# Are There any Psch majors or Marriage Counselors here?



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T. 

This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so". 

Now what do you think he meant by that?


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

My guess is,, he had never seen, a 5'2", 100lb,, women knock the peewadden out of a 6'4" 250lb man,,,,That 'd be my guess,,,

Yes Sir,,,I have,,,,,seen it,,,and,,,well,, it was kinda a pretty sight,,:huh:


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


Respect.

But that is earned, not beaten into anyone. A woman absolutely must have respect for the man she marries. 

However, I'm neither a psych major, nor a marriage counselor, so YMMV 

~ST


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

L. A.: Yes, it can be amusing; scary too. once as I walked out to my auto I saw a clock sail by my ear with the cord twisting behind it like the tail on a kite. I did not even look back, but I wondered if she'd be there when I got back from work that day. 

She was, we had a new clock without a snooze button. She'd fixed a nice dinner and we made up our differences.


----------



## Jaclynne (May 14, 2002)

Fear and respect may look like the same thing to the enforcer, but it doesn't to the one who is fearful.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?



It meant that the prof was a jerk!

I know darn well the DH could harm me, but he knows he's only do it once!


----------



## dustyroad (Nov 13, 2013)

I think it's too bad that society tries to put women in a little box that says they gotta do this and they can't do that. People obviously have to have limits but women get hosed in that deal.
I've known a few woman who wouldn't stand for it and they had my admiration but they also paid dearly for their independence.

Guys? What's your response when someone tries to push their will on you?
No question on what mine is!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL; Instead of reasoned discussion I'm getting emotional outbursts. 
No rational man wants a woman who lives in fear of him. There are some beasts out there, I've seen them, but most men are not beasts.

Now what did this fellow mean? He was speaking to a room half full of women--surely he was not trying to start a fight.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I think you ARE getting reasoned discussion here. For women, the notion of even a spectre of fear in a relationship invokes a visceral reaction. There is no place for it.

Mutual respect, admiration, love, lust and like -- you bet. Feeling each will protect the other through all things, absolutely. But fear, or even the notion of same... no.

I think I get what your professor was trying to say, that a woman must always know her partner is capable and strong. But I think women know how to be capable and strong in their own right these days. It's not as important as it once was.

Reasoned enough for you?


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> ...This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so"...


I think it meant he was full of it, like many of his ilk.

You could go with a couple meanings...for one it would just plain be psychological warfare. 

For the other, that the man COULD, but because he cares SO much for the woman, he won't.

BS. A gun armed is a gun armed.

Mon


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

I think the professor fears the feminine power.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Well, I have no idea what the man meant. I'm pretty sure he did not mean that a man must terrorize his mate--even in those dark ages of full skirts and saddle shoes that was frowned upon. 

On the other hand, a man must be capable of supporting and defending his home. He must be able to control his own base impulses and bad habits, and if he wants his family to prosper he must have the ability to control excesses. Perhaps that is what he was driving at. 

What did you girls learn in Home Ec? Was there never any discussion of family dynamics?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Ummm. I learned how to make creamed chipped beef on toast. We called it something else.


----------



## Bret (Oct 3, 2003)

In a good one, he would take a beating for her.


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Ummm. I learned how to make creamed chipped beef on toast. We called it something else.


This should have been the answer to the original question !!!!!!

:goodjob:


----------



## RubyRed (Sep 24, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


A good man, a real man, would not beat a woman, period. It takes much more strength and respect to one self to have self control. 

So, what the Prof is meaning by this, it is not to be used as a threat, but merely to look at what he is not doing and why. Because, he could. 

A true gentle-man.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> ...What did you girls learn in Home Ec? Was there never any discussion of family dynamics?...


I learned how to clean tables and trays, serve milk and vegetables and sweep the cafeteria floor. I learned that it didn't matter what *I* thought about the swimsuit I bought, what everybody ELSE thought was what **REALLY** mattered! I learned WHAT to serve for meals, but not how to prepare it, what materials to sew with but no actual practice.

