Report 2
Unity Model of Marriage
Marriage Observations
By:
Angela Murray
Instructions for this report are found at:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409b-g25-report2.htm
I am answering Questions 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
I am answering
Question 3:
(a)
Select at least
one student report on marriage from each of Generation 20, 21, and 22 as listed
in the
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409b-g25-lecture-notes.htm#students
(b) Summarize
each of the selected reports. Be sure to put a link to the student's report.
(c) Summarize
what they say they gained from doing their reports.
(d) How do their
ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?
The first report
is from Jessica Lacy in Generation 21.
Her report is titled “My Understanding of the Unity Model of Marriage.”
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf2004/lacy/409b-g21-report2.doc.htm
Jessica begins by
stating that she feels she is most comfortable in the Equity Model in her relationship
with her boyfriend. She did not like the
idea that she should have everything she wanted and she felt it was unnecessary
to smother him or demand things that he could not fulfill.
She then describes
three levels of behavior in relationships.
She explains that there is a social level, a happiness level and a
spiritual level. If a couple remains in
the social level, they maintain separate social lives. In the happiness level, the couple becomes
more dependent on each other and more exclusive. At the third level, the couple becomes
completely dependent on each other and they experience a deep commitment to
each other.
Next she listed
all sorts of behaviors and then placed them into specific categories of dominance,
equity, or unity models. Here is one
example she used:
Wives make the
ultimate decision and husbands should comply.
Dom: Equ: Unity:
No No Yes
One thing I
really enjoyed reading in her paper was about how her parents work together in
the Unity Model of Marriage. They each
work very hard to make the other happy and in doing so, both of them end up
happy. Her father trusts her mother to
make every day decisions, and her mother trusts her father to make serious life
changing decisions. The one thing they
both have in common is a trust for each other’s opinions.
Overall, her
viewpoint was that each of these concepts is hard to grasp and accept, but she
valued her time in the class. She
suggested that Dr. Laura’s views were far fetched and that it was crazy to put
people into these stereotypes. Both men
and women want sex. Both men and women
want emotional intimacy. Each person has
individual differences. I would say this
author agrees both with Deborah Tannen’s book and
ideas about relationships.
I liked her paper
a lot because I could tell her relationship was in the Equity Model and she was
open to admit it. She was not sure
whether or not she would ever make it to the Unity Model and she also was not
sure whether she ever wanted to be. She
looked at relationships honestly.
Her paper did not
necessarily change any of my views or opinions on the Unity Model. It did however give me a working model to
study Unity. Her parents were actively
participating in Unity and it was nice to see that it is possible to find happy
marriages.
The second report I looked at is from
Suzanne Howard in Generation 20. Her
report is titled “Annotated Bibliography.”
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/howard/report1.htm
Susan took a
naturalistic point of view when she looked at the Doctrine of the Wife. She often disagreed with Swedenborg’s
documents because she believed that every person was different and had
different motivations. Therefore, some
people might fall directly into the categories mentioned by Swedenborg, while
others did not.
For example,
Susan mentioned one doctrine of the wife about how men are more inclined to
having multiple partners while women were more inclined to have one partner. Susan completely disagreed with this because
she knew women who enjoyed having multiple sex partners, and she knew men who
only wanted sex with one partner. She
said that everyone was different and it would be unfair to stereotype people
for that reason.
She then began to
list all of Swedenborg’s writings and an explanation for why these writings are
not realistic for our modern age. I
don’t believe she agreed with a single one of Swedenborg’s points.
When Susan looked
at Deborah Tannen’s writings in “Gender and
Discourse” she seemed more comfortable with these topics. One interesting topic she brought up was that
girls who attend all-girl schools tend to do better later in life. Susan had gone to an all-girl’s high
school.
The rest of her
paper looked at many different writings and it involved her either agreeing or
disagreeing with the material. She
believed she gained a positive bias from doing the reports. She learned that these concepts were
possible, but she did not have to agree with every one.
Her ideas were
unique and intelligent. She observed the
material, tried to understand it and then gave her honest opinion for why she
did or did not agree. Many of her reasons
for not believing the concepts were substantiated. The Unity Model was not supposed to promote
dominance, but then in one of Swedenborg’s writings, it suggested that women
should stay silent in certain areas. She
believed this was sexist and I completely agreed.
She tried her
best to look at things objectively, and in doing so, she was able to point out
many inconsistencies in the Swedenborg reports.
The best thing that she did was look for arguments that opposed each
author’s statements. Because of this, I
was able to gain a deeper knowledge about these writings.
The third report I looked at is from
Mario Villegas in Generation 22. His report is titled “My Understanding of the
Unity Model of Marriage.” http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf2004/Villegas/REPORT%20TWO.htm
Mario began by describing the three
different levels of relationships. He
seemed to understand and like the first two levels, because they involved the
women first trying to please the man and then trying to understand the man so
they can become close. He agreed that
women were more interested in intimacy and he believed men wanted space from
women. A woman who was too needy was
considered a threat to his independence.
