late 1800’s that spoke of this very thing.

People used to spend so much of their day just making a living-running a farm or some other business that took so much time that no one had time to think of themselves.

As technology has advanced and we’ve come away from being an agriculutural society, we have more time on our hands, more time to focus on what we want. And we’ve been conditioned to think of ourselves first, instead of the more Christian approach of thinking of others.

It’s sad, because marriage between two committed people is a wonderful thing. And while it’s hard to compromise and stick with it during times of difficulty, it’s also very rewarding.

Cheryl

Boomer Chick Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am

Okay, here’s my viewpoint. Marriage isn’t dead per say, but more and more people these days are realizing that it doesn’t take marriage to make yourself whole. If two people fall in love and want to cement that relationship by taking marriage vows, it’s beautiful, but what I am seeing is that the rise of divorce statistics is making people really go into it with the full understanding this is what they want and a lot of people are having trouble with that. Take my daughter for example. Thirty years old. She has watched her father and I in some awful fights and both my daughter and son (he’s 25) aren’t even committed to anyone. Both look at the opposite sex as “friends.” I’m hoping I haven’t damaged them in some way and I think a lot of the younger generation growing up are feeling the same way. Another point to be made is this. If two people want to cement their relationship by taking marriage vows, they must be secure enough to be able to take care of themselves should something happen. But this in itself might make some marriages fail as silly as that sounds. If both people go into a marriage and both are secure in their finances, self-worth, confidence, independence, it could work. If one leans on the other too much, eventually something is going to become unraveled.

And one more thing, remember, everyone has soul mates and when you enter into a marriage with one of them, it’s called companion soul mates if you want the technical term and companion soul mates come into each others’ lives for specific reasons as all soul mates do, but the specific reasons might not be what you think they are. If two people get married and they are not in it for the intended reasons, that’s when things lead from bad to good. Look into the relationship for what it is intended and do not try to make it more than what it is.

I’ve had talks with Tim and he’s on the right track. I’ve got it and it’s wonderful. And again, step back and realize why the two of you were brought together – was it for childbearing? What is for companionship? Okay, accept it for what it is and stop trying to make it into something it will never be. I know people will disagree with me on this but once people stop trying to make the other into someone they aren’t and stop posing demands, you’ll see this is the best thing you can do for your marriage.

christine husom Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am

Tim,

This is a very important topic, since the family is the basic unit of society. Strong, healthy families support strong, healthy societies.

Marriage is not dead, but various sub-cultures seem to keep picking away at it, lessening the value of it. Movies, books and television can give an unrealistic view of what marriage is. It is not all romance, sweetness and light. It is a commitment between two imperfect individuals. I think of marriage as a daily commitment. Every day you make the decision honor your promises and stay in your marriage.

There are troubles, to be sure, but there are any number of resources for those who need them. Reminding couples they are a team, on the same side, supporting one another even when their opinions differ.

Certainly, there are legitimate reasons for divorce, but I think no-fault divorce has made walking away too easy when the going gets tough. it’s important to keep this basic unit a force to be reckoned with!

Tim Kellis Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am

Hello all

I want to first thank JM for allowing me to visit your blog. I hope we have a nice interactive discussion over the next 3 days.

I particularly like today’s topic on whether marriage is dead or not. Cheryl, I really appreciate your historical reference. I have written a book entitled “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage”, and I basically use historical examples as analogies within our own relationships.

In fact, we have reversed the way we approach relationships. We used to meet in Church, then bring our potential mate home to meet our family, and then get intimate with them. I will never ask my parents this question, but I will go to my last breath believing my mom was a virgin when she married my dad.

Now we get intimate first, then introduce our potential mate to our family and friends, and then maybe introduce into our relationships a higher, much more significant platform than our financial and sexual existences, if we are lucky.

We have only had our culture of divorce over the last 2 generations. What I have basically discovered is that what we have done psychologically is develop as a culture where we can finally become individuals, but many have not yet figured out what to do with their individuality. Does that make them more important or less important than the rest of society? Unfortunately individuality has nothing to do with our standing within society, but has everything to do with our standing within ourselves. Happiness cannot be bought.

JM, I do want to offer to anyone who visits your blog the opportunity to figure out how to develop a relationship that can withstand the fluctuations on life.

As it turns out, I have spent my entire adult life trying to figure out relationships. The research that went into writing my book included over 100 books, probably one of the most researched books every written.

And the research included nearly 2 dozen relationship books. My joke is all of the books read were non-fiction, with the lone exception the relationship books.

We have developed as a society where we look to marriage therapists to help us out when our relationships get out of control. But the reality is these professionals have not really given us a message that really solves our marriage problem. Unfortunately, we are not from different planets, regardless of the success of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

Let me begin explaining the depth and breadth of my message with the following book review:

http://www.bookreviewers.org/equality.htm

If anyone would like to finally figure out their marriage issues and how to solve them please pick up a copy of “Equality” (I even have the book at 20% off in conjunction with my blog tour):

https://www.HappyRelationships.com/buy.aspx

It’s about time someone does something about our deteriorating culture of marriage.

Sincerely
Tim

J. A. Hunsinger Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am

Tim,
In answer to your question, a resounding, “NO!” marriage is not dead. I was married to my first wife for four days shy of 41-Years. I know, it is a lifetime, but somebody had to leave, so I did. However, the hole from the demise of that marriage will remain in my heart for the the rest of my life. After six years one of my three daughters still will not speak to me. I am now married to a fabulous woman who happens to be my best friend, advocate, confidant, and she is a hoot to be around. We have a large circle of friends and life is as it should be, engaging and way fun.
So marriage is not dead, my friend, far from it. The excellent relationship enjoyed between this man and his woman is the essence of life.
Thanks,
Jerry

Barbara Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

I’m talking from the experience of being married for over 43 years to the same man. When we began our relationship it was a deep and satisfying love affair with both physical contentment and mental satisfaction. As our marriage grew and we had children after over 12 years after we were married it changed. I don’t think that my husband has ever really accepted that his life was changed when we had children. He still thinks mainly about himself for daily activities, but he has been a great provider and cares about his kids. I think he is unable to accept that his children are not carbon copies of himself.

Besides that he has become ill with a heart attack and bypass surgery which has changed him considerably. His health is now his main concern as it should be, but he has become a selfish and self-absorbed person because of this. He does care about us, but he always wants things his way. He doesn’t seem to understand that even though he is better now and back to a more or less normal life that things won’t be the same as they were when he really needed us.

Thinking about everything that people go through together in marriage I could have left him quite a few times. Yet I stayed, because of the love that I feel for him. This was tested when I thought he might be lost to us. Many times I think about leaving, because I don’t feel like myself or that he has respect for me as a person, but I don’t leave. He is a very good man and I think that if he realized how much he hurts us he might change his actions. Whatever the reason to me marriage is a commitment that should not be broken unless an impossible situation occurs. But today’s generation doesn’t believe this way and it’s easy for them to switch partners when it doesn’t work out right away. They don’t have the patience to wait it out or try to alleviate the problems. They go for the easy way out.:)

This is the reason why people are getting divorces so readily. They expect instant gratification and maybe some are marrying for the wrong reasons. Having been married this long I don’t think I could have stayed unless I felt that there was love between us.

Jenera Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

I agree with what Tim says about getting intimate first. I met my husband online and shortly after he went to prison. Our friendship grew into a relationship through letter writing. We connected on a level deeper than physicality. Almost a throwback to the good ‘ol days.

I hope to be able to teach my boys that-that every relationship (marriage or just dating) is important on more than just a physical level. There needs to be a deep soul connection I think.

by Tim Kellis

KEEPING MEN GUESSING

timbryce — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:19 +0000

I’ve been married now for over 25 years and you would think that after a quarter century I would have a good idea what my wife likes and dislikes. Frankly, I haven’t a clue, and I don’t think I’m any different than a lot of other guys out there who still have trouble understanding the feminine mystique. Let me give you some examples…

In preparing to go out for a major social function, my wife typically comes out to model an outfit she is considering to wear and asks what I think about it. Usually she gives me a couple of choices, either this, this, or that. They all look nice, but regardless what I choose, she always settles for something else. After the outfit is selected, then it’s a matter of what shoes to wear; again, this, this or that. Whatever I pick, she picks the opposite. Then of course comes the accompanying purse to complete the ensemble where I, of course, swing and miss again. Strike three. Frankly, I believe I’m a broken barometer when it comes to predicting what a woman wants to wear.

My daughter picked up this same modeling habit as she was growing up and would ask my son and I what we thought she should wear. Again, whatever we picked, she picked the opposite. Although she trusted my wife’s judgment, my son and I always struck out. However, I got a little comfort out of this as I realized I wasn’t alone in picking the wrong fashion.

This phenomenon isn’t restricted to clothing either. I run across it whenever I want to order her food, or shop for presents. Whatever I pick, it’s never quite right.

I’m flattered she still asks for my opinion on what she wants, but it’s all very demoralizing when she ignores you. I am not allowed to take on a defeatist attitude either. For example, if I were to say something like, “Pick whatever you like,” I’m accused of not caring. Then again, there is the game of deliberately picking the wrong item in the hopes she will pick what you want. Unfortunately, she sees though this ploy too easily and doesn’t fall for it. Bottom-line she picks what she wants and I am nothing more than a shallow endorsement.

I guess the point of this exercise is to simply keep men on their toes and never allow them to get the upper hand.

While I’m on it, another part of the feminine mystique is the woman’s purse. This is something I learned a long time ago not to go into as God only knows what you’ll find in there, least of all something you’re looking for. As I was growing up, my mother would ask me, “Just reach inside my purse and get me this or that.” Of course I could never find what she wanted and, instead, learned to just retrieve the purse for her to look through. My wife is no different in this regards.

Women store a lot of things in a purse, such as their wallet, cosmetics, memo pads, glasses, cigarettes, cell phones, menus, report cards (from the 1960′s), broken items in need of repair, and other pieces of bricabrac. Actually, the purse is more of a footlocker than anything else, which makes me wonder why anyone would try to snatch a purse as they would get a hernia trying to do so and wouldn’t be able to find anything in it even if they were successful.

I also find it interesting how women have different sizes of purses; small dainty ones for social occasions, medium sizes for travel, or the “Big Mama” pack horses. Regardless of the size, they all manage to squeeze the same paraphernalia in them, which would even impress Harry Houdini. Regardless, I’ve learned to keep a safe distance away from women’s purses and when asked to retrieve one, I treat it like a delicate Claymore mine.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For a listing of Tim’s Pet Peeves, click HERE.

Download Tim’s new eBook (PDF), “Bryce’s Pet Peeve Anthology – Volume I” (free) DOWNLOAD).

A Simple African Band

Jose Antonio Ponce — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:15:05 +0000

Just a simple African band

woven of elephant hair

by a long discarded culture

that truly believed in forever.

And when you gave it to me

you said that it would bind me

to you for all of time

my heart, my soul, my mind.

I would not wear this band

for fear that it would truly

make me your only lover

and keep me from all others.

And so it hung upon my wall

to remind me of this lack of courage

and my reluctance to believe

that forever could be achieved.

And after a third of my life with you

I chose to take it from the wall

and wear it as I should have always done

for certainly the two of us were one.

But it fit loosely ’round my wrist

and at times nearly slipped away

and always I would catch this band

to keep it from tumbling off my hand

No sooner had I grown accustomed

to its fit and form upon me

the strands began to break one by one

the weaving beginning to come undone.

