Six million one hundred ten thousand five hundred fifty four
I want to tell of the loving couple, with a full balance of the senses, that is mutually in love, get a pair: rapist-victim rapist or two.
Now I think I can consider couples in which the balance is initially overwhelmed, but I will say a few words.
Paired with a full balance (about balance and imbalance – the posts below) there is no way that one of the partners is trying to "get" the other to the Registrar or painfully waiting for a marriage proposal or jealous or experiencing that everything is moving too slowly. Paired with a balance or both partners equally in no hurry to formalize the relationship (if attachment is not enough) or both want it literally simultaneously and with equal fervor (when the attachment is large). The balance is so different that the proximity of both feel equal and want the same steps. We should not deceive ourselves by reasoning of the type "he is in love with more than me, but he has his problems and so he can't get married." If there are problems, these problems and distort the balance of the senses, that is, directly affect feelings. Yes, his passion can sometimes blaze, and sometimes fade away, bumping into obstacles (the presence of his wife and children, for example, or the unwillingness to marry) and these barriers give, in General, less feeling, than the person who waits when they are together. Let the momentary bursts of her passion is not as great as he is while Dating, in General, her attraction to him more stable and stronger than him, if she wants more intimacy, but he is not. And no matter what is the attraction: the desire for economic support, out of jealousy for his wife, from ambition, from the desire to finally "pop" and to give birth, it's just fuel, from which originated the desire. Fuels the desire may be different, because the different reasons different people want something, including another person. To measure balance is of value only strength and stability of the drive. And if attraction to each other, the people equally, they want the same convergence. Both want to relax together, both want to get married and so on. If one wants, and second of doubt, means the second less enthusiastic, even in his personal coordinate system – this is the best feeling in my life. It does not matter.
Should I start a relationship with littered with balance, the question is not rhetorical. On the one hand, the balance is better than imbalance. On the other hand, a small imbalance quite easily goes into the balance if the person in the relationship appear support. Very often couples get married with an imbalance of (-) husband, then the wife gives birth to a child, her dependence increases and balance is restored, and then leans in the other direction. Sometimes it happens and Vice versa. Wife "dragged" my husband to the registry office, and then he became attached to her and the child, had tasted the joys of family life, and began to whirl around her, afraid of losing the treasure. Thus, there are no rules, however, should pay attention to what floods or corrects the balance. Therefore, I propose to examine a couple of with perfect balance, which entered into close relations.
If the pair balance+intimacy means both consider each other – almost perfect for him. They like each other in appearance, they love the mind of each other, are satisfied with social status and character. Balance does not mean equality objective in all of these categories, is set to a combination of priorities, self-assessment and experience. That is an ugly man can take that is quite a very beautiful wife because "beauty for men is not important, he has something to offer her instead, and he always loved beautiful women". That is, for such men attractive partner – not an unheard-of audacity, but quite realistic luck. If he thinks it's super luck, most likely, an imbalance (-) is detected, and the man believes that he is not his wife.
But let's say, a couple still in the balance, and both believe that face each other at 100.
How is it so that after some time one feels the frustration and the attraction it passes unnoticed? Usually a partner is very difficult to accept this fact, and he prefers to think that he had been deceived initially, and feels a strong resentment. However, if the partner is not a marriage swindler in the calculation of profit, it is unlikely that he would deliberately pretend to love. Rather, love has been and gone.
Now a lot of talk about whether the right of a woman to choose "the profession of housewife and mother." Of course, a woman has the right to any choice. But! With the proviso that this choice will not harm her loved ones. The errors people have only a conditional right. If their mistakes have to pay not only them, but friends, such a right cannot be considered complete. They have the right to make a choice, but it is important to make this choice with full responsibility, that is, to foresee that this choice would inevitably entail (excluding force majeure, which cannot be).
The declining importance in a pair of a woman who chose to become Housewives, not force majeure, but almost inevitable consequence of such a choice. This does not mean that there are no exceptions. There are exceptions, because there are special circumstances. More often than not, the importance is significantly reduced and it affects not only the "underestimation of women's work.