He also talked about how many anti-unity
values can also be simultaneously a unity value as well depending on the
motivation of the action. For example, a
boy’s night out can be a positive experience.
However, if a man does it only to get away from his wife, it becomes
anti-unity. Neither a man nor a woman
should use any activity to exclude their partners.
I liked that he mentioned how he and his
sister had been raised differently. When
something bad happened and his sister cried, she was held, comforted and told
everything would be okay. When something
bad happened to him and he cried, he was told that big boys don’t cry. Crying never solves anything. He was taught that as a man, he needed to be
the rational one.
He also looked at some quotes that he
found in Dr. Laura’s book. He had a lot
of important things to say about the men and he helped me to realize where
these men stood in their relationships.
For example, one man only wanted to do things when he felt appreciated. Mario explained that the wife’s happiness
should be enough appreciation. To Mario,
it showed that the man would only do things if he got something in return.
The main thing
Mario gained from doing his paper was getting different perspectives and
viewpoints. He tried to understand each
model and then he chose to agree with the models that suited him best.
Especially in the beginning of
relationships, there needs to be independence.
This is vital because it also acts as a “self preservation” tactic. If a woman remains independent in the
beginning, and realizes she is with a negative or hurtful man, she then is able
to free herself easily from that relationship.
However, she quickly tries to unite; she may fall quickly in love with
an abusive man and never leave him.
On the positive side, if she remains
independent in the beginning, the man will feel confident that he is with an
emotionally stable woman. He will also
be drawn to her unique independence and want to spend more time with her. I have found in my own relationships that the
less a man is pushed into doing things, the more willing he is to do them of
his own accord.
e) Would it be
useful to teach this course to high school students? Explain.
I believe it would be very
valuable to teach this course to high school students, but there should be an
equal number of males and females in the class.
Also, I think there should be times when the males and females are split
up so that each group feels free to discuss serious topics without scrutiny
from the other sex.
In addition, it
would be good to have the students think of different
couples and relationships before beginning discussions. For example, a homework assignment would be
for each student to list three different couples that they know, such as a
couple that is either going to fail, or has failed already, a couple that is
happy and has lasted for a very long time, and a couple that is somewhere in
the middle i.e. happy at times and not so happy at times.
Then, for each
couple, the students should be required to think of reasons why they believe
those couples are succeeding or failing.
They should also give examples of what they would do if they were in
those relationships and how they would work to make the relationship
positive. After the students have done
this, they can discuss it in class and begin to place their examples into
different models.
If this were to be taught to high school students, it would be important to put things into words and concepts they can understand. Otherwise, teaching them these things would not be useful at all.
The Question I am answering is question 4:
a) Consider
section 21 in the Lecture Notes at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409b-g25-lecture-notes#unity-values
It gives a selection from an
article titled “Secrets to a Happy Marriage.”
Read and discuss the article.
b) Are these good instances of Unity Values or
not? Explain.
Section 21 from the lecture notes focuses on an article called “Secrets to a Happy Marriage,” written by Rev. Dr. Trey Kuhne. This article can be found at: http://gdgrifflaw.typepad.com/kansas_family_law_/2006/02/secrets_to_a_ha.html
In his article,
Rev. Kuhne mentions three special secrets that will
help couples do well in marriage. He
explains that this is his little blue book of rules for how to survive in
marriage.
The first rule he
states is that each partner should have a complete knowledge of how much money
exists in their accounts. No secrets
should be kept from either spouse. The
reason is that it empowers both spouses.
I agree with this first argument and I think that it is an excellent
unity value as well. There should never
be any kind of secret kept within a marriage and each spouse should feel free
to discuss things with the other spouse.
What causes
spouses to keep monetary secrets from one another? Sometimes, one person might not trust the
other with money. There might be a
husband who is extremely thrifty who is married to a wife that he feels spends
too much. In his mind he might say it is
okay for him to keep an account secret in order to keep her from over spending.
Another reason
that a husband or wife might keep their monies secret is because they are
spending money else-where without the knowledge of their spouse. They could have a bad spending habit with
gambling, or drugs or even with another woman or man they are dating outside of
the marriage. By keeping their money
secret, they are not only hurting their spouse, but they are hurting their
marriage as well.
Keeping money a secret is often a
tell-tale sign of divorce. One spouse
begins saving money in a separate account in order to be able to survive
separately from their partner. They also
do this because when they get the divorce, they do not want their spouse to
know where their money is so they cannot take it. Either way, separate accounts
and money contributes to disjunction and separation of the marriage as a
unit. I completely agree with the pastor
with regards to his statement about how money should be kept out in the open.
The second rule Rev. Kuhne
made was that husbands and wives need to develop good communication
skills. Hinting, subtleties, and
indirect forms of language are inadequate ways to express needs and
desires. Since every person has learned
different communication skills, it is up to each spouse to attempt to
understand and learn their spouse’s language.