I tried to tie and fold the strands

to put them back where they belonged

but the brittle knots on this aged piece

began to crumble like my beliefs.

Perhaps I should have placed it sooner

upon what was once a younger hand

it may have then been much less flawed

with certain power endowed by God.

And as you drift away from me

each strand grows loose and falls

and it seems the magic has been reversed

my lack of faith, this piece, has cursed.

And when the last strand falls away

I hope that my heart would return

for I cannot live without this piece

nor can I make the hurting cease.

I would have liked to believe in forever

I would have liked to seen old age with you

but I cannot fight the power of your soul

and your belief that I cannot make you whole.

Just a simple African band

woven of elephant hair

by a long discarded culture

that truly believed in forever.

Moment of Clarity

Jose Antonio Ponce — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:15:53 +0000

This essay was written after reading a post by sobrietygirl about her battle with addiction and sobriety and the many comments and words of encouragement she received this weekend. It made me think about my own recovery. I have never put this down on paper before. My thanks to sobrietygirl for giving me cause to reflect.

I have not been drunk in over 25 years. The last time I got smashed was after the death of my childhood friend, Nick Tucker. Nick committed suicide in a fit of depression after losing his job and his young wife asked me to write a song for his funeral. At the time, I was angry with Nick. I didn’t know about the physical and psychological abuse he and his siblings had suffered at the hands of his father. I was just upset that he had killed himself without talking to me first.

I got drunk on cheap wine, wrote the song and sang it at the funeral the next day, but long before that evening, I had decided to quit drinking.

I started drinking in my teens. It was what I did to fit in with the tough guys that Nick and I were being persecuted by. It was a matter of survival. Growing up rural, Nick and I walked back and forth to school, and every day the Urioste’s along with George Milosovich, a gabacho kid who acted as much the Mexican as his shorter, meaner counterparts, chased us down the ditch bank on horseback. After nearly a year of trying to avoid these guys, Nick stopped running. He stood on the ditch bank as the horses barreled down on him, tired of the abuse. All three of the riders came to a halt just a foot or so from him, dust everywhere. “Why are you picking on us?” Nick asked. Silence. The riders sat for a moment, turned and rode off. That was the beginning of a tenuous relationship between Nick and I and the ditch riders.

To be part of the group, you had to be “not such a pussy” as George put it. That meant smoking the occasional cigarette, getting your ass kicked by someone else in the group (without complaining) and drinking. It didn’t matter the drink. Nick and I stole some of his father’s liquor during a party. His dad drew a line, a watermark, if you will so that he knew if anyone had pilfered from him. (Apparently his wife drank heavily, another symptom of the abuse in the home that no one knew about until it was to late.) Nick and I simply replaced the missing alcohol with water. We presented this to the group with pride and proceeded to get drunk.

From there, it was a short trip to buying our own alcohol, as we got older. When I started playing in some of the local bars at eighteen, I had to go outside the club when the band was on a break, but this was just a formality. On stage I would drink all night for free. It was a lifestyle. I was a musician and musicians got drunk.

I was never a very good drunk. My need for attention is magnified a thousand fold and I did some pretty stupid things to get people to look my way when I was drinking. I spent an entire party walking from group to group, reading passages out of the bible. I played my guitar at an unconscionable level and sang loudly on stage. I even broke my nose trying to touch the tip of a sledgehammer to it one handed.

Somewhere along the way, I began waking up sick, needing a drink just to get straight. Since I didn’t work enough to get free drinks all the time, I had to spend my own money on alcohol. For a time there, I spent as much as sixty bucks a night on unblended scotch and chasers. This was in the seventies, when drinks we’re two dollars and beer was a fifty cents.

Working as a contractor, I spent my days building homes and my nights in small lounges in every corner of the state. I woke every day with a hangover and a shot and I spent every moment on the job waiting for the sun to get near enough to the horizon that I could send the crew home, call it a day and begin the night. Every payday, we went straight to the nearest bar, cashed our checks and took turns buying a round for each member of the crew. At the end of every job, there was a keg party for my crew and anyone else left on the job site. After all, this was my big payday.

After completing one such job in the northwestern part of the state, I packed my gear into my pickup, left the crew to their completion party and headed home. After three hours on the road with no bars for 250 miles, I got antsy. I stopped in to visit a friend, a party house, really, where I knew I could get a drink. The last things I remember were someone breaking the neck on my guitar and the host handing me a cup of whiskey.

I woke up with my pickup tearing through a stand of brush. I came to an abrupt halt. There was nothing but silence. I was drunk and still not sure of my surroundings, but certain that this was not a good thing. I tried to start the truck. Nothing. I forced the drivers side door to open through what became apparent was a stand of small native trees all around me and I got out of the truck. I was OK and as far as I could tell, the truck was OK. There was a trail of tools and equipment behind the truck barely visible in the red glow of the taillights. I reached into the cab and turned the lights off to save the battery. I looked around and could see no sign of a road anywhere. Where was I? How did I get so far off of the road without being awakened sooner?

As my eyes adjusted to the darkness, I looked for any clue as to where I might be. I could hear what sounded like a car approaching in the distance, but couldn’t see any headlights. I waited, hoping to see the lights and find out exactly how far I would have to walk to get back on the road. The sound of tires on pavement got louder and still no headlights. I looked in every direction. The sound was coming from somewhere behind my truck. Finally, dim light lit the horizon just above the tops of this thicket of trees I found myself in. In an instant the lights were upon me, or rather above me and to my left and gone. The road was some ten feet above on a hill. I had driven off of an embankment.

The driver didn’t see me. How could they? My truck was clearly out of his field of vision. He came up so fast; I didn’t have time to shout. Once the car drove past, I made my way through the trees and up the embankment. With a clearer perspective now, I knew where I was.

Between the party house and home was a seldom-traveled two-lane highway that had been replaced by the interstate a number of years ago. It linked the small town I had left with the rural outskirts of the city where I lived. It was obvious why I had picked the road. It was less likely that I would run into any cops on this road. It was also a good bet that there would be few travelers on this road that could assist me. I stumbled back down the hill and tried to start the truck again. Nothing. Probably the fuel pump located under the bed of the truck. I had had this problem before on rough terrain where a wire had been pulled loose. I wouldn’t be able to fix it in the darkness.

I gathered all of the equipment that had spilled out of my truck and tossed it unceremoniously into the bed, rolled the windows up and locked the doors. I made my way back up the embankment and started walking home. I was tired, sober and wide awake and planning the egress of my pickup once the sun came up. I could assess the damage in the morning after I got a few hours sleep. I had solved bigger problems before, and, given the circumstances, this was not that big a deal.

The next morning, a Sunday, I called my big brother. He, like me, had been in situations like this before. I asked him to come and get me in his pickup and help me pull my truck out of the mess I had left it in. When we got to the site, I noticed immediately that the embankment I had gone off of was the only such place where the grade was elevated on the entire highway. Just my luck, I thought. We quickly found, as I had suspected, the problem with disconnected wire to the fuel pump. Once that was repaired, I was able to start the truck and get it to a place where the terrain was not too steep. We moved the equipment into my brother’s truck and wrapped a chain around the front of my pickup. The embankment was too steep, however and we could not pull my pickup out. Something else would have to be done. My brother suggested we get my dad to come down with his tractor and between the two of them; we might be able to get the truck out.

This was not a choice for me. My father was responsible and I was not. He would remind me of this fact the whole time we extricated the truck, I was sure. I had no choice, however. I made my brother promise to tell my dad, if he asked, that I had fallen asleep at the wheel. My father was not fooled for a minute. When he arrived with his tractor, he gave me a stern look and said, “You need to stop drinking.” I turned in shame and walked away while he and my brother worked to clear a path for my truck with the tractor.

Walking off my humiliation, I walked to the point where my truck left the highway. I had been going so fast that my truck literally flew, Dukes of Hazzard style, off the highway, landing in the brush. At a slower pace, it would have rolled violently down the hill. As I looked down the highway from where I had come, I could see my tracks in the soft dirt where I had left the road a half dozen times. All were near misses of fence posts, road signs and one rather large tree.

Why had I not been killed or at least severely injured? How could I have come so close all the way to the end and ended up completely intact? Why was I still here? I felt like a worthless soul, selfish and irresponsible. I stood there, looking back on the metaphor for my life. Even I was disappointed in myself.

Once the truck was out and the equipment was transferred back to my truck from my brother’s, my father left us without a word, driving his tractor down the highway without looking back. I thanked my brother, offered him money for a six-pack and headed off for home.

My father was right. I needed to stop drinking. It would surely ruin my life. I vowed to stop. Of course, I didn’t. I would quit after waking up sick. For a few days there would be no indication of alcohol in my life in my checkbook register, and then it would start. A two-dollar check to the liquor department of the grocery store followed a few days later by a larger check or a check cashed at the bar. Finally, I would be right back at the beginning, waking up sick and swearing off alcohol forever. And then something cruel and kind happened.

I was at a Jazz club, trying to listen to the music of a young bassist and his compatriots. At a large table in the middle of the club was a group of people I knew casually. They were friends of my cousin, co-workers of her boyfriend, actually. At the end of the table, facing the stage was a very loud, very obnoxious guy I had met before drinking heavily and ruining the atmosphere for everyone. The keyboard player and then the drummer called him out. This made him even louder, coarser, and his companions at the table began to squirm uncomfortably, making an effort not to engage him in conversation so that he would have no reason to respond.

He was being isolated and it made him angry. “C’mon! Are you going to let these guys ruin our good time? We’re the customers.” His comments elicited no response. Heads at other tables turned disapprovingly in his direction. “What a dick.” I thought to myself. And then it occurred to me that I was about four drinks shy of being that guy. Given time and enough alcohol, I would be doing the exact same thing later in the evening. I had felt those stares before, heard the comments and been scolded in public for my drunkenness, but always associated these actions with how uptight people around me had become.

After that night, drinking was not the same. It held no appeal for me. I drank even more, trying to find that place where nothing hurt, where the world became fun, but no matter how much I consumed, in my mind’s eye I saw myself as that over the top drunk that embarrassed himself and everyone around him.

Gradually, very gradually, I stopped drinking. I still had a problem. There was the nagging issue of what purpose my life held. I was spared when so many other drunks had died. I had no right to be here. I had been given an opportunity to live the rest of my life sober, but to what end. This was the trigger, the thing that had started me drinking to excess in the first place, and now that alcohol could no longer make the question go away, I was in worse emotional shape than I had been before this all started.

I turned to the place where desperate men go; the last refuge of scoundrels. The church. The Roman Catholic Church. The church of my parents and my youth. I had not attended church since before I began drinking and I now sat in the back during Sunday mass just listening and trying to divine a message from God to me. Nothing. For more than a year I sat there listening thinking that if God had something to say to me, He’d say it. The problem was that it wasn’t a conversation. It wasn’t until I started asking questions that I started to get answers.

At first the questions were all wrong. “Why am I here?” “What should I do?” “What is my purpose?” After a while, the questions became more defiant. “What do you want?” “Why did you make me like this?” “What gives you the right to mess with my life?” Finally, there were no more questions. I was tired of talking, tired of trying to listen, tired of being ignored. “I give up. Do whatever you want.” I said. It was then that things began to change in my life. I had stopped blaming God and my friends and family for my life and took responsibility for it myself. God had not abandoned me. He waited patiently for me to sort things out on my own. He began putting people in my life that were positive.