I learned that when the teacher left the home ec room room to go have coffee and talk to the OTHER teachers, I could open the second floor window and climb down the bricks on the outside of the building to the ground and take a walk. I learned I could teach OTHER girls how to do it too! I also learned that sneaking back into the school past the principals office was MUCH harder.

I learned that if we girls looked in the Ag books and helped the boys pass their weekly Ag tests, SOMEONE would tell, and that I could throw a football, on target, a good 30 foot, BUT if it went past the principal's head as he walked in the door, you got an automatic 55 foot penalty.

This was 7th and 8th grade, country school in the late 1950's. There were 125 kids...yes, 125 in our mixed-grade classROOM...75 of us were in ONE grade. If you were female, you HAD to take Home Ec, if you were male, you HAD to take Ag. Ag was a darn sight more interesting!

I don't think they force females to take Home Ec any more. Thank God!

Mon


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

We learned how to make sausage balls and sew a shirt that I hated. We never talked about a family dynamic that I remember. Mostly we just did a lot of cooking for teachers meetings and what have you. Oh and I did learn how to cross stitch. I hated home ec with a fiery passion and begged my dad to let me take shop class instead. He and the principal refused on the grounds that it was for guys only. I don't guess I'll ever forget what that felt like.


----------



## viggie (Jul 17, 2009)

We weren't offered home ec, which I suppose is another discussion. It would have been nice to learn all of the householders skills that I've had to stumble across on my own though.


----------



## arcticow (Oct 8, 2006)

I could post an opinion ( from a Christian perspective) as to the relevance of love from the husband in relation to respect from the wife... But choose not to impose such without being asked. PM if you want to hear it, or ask here.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


I do not know nor can I even begin to imagine what he meant, without asking him for a more detailed explanation to this comment.

Taking this comment "at face value" I would say that 'intimidation' was his implication. 
That a man can MAKE a woman submit simply because he can physically, financially, and emotionally over power her.
That, is abuse.

That is not love. That is manipulation. That is bullying.
That is not love.

A man, a real man, who understands the concept of "loving his wife like he loves his own body and is willing to lay down his life for her" is the EASIEST man on the planet, to 'submit' too.
Why?
He shows his love every day.
He looks at his wife as 'his completing half'.
He allows her to be strong, where he is weak, and he is strong, where she is weak.
He gives her his all, and she cannot wait to give him her all +3.
When he provides strength, integrity, courage, security her love multiplies, and she can't wait to be with him, complete him, and love him with all her might.

This is what it means when the 'two become one'.....it's like two halves of a wheel, fused together, making a whole wheel...that can go any where, climb any mountain, cross any stream, make it up hill, and roll along on smooth pavement.

That, imho, is love.
And if a woman has a man like this.......she is blessed.
And if a man has a woman who recognizes and reciprocates this love.......he is a blessed.
And that couple blesses their children, and everyone they come in contact with because their love, is real.....and real love, is contagious.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I think I had best get over this stubborn bug I have and get back to work, cold as it is. I'm yanking way too many chains in here. 

Now; my personal opinion is that the prof was trying to stir up some conversation with the women in the class, but they were too young and inexperienced to venture into such waters. 

My own philosophy comes pretty close to that which Laura has posted. It seems to work.
Ox


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

rkintn said:


> We learned how to make sausage balls and sew a shirt that I hated. We never talked about a family dynamic that I remember. Mostly we just did a lot of cooking for teachers meetings and what have you. Oh and I did learn how to cross stitch. I hated home ec with a fiery passion and begged my dad to let me take shop class instead. He and the principal refused on the grounds that it was for guys only. I don't guess I'll ever forget what that felt like.


And I was the one that was granted the chance to switch up from HE to Shop, loved it, first girl in our HS, learned more than most of the boys did! I can weld, build a new well house, and still bake a cake, cookies, roasts, etc.


----------



## Ramblin Wreck (Jun 10, 2005)

Didn't know that Machiavelli ever taught a Psychology class. Learn something new everyday.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Science and scientific attitudes have gone through style changes throughout the years. Prevalent beliefs held by society as a whole, affect supposedly empirical scientific disciplines more than is commonly realized. While psychology is technically a science, it has probably suffered the most from shifting cultural attitudes. The "respect answer" given by some posters above sounds like a possible reason for the prof's statement. I'm surprised, though, that he didn't drive home the point about there being a world of difference between respect and fear. And that in telling it second hand, it wasn't repeated to you. Reason? Maybe the current societal views at the time the lesson was taught? Maybe the prof's own opinion? Who Knows?