At the same time, it is also important
for each spouse to alter their communication styles in order to make it more
accessible to the other partner. Spouses
need to clearly communicate their desires and wants and they should not expect
the other person to read their minds.
I believe this also is a Unity value
because it involves a couple learning to understand each other and altering the
way they communicate. Part of uniting in
a marriage involves realizing that changes must be made in many areas to become
a tighter and closer unit. Some
communication styles will prove to be ineffective and it is up to the husband
and the wife to learn the best ways to communicate their points of view.
Rev. Kuhne
explained that clear and open communication is empowering to both spouses. Husband and wives who feel they can be open
and honest with one another are going to be more successful than those couples
who have stopped trying due to communication barriers.
The third rule Rev. Kuhne
suggests is that couples need to praise each other in public. Many times, husbands and wives get around
their friends or family and they complain about their spouse. This is similar to defaming the other person
or publicly embarrassing them.
I believe his suggestion is a unity
value of marriage because it involves focusing on the positive aspects of your
partner. Each person has good and bad
traits. No one is perfect. When a person chooses to only highlight the
negative in their partner, then they will begin to dislike them more. Contrarily, if a person continuously tries to
highlight their spouse’s good traits, than they will begin to fall in love with
them more.
Not only does giving praise make us love
our partner more, but it also encourages that partner to behave in positive
ways. When a wife or husband sees how
much the other person cherishes them, it makes them want to be even more
caring, kinder, and more considerate.
They will also be more likely to praise the other spouse as well.
c)
Search the web
using Google to find advice that is given to couples. Evaluate the advice given in terms of what
you know of the unity model of marriage.
I found this article that was written in
the 1800s about how a newly wed couple should go about their affairs. I thought it was quite interesting since some
of the things that were said promoted the unity model while others seem to
promote the dominance model.
It starts out by suggesting that a man
should heed the advice of his wife in difficulty because sometimes women have
an intuition about things that men do not.
This is a very similar instruction given by Swedenborg in the unity
model who also explains that women often have an intuition about certain
things. Men should be able to trust
their wife’s opinion and love their wife’s opinion.
Another thing it suggested was that the
husband should only let a woman know about business if something bad was about
to happen. “We do not say that it is necessary, or advisable, or even
fair, to harass a wife’s mind with the details of business.” Here the article suggests it really isn’t necessary to give her
any serious details about business as long as she knows when something bad is
about to happen.
This probably falls more into the dominance model, because the
Unity model involves husbands being completely honest with their wives. It would not be a good thing to keep his wife
from knowing any of the business affairs in the unity model.
Another thing it suggests is for women to understand that his
work will occupy most of his time because he will now be expected to pay for
her and eventually for a family. She
must understand this. When he comes
home, he should not be expected to cater to a “petted wife.” Instead, she should make sure she lets him
know he is loved by taking care of him after he has had a hard day of toiling
at work for her sake.
This definitely falls
under the dominance model to the point that her house duties are simply called
wifely affairs. It completely undermines
her role as a woman and makes her duties look unnecessary and even
foolish. She is completely in submission
to him and should work to make him feel that way.
http://www.djmcadam.com/newly-married.html
I am answering
question 7:
a) Consider Section
17a. Gender Discourse within the Three
Models in Lecture Notes at
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/408b-g25-lecture-notes.htm#17a._Gender_Discourse
Explain in your own words how the conversational style
between husband and wife reflects what is going on in the intimacy of their
relationship. Make sure you discuss the
three models in relation to conversational style.
The conversational style of men and women reflects what is
going on in the intimacy of their relationship in many levels, at the physical,
mental and motivational level. The way
they talk to each other also reveals a great deal about what they think and
believe about each other.
If
a husband and wife feel free to discuss any topic and fluently pass from one
point of interest to another without hurt feelings or negative emotions towards
each other, then they are probably doing well in their relationship. Oppositely, if they have trouble talking to
each other without getting hurt feelings or taking offense then they are
probably not experiencing as much intimacy.
Although it is natural for conflicts to arise in married couples, it is
not natural for couples to always be in conflict, to never experience peace, or
to never understand each other completely.
The
level of conjunctive talk shared by the couple also can be different depending
on the length of time the couple have been married or known each other. In the beginning, it is very easy for couples
to have disagreements because they are just beginning to learn how to
communicate with one another. Each
person is sensitive to different issues, and the couple must learn which conversations
they know will be peaceful and which conversations they know will produce hurt
feelings or defensiveness.
If
after the couple has been together for a while they are still offending each other
consistently then they probably are not taking the time to grow intimate with
one another. They have not learned which
topics make each other happy and which topics hurt their spouse, or they may
not care if the topic hurts their spouse.
Either way, they are not fully experiencing the intimacy they deserve.
b)
Create a Conversation between them that exhibits several
elements mentioned throughout section 17a regarding the conversational style of
married partners. Number the lines. Add whatever explanatory notes are needed for
readers to understand what is going on.