The obnoxious guy that mirrored my alcoholism became my best friend. He was an atheist who rabidly professed self-reliance and the utter nonsense of a higher power. After years of theological arguments, he found God in the church of his parents and profoundly changed my life while changing his own.

I have had a number of addictions in my life. Heroin. Cocaine. Cigarettes. Food. As a matter of fact, if you could eat it, drink it, shoot it, snort it or rub it on you, I did it, but alcohol was the hardest thing I ever had to quit.

If I had to point to a moment of clarity, I’d have to say it was that day on the highway, looking back on the erratic path that mirrored my life. It was an illustration written with the finger of God. I still am not sure of my purpose. Musician? Writer? Husband? Father? In later years I was able to help my father deal with his own battle with alcoholism. On the other hand, I have never been able to help my brother with his addition to drink. Somehow, though, it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. All I know is that I have filled a need in some people’s lives and maybe that’s enough.

Am I Ready to Start a Business? 10 personal questions to ask yourself before you commit

Author 101 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:44:15 +0000

No, we won’t begin with “Do you have a master’s degree?” Although education does matter, higher education is not a requirement for starting or succeeding in a new business. In fact, according to a 1992 United States Census Bureau report, only 5.3 percent of business owners have a Master’s degree or higher education. 9.4 percent had less than a high school education—some only up to the eighth grade. Oddly enough, only 17 percent had any business education. The founder of Dell Computers was a college dropout. Starting out of his garage, he managed to excel above all of the world’s top computer manufacturers. One in three computers sold today is a Dell.
What you will need is more commonly known as “street smarts” or common sense. In addition, you will need to have certain individual qualities, or personality traits. Most individuals who are successful in business and in “life” possess these traits. Take the quiz and see how many of the following questions you can answer with a confident “yes.”

Do I have energy, and am I in good health?
Am I a self-starter?
Do I have a willingness to work hard?
Am I a good organizer?
Am I able to make decisions?
Am I able to make plans and follow through?
Am I able to inspire and direct others?
Am I honest (and be honest!)?
Do I regularly balance my checkbook and avoid debt?
Am I a jack of all trades and a master at one???

If you can honestly answer all the above questions with a “yes,” you may be the type of individual who is well qualified to operate a successful business. But before you close the deal, be sure you have educated yourself in the field you’ve chosen. Research and learn the process necessary to start and operate your own successful business.

Read good books relating to your type of business and get the education you need to be successful.

If you’re unsure of your response to any of the ten questions listed above, it’s possible that if you attempt starting a business, you may fall into the ninety percent of new businesses which fail in their first year. The statistics can be startling, but they are a reality. You may want to re-consider your business idea.

Carol Denbow is the author of several books including “Are You Ready to Be Your Own Boss?” a 144 page, easy-to-read and comprehend business start-up book available at Amazon.com.

Book Excerpt: Do We Develop or Not?

TimKellis — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:16:18 +0000

Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage

We know from Darwin’s theory of evolution that the notion of development elicits controversy from many intellectual corners. If we think about the notion of development through to its conclusion then many established organizations lose their grip on us as individuals. This question becomes extremely important in relationships.

We need to look no further than our corporate environments to get a real sense for the answer to this question, for corporations live and die by the notion of development. The following excerpt from “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage” addresses just that question, and the perspective of two very influential organizations on our lives. The question is whether we as individuals develop or not?

Do we develop or not, that is the question?

GE’s involvement as a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) index tells us so much about this most important question. Two men, Charles Dow and Edward Jones, who had started a newspaper company devoted entirely to covering business news, began publishing the newspaper The Wall Street Journal in 1884, developed the DJIA in 1896. The DJIA index was invented as a gauge of the success of our economy.

The index originally consisted of twelve components but now consists of the thirty largest industrial companies in America. What is interesting about the index is that it is also an indicator of what industries are doing well. For example, today Intel and Microsoft have been added to the index.

The lesson with the index is the history of the components, the individual industrial corporations used to compute a complex number very few people understand how to compute. The final number, though, is so familiar to the many people in our country interested in how well we are doing economically. Every night news station across the country broadcast this number as the first indicator of the health of our economy.

There is only one company on the original DJIA list of the twelve largest industrial companies in the country that is still a component today, and that is GE. GE has been one of the largest industrial companies since the DJIA was first conceived.

The lesson is there are eleven other companies from the original twelve that are no longer part of the index. In addition, the twenty-nine slots of the current thirty have also been changing hands. These companies have either gone out of business, been consolidated into another company or remain in business as a much smaller company than it used to be. In fact, the other slots that make up the DJIA have been changing hands over the last hundred years as industries are born, grow up and die.

The original twelve companies had names like American Cotton Oil, American Sugar, Distilling & Cattle Feeding, National Lead, U.S. Leather, U.S. Rubber, and General Electric. The index used to focus on agricultural products and basic materials but now focuses on technology companies, financial service providers, manufacturers, and retailers. What this means is there are many companies and industries that have sprung to life, served their purposes and have either grown old or gone out of business.

We used to use candles for light, then kerosene, and now electricity. We used to communicate using smoke signals, then with Morris Code, then through voice conversation and now through data communications. We used to travel by horse and sea, then by railroad, then by car and now by airplanes.

If the buggy companies that thrived at the end of the nineteenth century did not convert their manufacturing to automobile manufacturing then they died. Movie production companies who did not convert from silent movies to talkies went out of business. One of the first successful airlines, Pan American Airlines, decided early in its history that the future of the airline industry was with propeller airplanes that landed in the water until the industry began using jet engines. When the railroad was first developed there were dozens of railroad companies that sprung up to capitalize, now we have very few. When mass production was introduced into the automobile industry there were dozens of automobile manufacturers in this country, now we have three. When the PC was introduced dozens of companies sprang up to compete, now we have much fewer. Many saw all of the Internet companies that started up during the bubble. Many have gone out of business.

In other words, industries are very analogous to human life. They are born, go through childhood, adolescence, mature into adulthood, reach old age and eventually die. Only a few successful companies manage to stay alive for long periods of time. Industries do develop because it is their objective to develop. Capitalism thrives on survival of the fittest, just like humans.

We can look at the behavior of most of the startup Internet companies and see children in business. There are stories of companies going public, raising forty, fifty, eighty million dollars and spending most of it on the company’s advertising campaign. Witness all of the Internet commercials during the Super Bowl as the Internet bubble grew. What about developing the product, hiring a sales force, etc. that must be successfully completed before the advertising begins. The number of stories that occurred during the Internet boom where immature business decisions like this were made is countless.

We can also look at the maturing of the PC industry. The leaders of the largest tech companies have certainly learned a lot over the last twenty years. From IBM and Xerox’s mistakes to Gates actually getting a haircut and looking decent for the press. The rivalries between Gates and many other competitors are much less cantankerous than they used to be.

One of the funniest pictures I have seen demonstrating this maturity is Gates smiling, sitting next to a very distraught looking Eckhardt Pfieffer, CEO of Compaq, during the congressional hearings discussing the penalty phase of the trial. Compaq had been battling with Microsoft and Intel over the direction of the PC industry for years. It was probably unimaginable to think about these two industry leaders sitting on the same side of the table before the antitrust accusations became serious.

Businesses do develop because they understand that you either grow or die. If you don’t succeed against your competitors then they will succeed and you will fail. Companies have developed and understand the notion of survival of the fittest because there are so many examples of companies failing. Big companies today have grown so successful that one of the biggest causes of the stock market bust was the complacency within management of making unwise business decisions that were not in the best interest of the stockholders. We are still working through the mess caused by the complacency of many corporate executives.

Companies, and industries, are born. They do have beginnings. They then develop. Companies don’t just exist. Can we learn when problems crop up that need to be resolved? Have we moved from DOS to Windows? The answer is obviously yes.

This is incredibly important because if we develop then we can improve our psyche from the negative relationship to the positive relationship. We do this by solving life’s problems as they occur. Problems can occur anytime, anywhere. We learn by solving problems. We just need to know what the priorities that drive our logical decisions are. Our objective is happiness. To succeed requires innovation to solve problems, as they occur, not protection from problems before they occur.

The Church and mainstream psychology still say no

Unfortunately, two organizations that have so much influence on our daily lives still do not believe in the concept of development, the very notion behind the function of disagreements. If we can develop then we can solve our disagreements. Our religious institutions and psychological teachings are still struggling with the notion that we either are who we are at birth, or we develop and mature throughout our lives.

The Church is still battling over the notion of Darwinism. The theory of survival of the fittest that Darwin discovered is still not taught in schools because it contradicts the Bible. This theory contradicts the notion taught in the Bible that God made the earth in seven days. Darwin’s theory simply states that man, and all organisms on God’s great earth, have been developing since the beginning of earth’s existence. The Church’s doctrine has not resolved this conflict because it implies that if God made all of earth’s inhabitants then there is no way that we could have evolved from apes, regardless of its logic.

What the Church’s teaching also implies is that man, and woman, can’t learn, can’t develop, can’t resolve conflicts, can’t reverse the path of the negative relationship and put the couple on the path of the positive relationship. God makes us when we are born and our future, our path in life is determined at the very beginning of our existence. Heal but don’t develop. Sorry. The logic behind the teachings of the Church is the path to happiness is through suffering.

In other words, the way to find love is through the suffering of everyday relationships. If we have negative relationships we simply have to live with them. Life involves both happiness and unhappiness, and you can do nothing about this fact. Life is determined by God’s will, not ours. We can’t think.

Jesus is the very symbol of this message. Jesus died on the cross to forgive all of our sins. Jesus died on the cross so that we must experience pain before we can experience pleasure. Why then, today, with the success of our government and economy do we have to suffer in the first place? Can we not figure out how to live with one of the most important person in our lives, our partner?

Why not figure out how to live life without the suffering of negative relationships? In religion you have to suffer before you can ask for forgiveness but our lives today are really a lot less complicated than they used to be because we have learned to think, to solve problems. We have developed psychologically to the point where everyone is an individual. Today everybody is important.

Granted, when pain does occur our religious institutions provide the very foundation for how we are supposed to deal with this pain. In fact, people who are poor and uneducated use religion as their very tool for dealing with much more difficult lives. Most of us used to be that poor, or at least our ancestors did. Religion has been used for the last two thousand years as people went to war with other people where many, many people perished.

People used religion as a personal tool for dealing with the poverty, death, war, etc of their everyday lives. Think of the psychological toll on the families of all of the millions of people who were killed between 1914-18 and 1939-45. How are you supposed to deal with the fact that your country sent your boy off to fight a war because of some big picture that may have little to do with your everyday life? It is God’s will.

Of course, we needed to go through the pain of all of these wars before our democratic government could be invented, improved upon and explained to the rest of the world. Today, though, we don’t have any big scale war (not yet, at least, thanks to 9/11). Today our problems are much simpler, yet we seem to be having a much more difficult time dealing with them. Today life is about how much money you are making so that you can buy all of the great things that have been developed to make your life so much more pleasurable. These things are important, but being happy is the real objective.

The Church’s belief hinders the notion that man’s psyche can develop, improve, and that man can overcome his fears in life. After all, the Church can’t do anything about wars; it is God’s will. The Church can’t help resolve conflicts in negative relationships because it is God’s will. In reality, it is us that have free will. God’s gift to us is this freedom that has taken so long for us to understand. The Church is the public institute that teaches us morality. It is where individuals learn the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil.