No matter how valued in society is the work of Housewives, the power these women will be very limited. The energy provided by a certain number of areas in which a person feels relevant. Actuality consists of objective usefulness and level of uniqueness of its role. Currently, most Housewives don't feel its relevance (and hence get a little energy). They do not feel the objective usefulness (subjectively may feel, but objectively, that is, money and gratitude, receive very little) and don't have any of its uniqueness. Let their own children – they are unique, for society, their work is equivalent to the most primitive level of service which can handle everything. It takes a lot of illusions, to feel in this situation happy. The illusion of relieving stress, but energy not given. As a result, Housewives often reduced self-esteem and a sense of helplessness and anxiety.
This does not mean that childfree benefit. Here, too, is different. If a woman is very passionate about some activity and fully implemented it, the lack of children she could not feel. If she has voids and holes, the lack of children can be stressful, even if it is a conscious childfree. Stress this conscious childfree can feel like "pressure of society" and the annoying harassment water-borne women, discrimination against her as childfree. Not to say that pressure on the childfree does not, however, stress makes the pressure unbearable, painful and a total circumstance. If the woman is not so convinced childfree, and voids in her life much, she can feel the attacks of his own fear and despair from thinking that she has no children. In this sense, mothers are in an advantageous position. In addition, the children are given a certain energy source. This source is, it can not be underestimated, but it is impossible to overestimate, it is insufficient.
Most mothers are really happy to be mothers, and to receive energy from motherhood – this is normal. In addition, to give birth, feed and raise children – very useful for society work. However, the uniqueness of such a work can not claim, and therefore is not a sufficient source for energy, even if there were material warranties (which more often than not, especially in our country). This is just one of the sources is valuable, but insufficient. To have support, a woman can not only be a wife and mother, even the mother of many children, she should have other social roles. Please note "should" not some kind of master should for the sake of themselves as a sustainable and happy future. If this "debt" to ignore, soon it may be that the woman needs all the others. All she needs because she is suffering and needs. And material duty is not the most important factor. In the end, in civilized countries it is realistic to solve the issue with sufficient parent capital and monthly payments. This is not the main problem that arises in this case. Professional mother a little money, she wants a fairly high status in the society and sensitive about the fact when its activities are considered intelligent enough when her opinion in other social spheres perceived as incompetent, when her work does not cause in anyone a sincere admiration, because "and to have children to whom mind lacked?"
Even easier to consider the distortion within the pair. Let's say the husband of such a woman (a perfect society) respects her work and finds the presence of children is extremely important. That's what should be the society for maternal labor ideal. The respect of her husband manifests itself also in the fact that he gives his wife an essential part of salaries and considers the money is not his gift, but a Holy duty. That is, the woman is not necessary neither to ask nor to feel special gratitude and anxiety. At first glance, everything is OK, and nothing else is required. Unfortunately, this is only at first glance.
The more divided the sphere of employment of people living together in close housing (not women's and men's areas of the generic tribe), the more the gap between these spheres, the less understanding and more conflict. From 8 to 8 her husband is not at work, all the while his mind is on certain issues that shape its priorities and goals, but incomprehensible and uninteresting to his wife. Leisure, he would like to hold as he carried out his colleagues, as they fuel his motivation for leisure-time activities, describing where they were, what they saw had a rest and bought it. Motivation for leisure is born during operation and not during leisure time, which is why the husband is already at work dreaming about how going to the bar after work, or a new movie, or read in the Internet an interesting site, which all discuss it or play a new game, he was not averse to discuss business conflicts and successes, but he is not with anyone.