1) Dan: Hey baby, how was your day?
2) Mary: It was okay.
I am just so tired. It was a
really long day. We had this
3) guy
come in . . .
4) Dan: (Interrupting) Have you
seen that new movie “Borat” yet?
5) Mary: What? (Loosing her train of thought) Oh, no I haven’t seen it yet. I
6) hear
it’s supposed to be funny.
7) Dan: Yeah, I can’t wait! What were you saying? (Casually revisiting
the
8) previous
topic)
9) Mary: Oh yes, that guy. (Laughing) He is so funny. His name is Jim and he’s
10) the
new supervisor.
11) Dan: (changes subject again) I can’t wait until we
go out this weekend. I
12) want to see you in that new
teddy I bought you.
13) Mary: Oh, yeah.
Thanks for that. I bet it will be
fun. It will be nice to get
14) away
from work. My General Manager has been
so rude . . .
15) Dan: Yeah . . . (interrupts again) my work is so
fun! I make so much money now.
16) Mary: Yes, I’m really happy for you.
c) Analyze the
conversation, explaining to readers what its elements exhibit. Use the line numbers to be specific.
The
first thing we notice when looking at the conversation is that Dan keeps
interrupting her to talk about topics he is interested in. He shows disinterest in her conversational
topics each time he does this. He
interrupts her in lines four, eleven, and fifteen. The first time he interrupts her, she loses
her train of thought. Then as the
conversation continues, she is consistently interrupted. They talk about topics he is interested in
but often he ignores topics she finds interest in.
Then, after having consistently ignored her interests, he
tries to be sexy and talk about a teddy he bought her in line twelve. She is only vaguely interested in this. He becomes unsexy
in his behavior by ignoring her, and then he tries to recapture sexy
conversational style by talking about his sexual fantasies. This only works to make her feel less
sexy. If he doesn’t show interest in her
mind or her topics of conversation he kills any intimacy he may try to create
with his talk about sexual fantasy.
I am answering
Question 8:
a) In your own
words, describe the unity model of marriage and the mental states of the
couples three fold self.
The
unity model of marriage involves three mental states of a couple’s three fold
self: sensorimotor,
cognitive, and affective levels. Each of
these levels is present in the unity model of marriage. However, in the other models of marriage,
i.e. dominance and equity, only one or two levels are involved in the
interaction.
The
sensorimotor level involves physical activities that
the couple participates in. It is a more
surface level of interaction between the husband and the wife involving
physical attraction between the spouses, and physical activities that the two
get involved in such as dancing, talking, and spending time with one
another. Couples in the dominance model
often operate in the sensorimotor level. They spend time together, but they learn
little more than the surface qualities about one another.
The
cognitive level deals with thoughts and feelings the couple has for one
another. This level of interaction
involves the husband and wife learning about what makes each other happy and
sad. It also involves the couple
learning about each others desires and needs.
Couples in the equity model often operate in both the sensorimotor and the cognitive level. Not only do they do things together, but they
also talk about their day and express their feelings about what they want and
what makes them happy.
The
affective level has to do with motivations for behaviors. This level of interaction involves the
husband and wife understanding each other so well that they even understand why
their partner engages in certain types of behaviors. If the wife cringes or cries, the husband
knows exactly where that feeling stemmed from and he works to avoid it. If the husband doesn’t want to go to an
event, the wife automatically understands why he wouldn’t want to go. Couples in the Unity Model operate
functionally in all three levels. They
understand one another and they work to make each other happy in all areas.
b) Describe any
difficulty or resistance you have experienced regarding the unity model
including
(i) The idea of a unity couple as a higher state of life
than others
(ii) The
eternal significance of marriage
(iii)
Swedenborg’s observations of marriages in heaven
When
I was first learning about the Unity Model of marriage, there were certain
things that made the model difficult to assess.
These involved the idea of a unity couple as a higher state of life than
others, the eternal significance of marriage, and Swedenborg’s observations of
marriage. Each of these concepts made it
hard for me to connect with the model in the beginning.
The
first idea that struck me as odd was the idea of a unity couple as a higher
state of life than others. I do believe
a couple that truly understands each other and gets along are more mature, but
I have trouble saying that they are above all others. Generally, there are many people who are trying
to make things work in their marriages.
They will not all make it to the level of unity. To get to this level requires a great deal of
maturity and intelligence. I see these
couples more as the ideal couples rather than as a higher state of life.
As
for the eternal significance of marriage, I am somewhat skeptical still.
There may or may not be married
couples in heaven. I have read the Bible
and I have never read anything that either opposes or denies this claim. However, I do believe that God would want
couples to completely understand and respect one another. I never read anything in the Bible that said
it was okay to mistreat your wife or husband for any reason. I do not believe that God would want men and
women to remain in the dominance model of marriage for this reason.