If the Church were to take its common sense understanding of the difference between happiness and unhappiness and apply it to helping forgive the fear that causes negative relationships grow even more negative as life moves on, then the Church could become a wonderful tool for helping heal negative relationships, if only it believed in development, that man and woman can improve.

Of course, our psychological world is still burdened by the way this question was answered a hundred years ago. Freud felt our biology drove our psychology. This might make sense for someone who had not developed the thinking part of his or her psyche and lived with feelings alone.

Psychology and psychiatry began by studying people who already had major mental problems in the days before education of the masses. Traditionally, both institutions used patients with preexisting conditions of mental problems as subject matter for research. The teachings today are based on the foundation that curing negative relationships occur after the problems have critically hindered the happiness in the relationship. The objective, though, is to set up the relationship beforehand so that it never reaches the point where so much pain exists.

The question hindering the understanding of relationships today is the notion that we develop. If we do not develop then the problems with our psyche have always existed and there is nothing we can do about it. Unfortunately, this implies there is no beginning for problems, no expansion of problems, and most importantly, no solution of problems.

If the answer to the notion that we develop, though, is yes then this implies that problems with our psyche do have beginnings, have developed and can be cured. No wonder, then, that the psychological world is still struggling to understand how it can help the negative relationship. By the time the negative relationship has developed to the point where a couple seeks therapy the problems have grown so large that its complexity becomes unmanageable. By this time the therapist is just trying to keep the relationship alive. He becomes a referee, trying to decide who is right and who is wrong, because the couple is unable to solve the problems.

by Tim Kellis
http://HappyRelationships.com/
http://HappyMarriages.com/

Transference Causes Divorce

Relationships Advice: Transference Causes Divorce

TimKellis — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:46:00 +0000

Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage

Here is the most significant point made in the entire book, transference causes divorce. This one single point can probably do more than any other to motivate couples to learn how to move their relationships in the right direction. And for the first time ever on a public forum, you can read what I am talking about. For the first time a psychological cause of divorce is explained.

The following link was one of the stops on my blog tour on relationships, where I visited Blogging Authors to discuss this very important point. To view the link please visit:

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2009

Guest post by Tim Kellis, author of “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage”

If couples were to only understand what they are doing when they introduce anger and arguments into the relationship then they would hopefully have the motivation to solve their mental imbalances, their insecurities. The unfortunate reality is the only person who can overcome insecurities is the person with the insecurities, not the spouse, not the friends, and not the parents.

Transference is one of the most basic concepts in the psychology industry. This concept states that if you discuss your emotions with someone then you will transfer those emotions onto that person. In fact, Freud is who he is today because of transference. An amazing discovery is that Freud didn’t discover therapy, a Joseph Breuer did, by getting his first patient, who became famous as Anna O, to discuss the root causes of her mental problems. Breuer discovered that when he did she was able to overcome them.

Unfortunately for us today, Anna O also developed the first case of transference when she developed a “hysterical pregnancy” stemming from fantasies about him where she thought she was having Joseph Breuer’s child. When he realized this he abruptly referred her to a colleague, went on vacation with his wife, and treated Anna O no more. Unfortunately for Breuer, he “was uncomfortable with the topic of sexuality and though at the moment of the hysterical pregnancy he had ‘had the key in his hand’ (as Freud later wrote to a friend), he dropped it…[and] in conventional horror took flight”. Freud took over and completely abandoned the influence of our past on our present with his biology theory.

Transference is used today in the relationship between the therapist and the patient. This is the most basic tenet in the therapy process, with the theory that if the patient discusses his or her emotions then he or she becomes vulnerable to the advice of the therapist. Ideally therapists are supposed to utilize this vulnerability to help the patient understand the sources of the insecurities. This is also why the patient is vulnerable to fall in love with the therapist.

We just need to take this notion one step further. Instead of transference between the patient and the therapist we just need to understand the notion that within negative relationships the one with the insecurities is transferring the negative emotions behind those insecurities from the source onto the spouse.

In the example of the alcoholic parent, if there exists negative feelings about the alcoholic parent that remain unsolved then the continued anger at the spouse because of the association of the spouse having a drink and the parent, then those feelings are eventually transferred onto the spouse. Individual examples of anger are called projections and transference occurs when those emotions are completely transferred.

Tim Kellis

Book Excerpt: Are We Biological Beasts or Psychological Beings?

TimKellis — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:31:31 +0000

Tim Kellis, Author of "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"

I want to pose to you one of the most significant questions needed to understand before we are going to solve our marriage problem. Are we biological beasts or psychological beings? Unfortunately the belief within the mainstream teachings of the psychology industry is that we are nothing more than biological beasts. The industry still experiments on animals to try to extrapolate behavior in humans.

Are we biological beasts or psychological beings?

It is impossible to completely explain the significance of going the biology route instead of the psychology route. The hypothesis that our behavior is driven by our biological needs implies we are born with our problems and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. The notion that our psyche is psychologically driven implies we can learn and we can think, or develop.

In other words, the biological concept holds we are born with our brain pre-wired and that our psychological development occurs when our experiences activate the pre-wired neurons and synapses creating behavior. Or put another way, the biological conclusion would lead psychologists to claim that our understanding of the use of the computer occurs because we are born with the knowledge of how to use the computer and we simply must use the computer and these pre-wired neurons and synapses become activated, giving us the understanding of the use of the computer, to behave by using the computer.

This is simply impossible. The computer was only invented in the seventies. There is no way our parents, grandparents, etc. would have had previous knowledge of how to use the computer, but my mom even knows how to surf the Internet.

The conclusion that we are biologically driven leads, unfortunately, to the fact that we are born with our problems and there is nothing that can be done to completely cure the patient, that there is no previous cause of our problems. This leads to the conclusion that there is no initial negative experience, no middle when we live with the negative experience, and no end where the patient is finally cured, becomes happy.

The psychological path, though, leads to the conclusion that there is a beginning, middle, and an end to our psychological problems, through thinking. God’s most wonderful gift to mankind is its ability to think. This conscious ability is what differentiates us from other animals who can feel, but can’t think. Animals feel. Just watch your dog wagging its tail when you come home from work, or attack another dog.

Tim Kellis

happymarriages.com/?p=101

Unfortunate episode at the clothing store

scottqmarcus — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:06:03 +0000

It is the night before I fly to a speaking engagement and I am in the all-too-familiar pattern of attempting to stuff too much clothing into a too-small carry-on bag. Since I do this with regularity, I have learned to plot out my week’s apparel on a grid, so I can bring as few items as possible while assuring those who see me speak on Wednesday, won’t be shocked by me wearing the same clothing Thursday. (Does one spell “anal-retentive” with or without the hyphen?) This procedure also helps determine the minimum amount of clothing to lug. In this process, I realized that a plain black pair of dress pants could serve double duty. Alas, not being the owner of such – I make an emergency run to the clothing store.

A dapper gentleman greets me, “How can I help you sir?”

“Black dress pants please.”

“Which size?”

“Thirty-four by 30,” I reply. I know this well. Personally, I call it them “32 WLD,” which means “32 while lying down,” but since he’s a professional in the clothing business, he probably refers to them as “34.” I shall – in deference to being in his store – speak his language.

He scopes me out and says, “No, you’re a 36.”

Sucking in my stomach – and now extremely self conscious – I counter, defensively, “No, I’m a 34, been a 34 for 15 years.”

Yet, inside, my ego is rapidly turning to jelly, “Am I putting on weight? Maybe I’m bloated? Does this make me look fat?” Oy, the horrible maelstrom of verbal cacophony blowing about in my gray matter! I want to shriek, “Don’t you dare tell me what size I am! I am a professional dieter. I can list the calories, fat, fiber, and sugar content of every food ever invented. Go ahead, test me!” Feeling mall security would not take kindly to a raving maniac in bulging britches, I opt to keep closed my pie hole.

Oblivious to the paranoia he has foisted upon my shallow, weak – apparently chubby – ego, he lifts his arms so I can take in the full view of his thinner-than-me waistline and points to himself, “I wear a 34.” As an afterthought, realizing one doesn’t want to tell a customer he’s looking tubby, he quickly appends, “These pants are cut really small.” Too late buddy, the damage has been done.

He hands me a 36 and I plod, a broken, rotund man, to the fitting room where I pull them over my legs. Hallelujah! Great day in Heaven, I’m practically swimming in them! A choir of well-tailored angels sings from above, I am validated!

Yet, I must also be vindicated.

Tugging my pants upward with one hand, like a gen-exer hefting up too-baggy trousers, I strut boldly into the middle of the store, pointing at my waist with my free hand and triumphantly proclaiming for all to hear, “Ah-hem! These are waaaay too large.”

He eyes my droopy drawers, respond with, “I think they fit well. However, if you want something smaller, we can do that.”

Suggestion to clothing store employees: Never tell your customer they are larger than they say they say they are. If I want to squeeze my 62-inch waist into a 29-inch pair of jeans, let me try. Simply clear the patrons out of the store in anticipation of when the button explodes.

Old Fart

Jose Antonio Ponce — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:10:18 +0000

I can never leave the house again. I cannot subject myself to the embarrassment of my affliction nor can I bring myself to force others to suffer along with me. No one should have to choose between pity and disgust for my sake. I should not expose myself to the world demanding that people accept me for what I am. I should be hidden away.

Nothing could have prepared me for this. It happened without warning and at the age of fifty, one would think that this is the kind of burden that is carried only by the very aged, but here it is happening to me. It has made me feel tired and used. How can I explain without people running away screaming, perhaps at the thought that this, too, might happen to them, someday.

It was like the first tremor of Parkinson’s disease or that forgetfulness that is the onset of dementia. I sat on the couch with my wife, relaxing after dinner, enjoying the domestic bliss that we both work so hard to accomplish. I don’t know if it was the remnants of a cold or the dust on the windowsill that caused me to sneeze, but in that split second of release I…how shall I put this… I broke wind!

Horrors! I excused myself, of course. This was an anomaly. Clearly I was in a weakened state due to my recent illness or I had eaten something disagreeable to me. This was never to happen again.

But it did happen again and with alarming frequency. Soon it wasn’t just a violent sneeze that would trigger such an event, but anything that required effort from me. If I coughed, I thundered. Laughing created short, staccato burps. Lifting heavy objects caused a long stream of audible stress. Bending over, getting up from the couch and getting into the car all became an exercise in caution. Every ordinary gesture was now planned well in advance and executed in a slow and deliberate fashion. I moved like a Tai Chi master.

At first, I could keep it in house. Somehow my mental ability to separate the territorial comfort of home versus a workplace or other communal environment kept public attacks at bay. Through sheer will, I was able to get through the day without tooting. Eventually, though, this too began to become a challenge. More often I was excusing myself from conversation to find a solitary place for release. I insisted that no assistance was required should I need to move a desk or other piece of equipment. I would be fine by myself, thank you. Better that someone perceived me as being overly macho than so old that I could not control my bodily functions.

I began to see myself as a novelty toy, a gasbag that need only be prodded or twisted in the slightest way to elicit an amusing if juvenile bit of entertainment. Should my condition be discovered, that’s what I would become. There would be lunchtime contests of Make the Old Man Fart and office pools to see how long I could go before cracking a rat. My life and any respect I had gained in my long career would go up, phffftt!…just like that. I had to get a handle on this.