Theories formulated and conclusions reached in the world of psychology have always struggled with adhering to the principles of scientific methodology. The best that most studies can do, in psych, is to give representative statistical evidence. And everyone knows what they say about statistics.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


Ick. I think the jerk has an interest in how the mind works, and so he is dreaming up ways to use it differently.

I have no intention of going to sleep next to somebody I did not trust. Because, ick!

Edited to add: Ox, I was just remembering the black and white TV shows I grew up on. They were VERY big on statements like "A ship can have only one Captain". Keeping in mind the philosophy of the time, I would say that the teacher had figured out a way that the man could always be the "Captain of his ship".

The drawback to his philosophy is- and I am going to be COLDLY logical here- men men tend to be bigger than women. My own husband is almost a foot taller than I am and he weighs over twice what I do. If I had EVER thought that he would be capable of hitting me, I would not have married him. 

There is more than an ick factor here: it would not be safe.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I dunni...I dont' take offense just yet from just a few words...I think of it like this, a horse or a dog say, can cause some serious damage to me if I push the wrong button, and I better treat that being with respect, compassion and kindness to have a good relationship. I just take that for what it is...? 

I've known women who intentionally cruelly push men's buttons relying on their gentlemanly self control of "never hit a woman"...totally unacceptable and boy I will tell you honestly I sure get riled up and want to smack em upside the head myself.

NOT saying a man is an animal either. Rather saying we ALL "are" animals and are far removed from understanding that part of our nature in this modern teevee styrowrappedmeat Ritalin world.

SO BE NICE HA!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

sustainabilly said:


> Science and scientific attitudes have gone through style changes throughout the years. Prevalent beliefs held by society as a whole, affect supposedly empirical scientific disciplines more than is commonly realized. While psychology is technically a science, it has probably suffered the most from shifting cultural attitudes. The "respect answer" given by some posters above sounds like a possible reason for the prof's statement. I'm surprised, though, that he didn't drive home the point about there being a world of difference between respect and fear. And that in telling it second hand, it wasn't repeated to you. Reason? Maybe the current societal views at the time the lesson was taught? Maybe the prof's own opinion? Who Knows?
> 
> Theories formulated and conclusions reached in the world of psychology have always struggled with adhering to the principles of scientific methodology. The best that most studies can do, in psych, is to give representative statistical evidence. And everyone knows what they say about statistics.


 Sorry, suss, but I must take exception to your characterization of psychology as âscience.â Itâs anything but, because it often does not and cannot meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: Clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for psychological research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a poor record in this regard.

So to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on verifiable truth.

I will grant psychology is a discipline. And the field often yields interesting and important insights. Thatâs as far as I can go. Not surprising in the least that statistics conflict under such circumstances.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Hence the phrases, "supposedly empirical scientific disciplines" and "technically a science". In an effort to try to be less wordy, I left out the phrase -arguably a science. 

After reading your views here Raeven, it seems to me that we agree on almost all points. Maybe the only difference would be in the strength of our individual convictions.

Unless I'm missing something, a large part of your very thorough personal viewpoint above, agrees with, "Theories formulated and conclusions reached in the world of psychology have always struggled with adhering to the principles of scientific methodology."


----------



## starjj (May 2, 2005)

LOL we learned how to walklike the teacher of Home Ec. Straight posture chest out. We did cook and sew but I never forgot her posture lessons


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Suss, that's the point, though. It's not a personal view point. The scientific method is the scientific method: It either works, or it doesn't. It's impartial. I am merely stating the fact of that.

I absolutely agree with your quoted statement re "Theories formulated..." I simply went further. Not only do those theories and conclusions struggle, they fail on their very attempt. And for that reason, I utterly disagree with the statement, "technically a science." That little phrase is the one that moved me to post. Psychology is not a science, technically or otherwise. This is not a sliding scale. Something is either scientifically verifiable or it is not. There really isn't any middle ground, is there?