Swedenborg’s
observations were probably the hardest ideas for me to grasp. I completely agree with what the unity model
stands for, but it is hard to believe that it comes from such a strange
place. I will admit that I think it is hard
to believe that he has interviewed couples in heaven and in hell. There is no way I will ever think that those
things are true. For my own comfort, when
I read the things about the unity model, I filtered most of the religious ideas
out of it and focused on the model as a viable alternative for couples.
c) Describe the
reactions of friends when you tell them about the unity model and the idea of
marriages in heaven as given in the Swedenborg reports.
In
the beginning, I was still very skeptical about this material and I often
described how strange Swedenborg sounded to my fiancé Joshua. I remember telling him that I was having
trouble because I believed in what the model stood for, but I really didn’t
like anything that had to do with Swedenborg.
Joshua would agree with me often telling me that it was not possible to
claim that a man had gotten empirical evidence from a heavenly realm.
When
I told people about the Unity model I found myself filtering out the religious
stuff but putting in the sound advice involved with the model. Here are some of the ideas I agreed
with: I believe there are three levels
that couples interact in; I believe that
men and women need to put away those qualities which inhibit intimacy; I believe that each of the anti-unity values
work to prohibit a conjunctive relationship.
These are the values I will incorporate into my marriage.
I
probably will never believe that Swedenborg ever talked to couples in heaven or
hell. I do not believe the evidence is
empirical because to state that something is empirical is to imply that it
involves verifiable and tangible evidence.
No one else would be able to repeat these findings and therefore
Swedenborg’s evidence is not empirical.
However, that does not discredit the Unity model in any way. If anything, I believe that Swedenborg’s
writings act to discredit the material rather than substantiate it. If I were teaching the course, I would get
rid of the Swedenborg parts and focus on the three levels and the anti-unity
values.
d) How has the Unity
Model influenced your thinking? What
benefit do you think do class members acquire when studying the unity model in
this course? Do you have suggestions on
how to teach the model to couples, and at what age?
The
Unity Model has influenced my thinking in a very powerful way. I now realize how easy it is for women to
allow themselves to be manipulated, abused and persecuted by men. There were many men that I had previously
been involved with that had presented many anti-unity values. I now see how anti-unity values work to
destroy relationships including my own relationships.
The
one way that this model will benefit this class is by giving the women a sense
of empowerment. I can see the difference
in many of the women on what needs to be done to create happiness in their
relationships. I believe they are now
equipped to handle certain arguments and situations that may come their way as
time progresses. I also believe the
other women who do not have boyfriends will wait much longer to decide if a man
is right for them, because they will know which negative traits to avoid in
men.
To
teach this model effectively at any age or any culture, I would suggest leaving
out the religious parts. Not every
person believes in God, and I am almost certain most people do not believe that
Swedenborg interviewed couples in hell and heaven. For college students, it is easy for us to
overlook the things we don’t agree with and zero in on the things we like from
the class. However, if you were teaching
this model to people of different ages, these people may or may not be
receptive to these ideas.
Generally,
the older people get, the more set in their ways they become. So the best way to teach to someone who is
set in their ways is to get them to believe they came up with the ideas
themselves. In this case, if I were
working with one couple I would take a look at an argument in their marriage
and try to break it down for them.
Then I
would try to find a way for them to come up with their own conclusions about
what they said that was disjunctive and conjunctive after explaining it. If they still didn’t get it, I might start
with a scenario argument for them to work with and then move to a different one
they were involved with to help them get a clearer picture.
If
I were teaching a class to older people, I would probably start by asking the
group to think about marriages that have failed around them or ended up in
divorce. I would then ask them to make a
list of all of the traits that they believed caused the divorce.
After
they had created a big list, I would hand out tables of the anti-unity values
and ask them if they could connect any of the traits they listed to the
anti-unity values. Then I would probably
go on to explain the three models of marriage and the three levels of
interaction.
If
I were working with a younger group, high school or even early college, I would
start by showing them the anti-unity values and asking them to give examples of
these that they could find in their relationships or on T.V. I would also ask them to put the values into
their own words and decide if they agree or disagree with them. When I explained the three levels of interaction
I would change the wording to physical, mental, and spiritual rather than sensorimotor, cognitive and affective. I think the unfamiliar words might cause
teenagers to stop listening.
In
all ages I would leave out any aspects that tie the model to Swedenborg’s
couples in heaven and hell. I might just
mention his name in passing. I would
probably talk about how marriage is a very serious relationship and it should
not be looked at as a passing thing. It
is something that should be valued and taken care of and it is an institution
that should not be entered into lightly.
Another
important thing I would emphasize when teaching the model is that the husband
and wife must work to make each other number one in their lives. That means nothing else comes before the
other. That includes children, pets,
jobs, extra curricular activities or friends.
Any time something else is becoming a priority, the couple needs to take
steps to correct this behavior.
If
I were working with a couple who has generally grown up within the
stereotypical dominance model, I would ask the couple to switch roles for the
week. Mommy could go to work and daddy
would have to stay home with the kids.