I surfed the internet in a attempt to know my enemy. What was it in human physiology that caused this effect? Could this be reversed? I prayed that there was a way out of this for me. At least, I hoped, there would be a terminal condition causing this problem so that when people laughed at me I could stare coldly at them and explain, “My doctor says it’s a symptom of my advanced colon cancer. I only have six weeks to live, you know.” That would shut them up.

I changed my diet. I existed solely on meat, cheese and whole grains. Salads, fruit or vegetation of any kind was off limits to me. If it grew in the ground, it was my enemy. Better that I should die of scurvy than of embarrassment. I did sphincter contractions while sitting at my desk in an effort to conquer this problem through brute strength. I enlisted the aid of chemicals like Maalox, Pepto-Bismol and Tums hoping modern science had already found a solution for this age-old problem. When that didn’t work, I turned to ancient remedies and herbal solutions. I would put this behind me, so to speak, by changing the very core of my existence if need be.

Despite my best efforts, I continued to phoof. The sounds coming from me became more and more diverse. No longer was I confined to mere barking spider noises. There was the fart that rose in pitch as it escaped. There was the slow leak. The shudder. I began to catalogue them in an effort to understand them and perhaps prevent them. I tried to keep track of each sound. Was that a “brrfrrt!” or “braaat!”? Were the louder ones coming after a large meal or were they due to stress? Their sonic identities seemed to correspond with the time of day or the mood I was in.

There were the explosive ones early in the morning just after rising. These had clearly been trapped all night, building momentum as they waited for the dawn to break. Stress related discharge seemed to trumpet itself in protest with loud, anti-social howls. Laughter brought on boastful announcement, almost as if my gaseous anomalies remembered their place in entertainment history. At home, the relaxed atmosphere introduced mellow Jazz-like tones of contentment.

Worst of all, I began to bargain with myself. If I could get through a meeting or social situation, I promised to take myself to a private place and let the wind come forth in all its majesty. I found myself leaning this way and that in my chair to sneak one out or simply for the sake of efficiency rather than excusing myself every ten minutes. Gradually, my affliction began to conquer me.

What would be the next thing to go? My hearing? My sight? Bladder control? Would I stop eating with my mouth closed? Would I start to tuck a napkin into my collar at dinner? What if I started to smell like urine and nobody told me? Would I start to wear plaid? The depths that I could sink to seemed endless. This was worse than any mid-life crisis I could imagine and it could not be fixed with a tryst or the purchase of a sports car. As a matter of fact, the worse my affliction became the more remote either of these options became.

My self-esteem took a beating. It was bad enough that I had other physiological boundaries. I now had to contend with a mortifying burden that announced itself to the world as surely as if I walked the streets shouting “Unclean! Unclean!” I was now closer to becoming that man sprouting hair from his ears riding the scooter through the mall. And from what I had heard, this air assault wouldn’t end in death. I had heard stories of cadavers breaking loose long after the breath of life had left a person’s body. This was the most final of insults.

Like the loss of a loved one, I found myself well within the seven stages of grief. At first I was shocked, stunned that this could happen to someone as youthful and vibrant as me. I denied the possibility that this could happen. It must be a symptom of a much larger problem. I struck a deal with myself, promising to move on to better health if the problem would only go away. I suffered the guilt anger, embarrassment and depression that my problem created. All that is left now is acceptance.

The “Logic” of Professional Psychologists Part 2

TimKellis — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:37:42 +0000

Lenn

I would like to begin this post by stating that yes I am generalizing psychologists with posts like this, but as I get more involved in my project I am running across more concerned psychologists who do understand the notion of psychological healing through forgiveness by unlocking past experiences that cause individuals to have mental imbalances.

But I continue to believe this is a minority of the psychology community.

I wanted to continue a post I published concerning the response I received on the notion of mental equality between a husband and wife. My declaration was met with criticism by comparing men and women with bananas and peaches, with the statement about how bananas and peaches can be equal. To see the full discussion please visit the following link:

One of the web site where I have been contributing is Divorce360.com, where I post comments under the section on where couples are still trying to decide whether to get divorced or not. I posted the above comment and the following dialogue ensued. The conversation does appear to be ambiguous but I honestly tried to keep it simple. Yes, this is a long post, the conversation took us a complete day to finish. To see the dialogue at the Divorce360.com web site please visit the following link:

www.divorce360.com/blogs/2009/3/16/timkellis/the-logic-of-professional-psychologists-blog-22273

My response to…you is that you’re equivocating on the term ‘equal’. The term ‘equal’ has at least two senses. First, it can mean “like in degree of ____.” Second, it can mean “identical.” Men and women are like in the degree of many things, but are by no means identical.

Recognizing differences does not land you in a patriarchal hegemony. The Y-chromosome itself establishes that–if a weaker sense of ‘equal’ than “identical” necessitates prejudice and bias, then biology itself dictates such prejudices and biases.

Men and women are equal yet different. That means their attributes cannot be mapped in a one-to-one correspondance. So the question is, what do you mean when you say they are equal?

No one believes men and women are from different planets, but the book you are pointing at does use that metaphor to explain phenomenologicaldifferences. I know there are phenomenological differences between men and women, and that anyone who says otherwise is an idealogue. However, the question is, are these differences grounded in something biological rather than social?

But again, your critique of her stance was grossly unfair. You equivocated.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 1:17 PM

Sorry, but this bugs me. You overplayed your hand. Balance doesn’t require equality in any sense, so even if men and women were completely unequal, balance could be attained and even required.

Your analogy with thoughts and feelings seems appropriate. They aren’t truly equal–the equation “thought” = “feeling” is laughably false–but they are equal in some valuative sense.

I actually find it offensive that you would take the commentor’s post, declare that completely unrelated historical facts totally refute his position, skirt his very reasonable question “what do you mean by equal,” and then put him on a slippery-slope that essentially accuses him of misogyny.

Not a pleasant read.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 1:28 PM

Damn. Revamped paragraph number 2:

Your analogy with thoughts and feelings seems inappropriate, or at least as inappropriate as the commenter’s analogy. Thoughts and feelings aren’t truly equal–the equation “thought” = “feeling” is laughably false–but they are equal in some valuative sense. Your sliding from one analogy to another is more evidence of your equivocation, and had you actually been open to another perspective (or even seeing if you SHARED the same perspective) you would have seen that and interpreted him more charitably. From what I see, there is nothing inconsistent between your perspectives, except you think your “men and women are equal” has the strength of tautology, your reader sees that it does not, and rather than address the reality, you got on a very high horse, thereby guaranteeing he will not hear you.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 1:33 PM

Lenn

Let me begin by correcting your fundamental statement, that equal means identical. Unfortunately this is absolutely not true, and clouds the rest of your argument.

In fact, I would state the opposite, that equal doesn’t mean identical, that would require each to completely comply with the other in a relationship. In fact, equal allows each in a relationship to blossom in his or her own way.

And unfortunately your use of biological concepts completely misses the point, that we are not biological beasts but psychological beings, something not yet understood in the psychology world. And that is where you fail to recognize the notion of equality, but instead argue that one is superior, and yes this does unfortunately land you in patriarchal hegemony, as you even conclude yourself.

Even your use of the term phenomenological shows your lack of understanding the goal in the relationship, not using our biological differences to justify the separation of the sexes, but instead understanding the mental relationship between 2 to promote a balancing of the relationship.

And explaining the metaphorical representation of men and women are from different planets to justify their differences does nothing but describe the problem, just my point. If men and women truly used that platform to appreciate the differences between them then we still wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate.

I am sorry if you find it offensive that I use historical analogies to present the facts of the result of our prejudicial nature, but you completely miss the point. We know from our prejudicial beliefs in the past that if you promote inequality, which is exactly what you are attempting to do with your diatribe, then you cannot find balance.

If men and women do not look equally at each other then one or both will always try to take control. And here is where you error again in your completely illogical stance that equality means identical.

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 2:13 PM

In fact, every senseless child knows that thoughts and feelings are 2 different phenomenon. We all know that. Thoughts will never = feelings, this is impossible.

Unfortunately you completely miss the entire point in the discussion of equality is when men and women both get to share equally in the thoughts and feelings in the relationship.

May I suggest you go back and read my response again.

I would actually state that my position is un equivocated instead of equivocated.
Sincerely
Tim

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 2:19 PM

lol.

First, my bringing up biology was a reductio ad absurdum–IF “equality” is defined as “identity” and it is assumed that “lack of equality” necessitates patriarchy, THEN biology itself necessitates patriarchy. This is clearly absurd and hence at least one (or in my opinion, both) of the antecedent conditions are false.

Second, I have read your post again. Here it is in a nutshell:

Paragraph 1–condescension

Paragraph 2–bold claim about what evidence will do

Paragraph 3–unrelated historical “evidence”

Paragraph 4–the equivocation, switching from ‘equality’ to ‘balance’

Paragraph 5–discourse on balance

Paragraph 6–analogy between ‘equality’ and ‘thought’s and ‘feelings’

Paragraph 7–undefended dismissal of opponent’s analogy

Paragraph 8–accusation of misogyny

That’s your post; no logic, just rhetoric, which is the pot calling the kettle ‘black.’

Third, this quote is insane: ”we are not biological beasts but psychological beings, something not yet understood in the psychology world.” [Are you kidding?!?!?!] And that is where you fail to recognize the notion of equality, but instead argue that one is superior, and yes this does unfortunately land you in patriarchal hegemony.” The point IS, you are sliding, right f***ing there, from the bare concept of ‘equality’ to a valuative concept of ’superiority,’ meaning that yes, sir, you are equivocating. You can’t get value judgments from facts, and the fact is, there are differences between the sexes, and you and I agree that that does NOT necessitate value judgments about ’superiority’. The fact that you GO there shows how disingenuous you are.

Third, on phenomenology, it is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. And your paragraph here is one more case of equivocation. Phenomenology does justify ’separation of sexes’ qua classes of entities. It does not tell us what to do with that. The fact

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 2:45 PM

Fourthly, I get what you are saying about Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus–the issue is you don’t get it. The point you make in your exposition does not compel you to jump down someone’s throat for arguing that there are very real differences. You ultimate point, which I agree with, is that IF there are differences, they do not justify one class of entities ruling over the other in ANY manner. But you go beyond that, and I understand why.

It is utterly repulsive that you would write this about me, “[you] instead argue that one [of the sexes] is superior,” but it is par for the course that you’re playing on.

My suggestion to you would be this: don’t fancy yourself so progressive (since you’re not, you’re a product of the same culture that generated the rest of us), assume points of agreement are greater than points of disagreement, and reason accordingly.

You have now jumped all over TWO men who might very well hold positions that are COMPLETELY consistent with yours. Why is that?

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 2:52 PM

The nuttiest part of all this is that you agree with me and the commenter–you recognize how absurd it is to equate “equality” with “identity.” Yet that is what you must do to take issue what what he (and I wrote). Because if you don’t, then the only step left to you is agreeing with us, but since you’re convinced that you’re progressive and the rest of us are neanderthals, you have to assume that we reason that on non-identical equality women are inferior (value-judgment) while you reason that they are not.