The wife is quite different. She is busy with house and children, and the few that do not get enough social approval (and seek to receive compensation from her husband), but her head is busy only with this. Leisure she wants to spend differently than her husband. Most likely, it and during leisure time does not want to break away from the children, and if he wants, just to nourish yourself with positive emotions to the love of her husband and his admiration, and do not listen to dirty jokes to his colleagues in the bar and not to discuss website not associated in any way with their family. She thought it was stealing her energy to impose unnecessary problems, when there are issues much more important. That it was important for him, for her, anyway, that's what the problem is gradually emerging of the race. And emotional each other (the so-called rapport or just mutual empathy, existence in the unified field) goes, and the dependence on each other and need to remain understanding, because people formed a family, made a baby and no one is willing to admit to a complete collapse of this venture. Everyone wants to stay in the relationship, but to secure a little bit of comfort, or at least the absence of strong stress. In the opinion of the wife, after work, the husband should take care of children and to help her with the housework, however, he thinks otherwise and says he needs complete rest, not a second watch. Just said his mom. And mother-in-law and husband usually find that the wife has the opportunity to relax during the day in between caring for baby and husband all day plow without rest and has the right to relax in the evening, to care, or at least peace. The wife, on the one hand, I do not agree that her work is less complex and important, and on the other hand, doesn't understand why her husband do not want to Tinker with the child why he missed her and doesn't want to work together to cook dinner and chitchat about everyday life, and even better — I rushed to cook dinner for himself, and ordered her to rest, as once, during their visits, when he didn't know how to please her, because he was passionate about. That is, there arises a problem of mutual non-involvement in each other's spaces: a wife is not clear and not interesting life with her husband, although she may pretend to be interested, and listen carefully, but nothing valuable to say, because do not know, but my husband is not understand and are not interested in what your wife lives, stories about the child seem monotonous, fears far-fetched, the idea boring. Alas, he has to admit that a child, no matter how important for him the load because he doesn't know what to do with it, does everything wrong and is constantly forced to carry out the instructions of his wife. For involvement and the emergence of self-motivation is necessary that at least the third time in a week the person devoted to this area. Not half an hour in the evening under escort and accusations, and a third or even a quarter — with a private motivation. In this case he is involved, he has a place in the psychic field for this field, thinking about it, their own ideas, feelings and strong emotions. If the area is very minor, but still imposed from the outside, there is a rejection.
As a result, the husband usually goes to get another job to justify and pay off wives and rid yourself of the evening, which is still not allowed to rest, and even sawing. And the wife gives birth to second child to fill the emotional void emerging as one child to fill her life with meaning is not enough, and it seems that the second will solve this problem. It is clear that the gap between spouses in this case, it may be even more. And once more the gap, means less understanding and more mutual claims, which are growing like someone. Not necessarily, but often. At the same time even stronger grows and dependence.
How is there violence in these once prosperous, but is torn in different planes, pairs? Unfortunately, violence is optionally attached to any relationship in which people are bound by circumstances and at the same time very much dissatisfied with each other. While the discontent is not so much, violence is not. If the attachment is weak, in the case of dissatisfaction people differ. But in the case when strong affection, and discontent, almost certainly turns out the violence. "Provokes" violence (i.e. hidden hurt of the second, which behaves peacefully) is usually the one who has more resentment and more limiting factors for violence. Starts violence the one who has less limiting factors for violence and quite a lot of discontent. Undoubtedly, as the second more likely to be men, for the reason that the male gender takes the taboo on the expression of physical aggression from early childhood in preparing a man to protect his dignity physically. However, the frequency of violence is started by men, correlates with the level of their education. The more educated a man is, the less risk that he will go to physical violence. This does not mean that it will suppress the aggression completely. It will likely be to try to apply the more subtle emotional abuse. Often women start the violence. This is what happens when men are more limiting factors, such as the principle of "women under no circumstances not to raise a hand", and women because of this less fear, and she could easily give him a slap or throwing something at him, hoping that he wouldn't dare cross the taboo in response. We must understand that the manifestation of such aggression is never rational. Less fearful, does not mean that a woman cold-bloodedly decides to run into a man with a stool. Not at all. It really breaks the passion and she can't control, but a strong fear of the man without a taboo on violence may suppress its aggression, and aggression will be directed inside of it, or be cascaded, resulting in children and other loved ones. If the fear is less, a woman may start violence against the man first.
In any case, whoever started the violence first, or only, it's trouble. Logically, if violence started the man, the trouble is much bigger and more dangerous due to the fact that the woman is usually more dependent and much weaker physically. Such violence may end in disaster. If the violence began the woman, and the man merely evaded or bravely withstood the hail of clout, the situation does not seem so terrible, it is hard to imagine that a woman mutilate a man or cause him lasting emotional injury, and to death, contemplating it would scare children. However, condoning violence is a bad time – it is repeated and grows. So, struggling with violence, should not only actively create and reinforce a taboo on aggression by men against women, but to eradicate the reasons for violence, including emotional violence. Insults and humiliation – a form of violence, which is about equally famous for both sexes, which proves that in a situation of acute conflict and moral impasse, the genders are irrelevant, and what matters is the ability or inability to get out of this conflict (and preferably prevent). If you can not get out (due to dependencies), and the conflict escalates, it happens the affect, there is a hatred and desire to tear down the field partner mentally or physically. published