Or if she can’t get a job quickly, then I would just advise her to take
a vacation for the week while he was left alone with the kids. I believe doing this would help the husband
to value what his wife does and if the woman was able to work she would be able
to value what he does as well.
Then
after their week was over, I would ask them what challenges they faced and what
they felt they should do differently. I
would also give them some of my own suggestions about what should happen
depending on their specific situation.
As
for this college class, I would suggest that students should make actual
suggestions for how couples can move from the dominance to the equity and to
the unity Model. It is easy to point out
what is wrong in a relationship or model, but it takes a higher level or
thinking to be able to create positive solutions to solve those problems.
The class
should focus less on man bashing and more on creating positive solutions within
the context of each relationship or model.
There are conjunctive solutions within each model and I would like
students to be more creative and find those solutions. This would be more beneficial for the class
and for each person’s individual relationship.
I am answering
question 9:
a)
Make up a game of any kind that can be played by a couple
or several couples in a group. The purpose
of the game is to teach couples how to observe their interactions in terms of
conjunctive vs. disjunctive -- see explanations given in lecture notes,
e.g.: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409b-g25-lecture-notes.htm#Table%201b%20and%201c
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leon/leonpsy25/409b-g25-lecture-notes.htm#17a_Part_5:_Monitoring
b) Describe the game
and its theory.
The
game I would like to create would involve certain scenarios written on little
cards. Each card would have a question
or problem that one couple was dealing with and three possible choices A, B, or
C that the couples should choose between.
On the back would be the reactions to those possible choices.
The
purpose of the game would be to gain as many points possible in order to
win. The only way to gain the most
points would be to choose the corresponding letters that involved Unity Model choices
or conjunctive responses. For answers
that were completely conjunctive, they would receive two points for the
question. For answers that could be
considered conjunctive or disjunctive, they would receive one point for the
question. For answers that are completely
disjunctive, they would receive no points.
The
theory of the game is that certain responses are automatic while are others
depend on the couple individually. There
is no way to predict exactly what will happen with each couple, but there may
be fun ways to find out what the outcomes will be. Each question will have an ideal solution, a
one-sided solution and a mixed up solution that could have many different
outcomes.
Here are some examples of questions in the
game.
Question 1) “Your
husband’s mom is coming over for dinner.
When she gets there, she announces that she is planning to stay there
for a month because she just lost her apartment. What do you do?”
a) Tell her, “Sure, she is welcome to stay as
long as she wants until she gets back on her feet.
b) Tell her, “You can stay for a week but in
that week you need to find another place to stay.
c) Tell her absolutely not. You will offer to pay for her to stay in a
hotel for the night, but then after that she is on her own.
(Before answering, the couple must
flip 2 coins, double heads means the man must answer, double tales means the
woman must answer, and one head one tail means they can answer together)
*Once
the couple has finished answering, they will be able to look on the back to see
the reactions.
If the wife was choosing the answers, these would be her
possible outcomes:
a) Husband’s reaction, “Thank you so much. That was so sweet of you, going out on a limb
for my mom. I promise to help her find a
place.” 2 point win
b) Points given based on husband’s actual
reaction. If it was positive, couple
gets 1 point. If it was negative, couple
receives 0 points.
c) Husband’s Reaction, “Why not just tell her to
sleep on the street, since you obviously don’t care what happens to her.” 0 points given.
If the Husband was choosing the answers, these would be his
possible outcomes:
a) Wife’s Reaction: “You didn’t even think about the fact that we
don’t have any room! I am extremely busy
with the kids. I can’t have your mother
around all month telling me what I am doing right and not doing right!” 0 points awarded.
b) Wife’s Reaction, “Thank you baby. That was really sweet of you to think of how
busy I was and still take care of your mom.
She can stay as long as she needs.”
2 points awarded.
c) Points given based on the wife’s actual
reaction. If it was positive, couple
gets 1 point. If it
was negative, couple reeives 0 points.
If Husband and Wife are choosing the answers, they have
exactly 30 seconds to come up with a solution that they both agree on (it can
be different from the given choices). If
they make it in time, they get 2 points.
If they can’t agree, they get 0 points.
Outcome will be judged by opposite team.
Question 2) “Your Wife
has been planning for three months to go on a weekend trip with a women’s group. You (Husband) had already requested off
for that weekend so you could watch the kids.
Then, a big business deal was offered to you by your boss. Your boss tells you that the only way you can
get in on this deal is if you fly to
a) Decide to go for the business deal because in
the end you are doing what is best for the family by getting them more money
for trips like that.
b) Decide to stay home and let wife go. She had plans before this came up and you
already promised.
c) Try to schedule the meeting early Saturday so
you can get home in time for her to make it on the trip.