To me, this entire post tells me that while you do grasp what is needed for a healthy marital relationship, you have work to do on a therapist’s couch.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 3:07 PM

Lenn

Wow, I’m having trouble following your circular logic, but let me give it a try. First, you state that you bringing up the biology issue was a reduction to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum). I would agree with that, exactly my point, that it is absurd for you to use the difference in the biology of men and women to justify one having control.

After all, you stated that recognizing the difference of the sexes does not put one in charge (patriarchal hegemony), yet you state the Y-chromosome (the male chromosome) “itself establishes that-if a weaker sense of ‘equal’ than ‘identical’ necessitates prejudice and bias, then biology itself dictates such prejudices and biases”.

So maybehere is where I am confused. It sounds like you are stating that because of biological differences, one sex is weaker, thereby justifying prejudices and biases. Maybe you could clarify this very ambiguous statement. After all, you do then state that men and women are equal yet different. And again, to clarify for you an extremely simple point that you seem to be challenged to understand, the notion of equality is where both the man and the woman have equal access to the thoughts and the feelings that go into every relationship.

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 4:49 PM

And then you bring up my comment that we are not biological beasts but psychological beings, and asking me if I am kidding. Do you believe we are biological beasts or psychological beings? And then you state that I am trying to “argue that one is superior”. I challenge you to find one statement on my behalf where that is even a notion I believe.

And then you get back to your phenomenology statement. Yes, I agree the statement is just a descriptive term. But then you state that “phenomenology does justify ‘separation of the sexes’”. So are you stating that our difference does justify our separation, again justifying one to be in charge? And here let me explain to you the term ‘separate but equal’ because you apparently missed that most important historical fact. To try to keep the sexes, and races, separate but equal was used tojustify our racial and sexual prejudices. We all know about different drinking fountains, restaurants, Rosa Parks having to give up her seat, etc. Trying to justify ‘separation of the sexes’ does nothing more than promote these prejudices.

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 4:50 PM

And then you state that we are all in agreement, it is absurd to equate equality with identity. How sweet. Boy this paragraph is utterly confusing. We all agree, yet I must ‘take issue with what [you both] wrote’, when you clearly state at the beginning of this discussion that equal can mean identical, again a point I clarified at the very beginning of my discussion. But then you state that I have to assume you are reasoning ‘that on non-identical equality (whatever that means) women are inferior’. So again, are you trying to state that women are inferior or not?

And to correct your point on my equivocation, equality and balance are one and the same.

Thanks for the advice about needing a therapist but I am quite enjoying my discussion with you.

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 4:51 PM

And then you comment about my point with Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, that I am ‘jump[ing]down someone’s throat for arguing that there are very real differences’, whichmust mean that I don’t get that there are differences. To clarify, the basic concept of this book is that men and women are different and…well, that’s about as deep as it gets. Again, describing a problem does nothing to solve it, something again the Psychology world has yet to embrace. But then you do state that this does not justify one ruling over the other. Are you now saying you don’t believe in the notion of patriarchy?

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 4:53 PM

So to summarize, are you saying that equal can mean identical, men and women are clearly not identical, thereby equality between men and women is not possible, the ultimate point in this discussion?
	by TimKellis 22 Posts Posted on 3/16/2009 4:58 PM

Tim, seriously–I will respond only to your first response, because that is the crux of the matter.

First, I write very precisely–you’ll note the conditional “if” in my statment about biology; that means something. I don’t know how to say it more clearly than I’ve already done.

Second, neither I nor your commenter brought up the matter of “superiority” or “inferiority.” That’s all your contribution. That’s your way of winning–not on the merits of your thought, but by making charged accusations. Look again at what the commenter said–he TRIED to suck the issue of the emotional charge and you would have none of it (because that is what you capitalize on). He tried to get you to do what you have you needed to do, which was define “equality.” He, not you, was the one being logical by shedding the undo influence of connotation.

Third, stop using the term ‘equality.’ There is NO accepted definition of the term in the English language that comes close to meaning “balance.” A Calder mobile is in balance–none of its compositional elements are equal; the equality is in invisible forces, meaning there is a likeness of degree between the two sides with respect to force-vectors.

Fourth, look at the phenomenological point I made. I explicity stated that phenomenology justifes separating the sexes as classes of entities, but it says nothing about whether that separation justifies an inequality in power.

-con’t-

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 7:19 PM

Sixth, your assumption that recognizing differences is a problem is completedly vapid. The problem is NOT in the recognition (or description) of those differences, but in using those differences to justify unjust inequities. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the two acts–between recognizing differences and justifying inequity–shows how idealogical you are.

Here’s me tackling your “historical evidence.” Guess what–there is a difference between caucasians and negros. The most notable difference is in levels of melanin, though there are also structural and micro-biological differences as well. Refusing to say that makes one a fool; assuming that justifies social inequities also makes one a fool.

My ultimate point is that you have some axe to grind that makes you incapable of approaching this topic objectively, so the charge of “illogic” sounds like a joke coming from your lips.

You project your own assumptions onto others. It makes it almost impossible for you to engage in a real discussion. For instance, this: And then you state that I am trying to “arguethat one is superior”. Where did I state that? Did you notice the quotation marks, the brackets that indicated I was working with a quote, the indexical “me”? Nope. Again, why is that? Why is it that you so flagrantly miss what others are saying? (And there are amply examples of that throughout.)

So, no, the ultimate point of this discussion is not what you pointed out–rather, it is that you project your own fears and biases onto others.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 7:29 PM

To make it explicit, my issue is NOT with your position on the relationship between men and women, but rather with how you treat others when your statements are far from logical or unambiguous. That includes the author of the condemned book, your commenter, and now me.
	by lenn 2412 Posts Posted on 3/16/2009 7:33 PM

Okay Lenn

Let me make it easy on you. Are you saying that someone in the relationship should be superior, and one inferior, or should each be viewed equally?

And to clarify one point, patriarchy is defined as the man being in charge. And prejudices are used to control the situation.

Thanks for your lively discussion.
Tim

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 8:52 PM

Ok Tim, how ’bout I make this reeeaaalllly easy for you–I’m tossing you a big, round rubber ball here: what inference can you draw from the following statments?

Second, neither I nor your commenter brought up the matter of ’superiority’ or ‘inferiority.’”

“…you and I agree that that does NOT necessitate value judgments about ’superiority’.”

“…THEN biology itself necessitates patriarchy. This is clearly absurd…”

“To make it explicit, my issue is NOT with your position on the relationship between men and women.”

Seriously, please knock this one out of the park and answer your own damned question. And do humanity a favor and stop writing–you don’t do any of us any favors by injecting your muddled thinking and condescention into the marketplace of ideas.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 10:04 PM

…oh yeah, and this one: ”Your [sic[ ultimate point, which I agree with, is that IF there are differences, they do not justify one class of entities ruling over the other in ANY manner." God dammit guy, your pompous attitude is the problem. Try listening to people rather than lecturing them. FFS. I'm done with this.
	by lenn 2412 Posts Posted on 3/16/2009 10:22 PM

Okay Lenn

Let me make it even easier on you, since you obviously skirted the question I asked before.

Do you believe that one should be superior, and one inferior in a relationship? (that is it, I'm not asking anything else, please just answer that one very, very, very simple question).

And Dactyl, your response is completely understandable. We have been told for a hundred years that men and women are biologically different, which is why you commented that we are different in the way we are built. You only need to understand that the biological approach completely dismisses the mental approach to relationships. Unfortunately the pros do not believe we have mental lives, which is why Lenn refuses to address the mental relationship between couples that I am trying to get him to discuss. In fact, not only do the pros not believe we have mental lives, they do not believe that the mind is capable of thinking, which is why Lenn's discussion becomes completely illogical.

We only need to see how he answers the question of mental equality between a man and a woman or continues to rationalize the superiority of one. He even had the balls to mention the biological difference between caucasians and negroes, something any African American would take exception to.

by TimKellis 22 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 11:06 PM

God, you are a reductionistic ass. Let me state what I have clearly said from the beginning in terms you can grasp--boys not better, girls not worse. You, however, are windbag. And unintelligent. A pedagogue in the worst way. But I bet you feel great about yourself. Ta-ta. I am truly done with you.
	by lenn 2412 Posts Posted on 3/16/2009 11:22 PM

F***. I made the mistake of reading the entirety of your response. Seriously, I get that you are self-educated, and there is reason for pride there, but there is also reason for great humility.

First, no "pro" denies the reality of mental states. Even the most reductionistic materialists talk about supervenience.

Second, do NOT use the term 'illogical'. You have NO idea how to use that term. The term you are looking for is 'invalid,' but unless you can point to gaps in my reasoning that exist on a purely mathematical level, 'illogical' doesn't work. But again, I get why you use that term--you are a splendid example of the postmodern critique of language. Foucault is rolling in his grave.

Third, I do not want to KNOW, nor be NEAR, nor breathe the same AIR as ANY African American who takes exception to the observation that there are indeed genetic, biological differences between myself and them. Such a person would be colossaly stupid. However, I would also not want to KNOW, nor be NEAR, nor breathe the same AIR as ANY caucasian who took those biological differences as justification for racism.

Fourth, you continually project your own biases, accusing me of defending power-inequities when I have said NO SUCH THING, which demonstrates that you are one sick puppy in that your own issues make you incapable of interacting with others on this topic. I do suggest you spend time with a therapist. You may think they're illogical, but damn sir.

My last question to you is why do you continue this when you are so obviously outclassed intellectually? I have the humility to treat those more intelligent than me with respect. Why is it you do not have the same?

If you wish to make a true contribution to humanity, drop your hubris, get a f***ing degree so you KNOW what your "opposition" is saying, and then try again. It's not a guarantee, but it may help.

by lenn 2412 Posts
Posted on 3/16/2009 11:50 PM

Lenn, I dont understand how u can be so racist and sexist. All Tim is saying is that "pros" dont understand that people are mental, rather than biological, and thats true irrefutably. I once got sent to a pro who totally didnt think I had a mental life. He just said I was being unreasonable, as if "reason" is what matters in a relationships. What about my mental feelings, which are logically equal to a womans? And to say that african-american's have more Melon is proof that your racist. Liking melons is a stereotype. I once new an African American who wont eat melons because of allurgies. So logically there is no difference between races, just like its false that males and females are unequal because of their biological differences, like u obviously think. Learn to read so you can understand facts clearly.

by ohoafretard 1 Post
Posted on 3/17/2009 8:51 PM

Okay, yes a long post. I did like how the last post mistook Lenn's comment on Melanin with Melon, but she got the point about his justification for the separation of the sexes, and races.

Until we can learn to approach relationships logically we will not solve the marriage problem, and that includes the logic of emotions.

Thank you for reading.

Tim Kellis

(http://www.lessonsfromarecoveringdoormat.com/)

Blog Tour on Relationships with Relationship Expert Tim Kellis

TimKellis — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:56:03 +0000

Tim Kellis, author of "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"

Hello

The month of April is upon us and I would like to invite you for a Blog Tour I will be doing this month, and next. The focus on the tour will be relationships, and the discussion is sure to be lively.

I want to begin by thanking Dorothy Thompson at Pump Up Your Book Promotion (http://www.pumpupyourbookpromotion.com/) for her tireless work over the last 2 months putting this Blog Tour together.

She already has the month of April filled up, and is sure to have a full lineup for May too.

Our first stop is going to be Lessons from a Recovering Doormat. Please join us on April 1st at http://www.lessonsfromarecoveringdoormat.com/ to participate at our first stop.