If the Wife was choosing the answers, these would be her
possible outcomes:
a) Husband’s
Reaction, “Wow, baby. I know how much
this trip meant to you and I promise I will make it up to you. If I get this deal, then I promise to take
you on a second honeymoon!” 2 points given.
b) Husband’s reaction, “You have these trips all
the time! This is a once in a lifetime
deal that could help us pay off the mortgage and you are mad because I don’t
want to watch the kids?” 0 points given
c) Points given based on husband’s actual reaction. If it was positive, couple gets 1 point. If it was negative, couple receives 0 points.
If the Husband was choosing the answers, these would be his
possible outcomes:
a) Wife’s Reaction,
“You do this all the time! Every time I
want to do something for myself there is always some deal or some important
thing. Why can’t you keep your
promises?” 0 points
given.
b) “Baby, that is so sweet of you, but I really
think you should go. There will always
be another weekend, but we could really use that money. I don’t mind.
When you get it, can I have a new dress?” 2 points given
c) Points given based on wife’s actual
reaction. If it was positive, couple
gets 1 point. If it was negative, couple
receives 0 points.
If husband and wife are choosing, they have 30 seconds to
come up with a positive solution (this does not have to be one given). 2 point if they make it in time. 0 points if they don’t do it in time. This will be judged by opposite team.
Question 3) “Your wife
has been spending excessive amounts of money on different things. Since you run the finances, you are quickly
becoming aware of the lack of funds and you know something needs to be done
about how money is coming in and going out.
What do you do?”
a) Take away her check book and credit cards
letting her know you are doing it for her own good and for the family’s good.
b) Continue letting her spend however she
pleases and you try to spend less.
c) Organize a new system in which you both are
aware of the finances. Give wife access
to all account monies so that she knows what is going in and out as well.
If Wife is choosing answers, these would be possible
outcomes:
a) Husband’s Reaction, “Wow, baby. It really means a lot to me that you trust me
with our finances. Are you sure you want
to give all those up? Maybe I could just
give you a certain amount of money in cash to work with, and you could learn
how to budget it. What do you
think?” 2 points awarded.
b) Husband’s Reaction, “Baby, I have to take care
of our bills! You can’t just tell me to
spend less. I am paying important bills
so we can survive! Do you understand
that?” 0 points rewarded.
c) Points given based on husband’s actual
reaction. If it was positive, couple
gets one point. Negative reactions equal
0 points. This is judged by opposing
team.
If husband is choosing answers, these would be possible
outcomes:
a) Wife’s Reaction,
“You treat me like such a child. Maybe
if I knew how much money we had I would know how much I could spend!” 0 points given.
b) Points given based on wife’s actual
reaction. If it was positive, couple
gets one point. Negative reactions equal
0 points. This is judged by opposing
team.
c) Wife’s Reaction, “You know, I have wanted to
try and help out with the finances and I really feel that if I knew what was
going on I wouldn’t spend as much. I
really appreciate you taking the time to educate me on our finances.” 2 points given.
If Husband and Wife are answering together, they have 30
seconds to come up with a positive solution (this does not have to be one
given). 2 points given
if they make a solution in time. 0 points given if they do not make it in 30 seconds. This will be judged by the opposite team.
I
will only put in three questions for now, but many other scenarios could be put
into the game to monitor conjunctive and disjunctive behaviors between the
spouses. There would also be a final
round where the couple would be given three scenarios in which they should come
up with a win/win solution for all three.
They will be given 2 minutes to finish this. Their effectiveness will be judged by the
other team for fairness and equality. If
they adequately come up with solutions, then they win the game.
c) Test the game
with other people. Describe the results
and give recommendations.
When I discussed
this game with my fiancé I got a mixed response. He told me that I was starting to get
somewhere with the game but he didn’t like the idea of there being set
reactions or letters for them to choose from.
He suggested that the game should only involve the scenario and no given
answer choices. The reason is because it
is like you are feeding the couple the answers and you will not get a realistic
response that way.
I would have to
say that I can see what he means. It is
very hard to monitor conjunctive and disjunctive interactions through a
game. When I read some of the questions
to him, he offered different solutions that I had not even considered. That is the one flaw with a three letter
choice response for the couple.
Every person is different and couples
may be able to make creative solutions which may not be on the list. For example, for question 2, my fiancé came
up with the idea of bringing the kids on his business trip so she could
go. I had never thought of this idea and
I thought it was a very conjunctive response to the scenario. There are many other different solutions as
well. He suggested that a Grandmother
could take the kids for a weekend or a babysitter could be hired.
Either way, the game would probably need
to be reworked to suit couples on an individual level. Joshua also suggested the questions should be
more focused on the couple itself rather than outside factors. For example, how would a couple deal with an
issue relating to a woman wanting to go back to school or work, or an issue
which might create a financial burden.
I was glad that I shared the game with
Joshua and I suggest that if anyone tries to use the game that they alter it
according to some of Joshua’s suggestions.
I would also suggest that they try to think of their own scenarios for
the game.
My Report on the Current Generation:
:
The first report I looked at was written
by Christine Gora. Her report can be
found at the following web address.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bf2006/gora/gora-409b-g25-report1.htm
Christine Gora’s report talked about how the anti-unity values in the
table were used to promote male dominance and female submission. She explains that the cultural dynamics that
shape men are part of the cause of these anti-unity values. It becomes okay for males to be abusive,
disrespectful and hurtful when they are around other males because the dominant
male structure views it as acceptable.
She used this belief
to talk about her parents’ relationship.
Her father had been unemployed throughout her childhood, but he still
chose to rule the family and try to control the activities of the people in the
house. I found this story interesting
because of the different perspectives between her father and her mother. Her mother is clearly in the dominance model,
but she chooses to believe she is in the equity model while her father is quite
aware of his status in the dominance model.
It makes me think that her mother has this hope that she could someday
have fairness within her marriage, but in order to have happiness now, she must
delude herself into believing things are not so bad.
Another interesting topic she brought up
was about how she had many friends who were living together out of wedlock or
who were having children out of wedlock.
She even had one friend who had three children out of wedlock from the
same married man. We hear these kinds of
stories constantly and we wonder why these women let men treat them so poorly
and disrespectfully. Yet it becomes more
and more common.
The problem is not all due to
males. The problem also lies with the
females. Having a nourishing and
respectful relationship requires a woman to 1) respect herself and 2) demand
that respect from others. Yet many women
do not respect themselves. They wear
scandalous clothing in order to be noticed sexually and then that is how they
are viewed, as a sex object.
Gora then looked at disjunctive and
conjunctive talk in two different shows, “Little People Big World” and “Hogan Knows
Best.” One comment she had made about
the conversations was that each could easily be put into either category of
Unity or Dominance and there was no in between. I don’t agree with her on this
point. The equity model is a middle
category and I believe that Hulk Hogan falls in this model more.
His comment about women being late was
referring to his experience with his wife and his daughter. They generally are late and he is making a
joke about this. It shouldn’t suddenly
be viewed that he is being disjunctive for making a fun remark. In fact his wife would probably laugh at this
remark because she believes it to be true as well. It is easier to categorize a conversation
into disjunctive or conjunctive behavior when you experience the reaction of
the woman.
A better example would be if he made a
comment and he saw that it truly hurt her feelings. If he made the choice to never say it again,
then it would be conjunctive and promoting unity. However, if he made the choice to say it
again with the knowledge that it hurt her feelings, then he would be involved
in disjunctive behaviors.
It is important for us not to take the
Unity Model so far as to say that every joke a man says about a woman is
disjunctive or even every joke a woman says about a man is disjunctive. People make silly comments all the time and
that does not make their intent harmful.
However, when a person continues to make hurtful comments while
disregarding the other person’s feelings, then they are behaving disjunctively.
The second report I looked at was
written by Dana Hasegawa. Her report can
be found at the following website:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bf2006/hasegawa/hasegawa-409b-g25-report1.htm
She begins her report by explaining that
anti-unity values actually work to promote separateness within a couple’s
marriage. She also explained some of her
experiences working in a child psychiatry office. Many of the parents would begin to argue, but
agree to disagree instead of creating a bigger argument in front of
people. This suggests that maybe the
parents do have bigger arguments, but they just prefer to keep them out of the public
eye.
“I can relate this to my own
interactions. I would also agree that
with my experiences in relationships, I tend to let things slide. I don’t like arguments so if something bothers
me I usually keep it to myself rather than bring it up and cause an argument,”
Dana says. I find this comment
interesting for one reason. Why would a
woman be afraid to bring up something that bothers her? And why should that same woman have the fear
that if she does mention something, it will end up in an argument?
Dana, like many other women, has
probably brought up something that bothered her before and been treated poorly
for doing so. That is a problem right
there. When did it become a problem to
voice our opinion when something bothers us?
(Women I mean). Somewhere in her
lifetime, she learned that expressing unhappiness will cause dysfunction. But it shouldn’t.
In a relationship, both the husband and
the wife should feel free to express disappointment and hurt feelings to the
other without the fear that the other person will become defensive. Defensive, meaning, they take the
disappointment as an attack against themselves, rather a reasonable
request.
Advice to Future Generations: The Middle Ground
One thing that
disappointed me about this generation was the inability to see the middle
ground. The dominance model was often
used to describe certain negative aspects of relationships while the unity
model was often used to describe the positive aspects. People were always able to detect dominance
model if the behavior was extreme but there seemed to be little effort to
detect when relationships fell into the equity model. Also, there wasn’t much debate about whether
the Unity Model was the only positive Model or whether there could be some
variation of it mixed with the equity model or possibly some other undefined
model as of yet.
If I were to describe the perfect model of marriage I wouldn’t have swayed it so much in favor of females. Granted I do believe that females are mistreated in our environment often. However, I fear that this class didn’t address the realities of how our society exists today. Most relationships, including the ones I heard described in our class fell into either the Dominance Model or some mixture of Dominance and Equity. Very few relationships truly fell into the Unity Model even though there were