Here are the tour stops:

April 1: Lessons from a Recovering Doormat

April 2: Divine Caroline (http://www.divinecaroline.com/)

April 3: Marital Talk (http://www.maritaltalk.com/)

April 6: Long Relationships (http://www.longrelationships.com/)

April 7: Long Relationships (http://www.longrelationships.com/)

April 8: Long Relationships (http://www.longrelationships.com/)

April 9: Beyond Books (http://beyondthebooks.wordpress.com/)

April 10: Marital Talk (http://www.maritaltalk.com/)

April 13: Blogging Authors (http://www.bloggingauthors.com/)

April 14: Love is an Exploding Cigar (http://www.loveisanexplodingcigar.com/)

April 15: Paperback Writer (http://rebecca2007.wordpress.com/)

April 16: Between the Covers (http://bookexcerpts.wordpress.com/)

April 17: Marital Talk (http://www.maritaltalk.com/)

April 20: Introducing Writers! Radio Show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kims)

April 21: Blogcritics (http://blogcritics.org/)

April 22: The Writer’s Life (http://www.thewriterslife.blogspot.com/)

April 23: The Writer’s Life (http://www.thewriterslife.blogspot.com/)

April 24: Boomer Chick (http://www.overthehillchick.blogspot.com/)

April 27: One Writer’s Journey (http://pennylockwoodehrenkranz.blogspot.com/)

April 28: A Book Blogger’s Diary (http://www.abookbloggersdiary.blogspot.com/)

Please join us during the month on the stops that you can make. Remember the goal is to save our culture of marriage, and someone has to stop this rampant divorce.

Sincerely
Tim Kellis
http://HappyRelationships.com/
http://HappyMarriages.com/

“Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage” Book Review

Book Review by Bettie Corbin Tucker from Independent Book Reviewers

TimKellis — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:43:14 +0000

Hello.

I wanted to share with you a recent book review by Bettie Corbin Tucker from Independent Book Reviewers. To view the review online please visit the following link:

If you would like to pick up a copy of the book you can get it for a 20% discount at the following link:

20% Discount on Book

"Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"

Equality
The Quest for the Happy Marriage
Tim Kellis
Gilgamesh Publishing
ISBN: 978-0-9799848-0-8
440 pages

When I began reading Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage, by Tim Kellis, I expected to read a typical counseling book such as those that fill the shelves of bookstores. Most of these are written by experts in the field of counseling who have degrees in psychology, psychiatry, or pastoral ministries. I was totally wrong in regard to the word “typical.” This book delves deep into the mind, reminding readers of historical happenings, successful businesses, politics, education, religion, family backgrounds, and the scientific work of many individuals, all which, according to the author’s findings, can unlock some of the mysteries as to what is behind the 50 percent divorce rate among couples who promised to love one another “for better or worse.”

Although written for couples, this is also a self-help book for individuals who may find answers as to why happiness has always seemed to elude them. The author stresses that individuals must be happy within themselves before they can be happy in a relationship. It is not a book to be read in one setting since it is scholarly, philosophical and informative—a book that needs to be studied with an open, fervent mind. Much of the book is autobiographical as Mr. Kellis describes his early home life, education, successful career, various dating experiences and finally what happened when he met Suzanne who captured his heart—someone he truly believed that he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. At first the relationship was wonderful…it was beautiful…it was exciting…it was passionate…it was everything they both wanted. Tim and Suzanne got engaged, fought, went to therapy sessions, and eventually broke up. How could such a perfect beginning end so badly? There had to be answers, and he would find them!

The words “common sense” and “logic” are the threads that connect the chapters of this book through the author’s insightful research and obvious intellect. Let’s take a look at the word “equality” and its role in a couple’s relationship. Though Mr. Kellis talks about past traditions, he emphasizes that the movement toward equality between men and women was, and continues to be, a progressive move that is morally and legally justified. He states that in a relationship both individuals must share equally in the feeling and thinking side of the psyche of the relationship. Men do feel and women do think; also men do think and women do feel! The author also believes that common sense leads a couple to take on the world together, rather than arguing with one another. Instead of becoming involved in faultfinding, both parties need to concentrate on problem solving by using logic and common sense to help resolve issues.

Among the many resources for his research, the author uses and critiques relationship books written by various authors and also studies the findings of scientists and health professionals—those from the past as well as those considered to be experts in today’s society. Mr. Kellis has concluded that most of today’s therapists do not actually understand the problems in a relationship, or if they do, they don’t go far enough to actually find answers. He also believes that they don’t know how to stop disagreements from turning into arguments. As someone who has done considerable counseling, I, too, believe this is true and that something is amiss with the training these professionals have received. The author emphasizes that faultfinding and simply defining a negative relationship does not lead to happiness; problem solving, on the other hand, gets to the root of problems and can save marriages. Readers are given a lot of information as to how the mind works, including how we all too often fall in love with someone because of looks and money, not understanding that we stay in love because of character. A very important lesson to be learned is that we must choose to get over our past experiences—including anger toward parents—or we will transfer such negative emotions onto our spouses. Face and forgive are two key words to avoid such transference. When an individual first falls in love, this is experienced in the conscious as happiness; however, if there are unresolved issues in the unconscious that have not been dealt with, the result will be fear and unhappiness. The author, through the help and advice of friends, was able to forgive his parents for negative childhood memories that he had carried around for years; only then did he find the key to experiencing real happiness. Suzanne, on the other hand, had never confronted her past and subsequently found fault after fault with him, a man she had loved so much—in the beginning.

Tim Kellis touches briefly on the works of Dr. Sigmund Freud whose hypothesis was that our behavior is determined by the brain we are born with. This leads to the conclusion that we can do nothing about our troubles. The author does not accept this theory but does embrace the work of Dr. Carl Jung who theorized that we have minds that develop and that we can correct our insecurities through the impact of our unconscious on our conscious. Dr. Jung spent his entire life delving into the workings of the mind.

This book encompasses a vast amount of information for the reader to digest; however, it is a book for those who have chosen to find the path to real happiness—perhaps to turn their backs on many established therapy practices and think for themselves. Think, feel, and behave! Equality: the Quest for the Happy Marriage will help make this possible.

At his last therapy session, the author received permission from his therapist to record the conversation. Readers are given a word-for-word transcript of the session and can reach their own conclusions as to what was accomplished.

It is my opinion that this book is unique and could prove to be a very helpful resource for individuals, couples, and professionals involved in counseling.

Bettie Corbin Tucker
For Independent Book Reviewers
www.bookreviewers.org
March 12, 2009

Tim Kellis

authorkellymoran.blogspot.com/2009/03/kelly-interviews-author-tim-kellis.html

The “Logic” of Professional Psychologists

TimKellis — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:01:39 +0000

If you want to know why we have a 50% divorce rate you need to look no further than the “logic” used by the professionals. And I have a wonderful example for you. Below you will read a comment that someone actually posted to a blog interview I hosted. To see the full blog interview please visit the following link:

Bob Snider

I also want to let you know that there is a 20% discount on my relationship book “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage”.

20% Discount on Book

Bob Snider said…

I wish I had had the opportunity to read your book before posting a comment here. I think that we may disagree on possibly many points. Since I have not read your book, I am not sure what your total approach to the concept of “equality” is, however, as you can see from the following excerpt from my chapter on “Men & Women,” we probably disagree.“Let’s take a look at a phrase that has caused a lot of changes in our society. The simple phrase “men and women are equal” or phrases like it carry a lot of emotional weight, but what does this phrase really mean?



Let’s remove some of the emotional charge from this phrase so we can examine it better. By using the word bananas in place of the word men and replacing women with the word peaches, we have the statement “bananas and peaches are equal.”

Now, if I place a banana and a peach in front of you and say, “This banana and this peach are equal.”

What is your reaction?

Well, first the statement doesn’t make a lot of sense. What do you mean by equal? They are different, how can they be equal? How are you defining the term equal so that they can be considered equal?

My response is, why should the statement “men and women are equal,” be considered a logical statement full of reason when the statement, “bananas and peaches are equal,” has no reason or logic? The fact is that men and women are different just like the bananas and peaches and the term equal makes no sense at all.”

I want to encourage you in challenging the establishment. With a 50% divorce rate, somebody is doing something wrong. I suspect that your book will provide comfort to a lot of the people that read it.

Bob Snider

Tim Kellis said…

Bob I got a real good chuckle when I first read your post, but then realized the unfortunate reality of what the message that men and women are not equal, that they are different. Unfortunately, my friend, I have to give you a few historical facts that unfortunately completely refutes your stance. First, the concept that we as a nation used to continue to keep our African Americans unequal to us caucasians after the end of the civil war was referred to as “separate but equal”. The sad thing about your logic was at least this concept tried to logically establish racial equality, but your comment that men and women cannot be equal doesn’t even give each gender the benefit of a doubt.

The unfortunate reality is that if you try to promote any concept that does not balance the perspective of others then you will continue our long-established patriarchal society system of beliefs.

You cannot balance the relationship unless you balance the perspective of each, what we have learned from our democratic way of life. If you try to keep the genders separate then you cannot find equality, or balance in the relationship.

And just to explain my notion of equality. Mentally speaking, we all experience two sensations, thoughts and feelings. If each in the relationship do not have access to both then it becomes impossible for each to be able to relate to the other, and find balance in the relationship.

I must admit, though, the analogy of men and women with bananas and peaches is about as ridiculous as trying to extrapolate the behaviors of mice and monkeys to determine the behavior of humans.

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately you are simply promoting the same prejudices as the rest of the psychology industry, as demonstrated by the ridiculous belief that men and women are from different planets. Last time I checked we were both from earth.

Sincerely
Tim

13 March, 2009

Now there you have it, advice at its finest. Thanks for reading.

Tim Kellis

20% Discount on Book

Roses: A Love Story by an Anonymous Author

TimKellis — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:50 +0000

Red roses were her favorites, her name was also Rose.
And every year her husband sent them, tied with pretty bows.
The year he died, the roses were delivered to her door.
The card said, ‘Be my Valentine,’ like all the years before.
Each year he sent her roses, and the note would always say,
‘I love you even more this year, than last year on this day.
My love for you will always grow, with every passing year.’

She knew this was the last time that the roses would appear.
She thought he ordered roses in advance before this day.
Her loving husband did not know, that he would pass away.
He always liked to do things early, way before the time.
Then, if he got too busy, everything would work out fine.

She trimmed the stems, and placed them in a very special vase.
Then, sat the vase beside the portrait of his smiling face.
She would sit for hours, in her husband’s favorite chair.
While staring at his picture, and the roses sitting there.

A year went by, and it was hard to live without her mate.
With loneliness and solitude, that had become her fate.
Then, the very hour, as on Valentines before,
The doorbell rang, and there were roses, sitting by her door.
She brought the roses in, and then just looked at them in shock.
Then, went to get the telephone, to call the florist shop.
The owner answered, and she asked him, if he would explain,
Why would someone do this to her, causing her so much pain?

‘I know your husband passed away, more than a year ago,’
The owner said, ‘I knew you’d call, and you would want to know.
The flowers you received today, were paid for in advance.
Your husband always planned ahead, he left nothing to chance.
There is a standing order, that I have on file down here,
And he has paid, well in advance, you’ll get them every year.

There also is another thing, that I think you should know,
He wrote a special little card…he did this years ago.
Then, should ever I find out that he’s no longer here,
That’s the card…that should be sent, to you the following year.’
She thanked him and hung up the phone, her tears now flowing hard.
Her fingers shaking, as she slowly read the card.
Inside the card, she saw that he had written her a note.
Then, as she stared in total silence, this is what he wrote…

‘Hello my love, I know it’s been a year since I’ve been gone,
I hope it hasn’t been too hard for you to overcome.
I know it must be lonely, and the pain is very real.
Or if it was the other way, I know how I would feel.
The love we shared made everything so beautiful in life.
I loved you more than words can say, you were the perfect wife.
You were my friend and lover, you fulfilled my every need.

I know it’s only been a year, but please try not to grieve.
I want you to be happy, even when you shed your tears.
This is why the roses will be sent to you for years.
When you get these roses, think of all the happiness,
That we had together, and how both of us were blessed.
I have always loved you and I know I always will.

But, my love, you must go on, you have some living still.
Please…try to find happiness, while living out your days.
I know it is not easy, but I hope you find some ways.

The roses will come every year, and they will only stop,
When your door’s not answered, when the florist stops to knock.
He will come five times that day, in case you have gone out.
But after his last visit, he will know without a doubt,
To take the roses to the place, where I’ve instructed him.
And place the roses where we are, together once again.’

A Letter to Rihanna

Minnette Coleman — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:24:41 +0000

Dear Rihanna:

I have tried to leave your name out of the talk about domestic abuse but you keep returning to the mix. I understand you and Chris Brown are back together and that cause a plethora of problems on which you probably never focused. You think this is none of my business but you are so wrong. It became everyones business the moment you said ‘he hit me’.

The mere thought of you going back to this man confuses your fans. Many of them are very young and impressionable and in need of positive female images. I’m talking about male and female fans. Whether you like it or not you are a role model, you have no choice. The moment you became a star in the music firmament your lost your privacy. Now you have made a grave error. Going back to Brown after he beat you, after you went to the police, after your battered and bruised face appeared on television and newspapers and magazines tells young women that this is what they must expect from a man AND accept it. It tells young men it is fine to beat the crap out of your girlfriend, she’ll forgive you and there will be no consequences. It diminishes lessons on self esteem so many have us have tried to teach women in a world where they so often get a raw deal because of their gender.

You think this won’t happen again but it usually does and with each subsequent beating the outcome is worse. Statistics suggest that the next time you will probably end up in the hospital. Theres an even greater possibility that you might end up dead. Of course the man you returned to, the man you forgave because he was so sorry the first time will be sorry each and every time afterwards. But what of the woman he courts after you? She is bound to suffer the same fate and this will be your legacy, this will be labeled your fault because you failed to demand after the very first time that he be punished and get counseling.

Chris Brown will not be the only one in your relationship to loose endorsements. and income. And understand financial setbacks are always a source of anger for thos who abuse others. Many people will turn away because you publicly allowed the abuse to continue. The abuse is not just the beating but what happens afterwards that doesn’t change your life. You had a chance to make it better. Instead you wallow in self pity and refuse to pull yourself up and out of a precarious situation. There are those who will not watch you crash and burn. Your concert ticket and cd sales might decline. Your income might dissipate because of this. Expect to get your ass kicked again because this happens.

There is your future to consider, the one outside your career. If you decide to have a family do you want your children to watch you get abused and to believe that one human being attacking another is perfectly acceptable. You are so lucky because you are light years more fortunate than your sisters caught in a web of abuse. These women, often with children, have to sneak from the homes in the middle of the night to seek refuge in shelters. Rihanna, you have your own money, you have an amazing career, your own life. What do you need with a man who wacks you whenever he looses his temper? There are men out there dying to love you, to be with you and treat you better. But as long as you allow yourself to be satisfied with an abusive relationship they will think less of you. And the men you find in the future will most likely be the ones who say she likes this treatement. I can give her what she wants. I can hit harder, I can be crueler.

Some say you started the argument. So what? Arguements are part of relationships. Fights started in angry words can end with words. They do not have to escalate to the physical. Neither you nor Chris Brown is so financially deprived that you can’t afford to replace a broken cell phone or repair a smashed car window. You can repair yourselves with help and counseling but probably not together.

You are probably the victim of battered women’s syndrome so for one moment take a step back and look at your life. You don’t need him or the likes of him. The strength that you pocess to perform onstage is the strength you need now. Do your fans, do your fellow women who have suffered through this spiraling sometimes endless cycle of abuse, do yourself a favor. Forgive this man. Help him get help and let him go.

Sincerely

Minnette Coleman

My Inspiration for Writing “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage”

TimKellis — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:48:45 +0000

Tim Kellis, author of "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"

My biggest influence, and the reason I have taken on the challenge of saving marriages, were my parents, who again just celebrated their 50^th wedding anniversary. And their influence wasn’t because of anything they ever said to me, but what they did, stayed married. What makes this more important was they had the typical marriage of couples from their generation, full of fights, but they managed to stick it out. They taught me that divorce was not an option, that quitting was not the path to take.

My mom actually had my career mapped out when I was a kid to be a priest, something I took very seriously. I was an altar boy (no, I do not have any stories) and studied the bible intently. Although I haven’t read the bible since I was a kid I have used a lot of what I learned in my book. And then I discovered girls.

Although my career was extremely successful I never met a girl who lit up my passion, until at the height of the stock market (I worked as a Wall Street analyst) in 2000 I met a girl I thought I was going to spend the rest of my life with, and then we started arguing. Towards the end we went to a therapist looking for help solving our relationship troubles. When I realized he wasn’t really helping I decided to tackle the issue myself, although that relationship ended. Writing this book was my cathartic reaction to that pain.

When I met this girl I had worked for 5 years as a semiconductor analyst on Wall Street. So I studied like a Wall Street analyst, reading over 100 books in a period of 10 months, which equates to 2 ½ books a week, straight for 10 months. I believe this may be one of the most researched books ever written. And at the end of this research my confidence in my ability to solve the relationship problem resulted in the book, after 9 months of writing.

The bottom line is a professional psychologist could not have written such an expansive book as “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage” because of the limitations of the industry. My joke is the 100 books read included nearly 2 dozen relationship books and the only books read that were fiction were the relationship books. In fact, the first title concept I came up with was “Men Are From Earth, Women Are From Earth” to demonstrate just that point.

by Tim Kellis

How Do You Each Handle the Intellectual and Emotional Side in the Relationship

TimKellis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:49:46 +0000

Handling the Intellectual and Emotional Side in the Relationship

The notion of development has been hotly debated for centuries by men and women of knowledge, as demonstrated by the difficulty in accepting the theories of Darwinism. Within relationships, this concept becomes even more significant, because if you understand the notion that you are developing a relationship, then you are better prepared to understand how to manage that development. The simple reality is that we are not stagnate creatures. And we develop both emotionally and intellectually, with the objective of each within a relationship developing both.

Describe within your relationship how each handles the emotional and intellectual side.

by Tim Kellis

questforthehappymarriage.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-do-you-each-handle-intellectual-and.html

When Only One is Working on the Problems in the Relationship

TimKellis — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:23:01 +0000

For an article I’m writing for CNN.com, I’m seeking both nationally known relationship experts as well as “real” people to talk about this topic: when the person you married or fell in love with makes a drastic life change. Perhaps she used to love burgers, but then became a strict vegan and now pushes tofu down your throat. Or maybe he was an anything-goes kind of guy, but five years into the marriage became a Scientologist. Or maybe your wife used to be carefree about the environment, and now she’s militant about recycling *everything*. I’m looking for both the light and serious side of what happens when you wake up and realize the person you love has changed in significant ways.

When Only One is Working on the Problems in the Relationship

In positive relationships, as individuals within a marriage grow and develop new interests, hobbies, outlooks on life, religion, etc both get to live through this change in a positive manner where the change is understood and most importantly, appreciated. Obviously, the change is within one of the two and it is important that this change not be enforced onto the other, because the change is intended for one, not both.

Problems, though, occur within the negative relationship when this change is used as a further wedge between the two, a wedge that had already been developed with the other unresolved issues within the marriage. Then it becomes another brick in the path of the destruction of the marriage.

Then it becomes a, or quite possibly the, issue that finally pushes the couple apart to the point of the thud of complacency within negative marriages, or divorce. Then it becomes a problem.

What is needed in this situation is to understand and appreciate the changes within the individual.

For example, if one of the two within a marriage decides to become much more religious, then the other partner needs to understand this as part of the maturing process, and accept and appreciate this change. The one who has found religion cannot enforce this change onto the other. Then it becomes a wedge in the relationship.

by Tim Kellis

QuestfortheHappyMarriage.blogspot.com

Quid-Pro-Quo in the Relationship

TimKellis — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:19:23 +0000

WendyK Says:

How do you communicate with your spouse

I don’t really have any questions. Sounds boring I guess. But we seem to be doing good. After nearly 13yrs of marriage we have our rough stops, our fights but honestly we can’t imagine NOT being married to each other. We both agreed when we got married, it was forever. No divorce option is there. We agreed it doesn’t exist to us. So we try to talk out our issues. I’ll admit we have times…………LOL but honestly we are best friends as well as lovers and we make a choice to be in this together. I think that’s a big thing for us. I think I’ll try to get your book, because it never hurts. And I honestly think that early in our marriage we read the FIVE LANGUAGES OF LOVE and it helped us ALOT to see that we had different ways of showing our love. Didn’t make it less, just that he saw love one way and I another.

hugs,

WendyK

Tim Kellis Says:

WendyK

And congrats on your marriage. Sounds like you address conflicts in the appropriate manner. There are 2 paths taken with conflicts, arguments and disagreements, and the one I am trying to teach is through disagreements, which are logical discussions, even over emotional issues. Arguments, which are emotional discussions, are not resolvable. If you cannot address logically the why with conflicts then you have issues that become unresolvable which lead to what are referred to psychologically as “psychic lesions”, issues that become mental blocks because they are not resolved.

And to address your comment about “The 5 Languages of Love”, if this concept is addressed positively then it can be very helpful. This book has been a huge success. I was at a marriage conference about 6 months ago and Gary Chapman was one of the speakers. He spoke intelligently, eloquently, and very humorously. The languages (acts of service, physical touch, quality time, gifts, words of affirmation) do encompass a wide perspective of the different needs within relationships. If you could understand which one is more important then you can comprehend how best to understand your spouse.

The only problem with this approach is in reality it promotes a quid-pro-quo relationship in negative relationships. “If you give me physical contact then I will buy you things”, and this doesn’t work in negative relationships. Quid-pro-quo never works, the notion of conditional love. What is needed for successful relationships is unconditional love. In reality this concept is an extension of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”, which promotes that the key is to appreciate the differences between men and women, and unfortunately the notion of “separate but equal” didn’t work as we have seen with our racial struggles.

And the other problem with that book, and this problem also shows the materialistic approach of the professionals, is its materialism. The reality is he is promoting labor, sex, behavior, money, and communication, but he misses the most important languages, internal languages. The reality is the 2 pillars of happiness, and really the key languages to success are respect and empathy. Unfortunately you will have difficulty finding professionals discuss these 2 concepts because they have yet to breach the ivory walls of the psychology industry.

Please keep in mind with my critical words about the pros, but we as a society expect them to solve our marriage problems and they have yet to do it.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Tim Kellis

QuestfortheHappyMarriage.blogspot.com