And of course I hope I don't have to explain that I am not attacking you personally -- in fact, my concern that you might think so almost caused me not to post... but as one who is distressed over the extent to which science has been maligned in recent years, I overcame my customary reticence and posted anyway.  Please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any way. That was not my intent.

Apologies, too, to Ox, whose thread I fear I have messed. I hope you will forgive.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> A man, a real man, who understands the concept of "loving his wife like he loves his own body and is willing to lay down his life for her".


And, conversely, should not a woman be willing to lay down her life for him?



Raeven said:


> Sorry, suss, but I must take exception to your characterization of psychology as âscience.â Itâs anything but, because it often does not and cannot meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: Clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.


Because of my job in the military I had to sit through a psychological evaluation at least once a year or so. One such time the good doctor asked me what kind of car I drove. After telling him that I drove an MGB, he characterized me as having childlike tendencies because it was a small, ragtop vehicle. I laughed at him and when I saw him leave later that day he was driving some Italian sports car with.....

Wait for it!!!

...a rag top!!!

When I saw him the next day I asked him about "his" childlike tendencies and referenced his choice of vehicles. He informed me that it was different for him.

Isn't that nice!!! IMO psychology is a bunch of Hooie!!!





wyld thang said:


> I've known women who intentionally cruelly push men's buttons relying on their gentlemanly self control of "never hit a woman"...totally unacceptable and boy I will tell you honestly I sure get riled up and want to smack em upside the head myself.


You know my ex?!?!?!

TRellis


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Raeven; You and I have some of the same concerns about Psych. Too darn many students taking Psych and thinking that there are rigid rules as to how people react to the world. T'aint so.

Same concerns I have about black students studying sociology. What the hell good is a degree in sociology? Better to study for the ministry---ha. 

By the way, did you hear about the preacher who lost his bicycle? Finally decided someone must have stolen it. Following Sunday he preached a hell-fire and ----ation sermon on the ten commandments. 

He was giving the congregation a real working over, proceeding thru the list until he got all the way thru "Thou shalt not murder". As he went to the next he thought---so that's where I left my bicycle.
Ox


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

Just occurred to me,, Ox,,,,in the thread title "*Marriage Counselors" here*

Do ya think anyone *here* would admit to that profession ?????

:smack


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Well I'm glad that's cleared up. And no one had to seek counseling.  I get the whole it's not a science point. Never didn't. At least it's not linked with math as in Asimov, LOL It's often included in that group due to it's 'ology' suffix. I'm making an effort to shed my "hyper yankee" handle and that includes me not getting so worked up over wars I know I'll never win.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Most college professors are liberals. Why try to read into the mind of someone who is warped to begin with?


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


The professor that said that was over/under medicated.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Matthew's post on the "What is it like" thread reminded me of a discussion of male dominance I once had with a young woman back at the U. of T.
> 
> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


I have no idea, but I've been told that my father beat up my mother and then raped her on their wedding night. Told her that was how Polish men show their wives who's boss. She was only 17 at the time. They stayed married for over 40 years. It didn't get better.

Me, I stay clear of the kind of men who seem capable of that sort of thing. :teehee:


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

Oxankle, perhaps the prof meant to say that we must remain apprised of any and all possibilities. Whether they are probable, possible or not.

I might have put it a different way; in a marriage, each person must treat the other respectfully. 

Someday, when you all aren't paying attention, (hello? tap...tap...) I'll tell a story about my first husband, his girlfriend, and a woman with a brand new large sharp meat knife.


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

sherry in Maine said:


> Oxankle, perhaps the prof meant to say that we must remain apprised of any and all possibilities. Whether they are probable, possible or not.
> 
> I might have put it a different way; in a marriage, each person must treat the other respectfully.
> 
> Someday, when you all aren't paying attention, (hello? tap...tap...) I'll tell a story about my first husband, his girlfriend, and a woman with a brand new large sharp meat knife.


Uh,,,Miss Bobbitt,,,, is that you??,,,We already read it in the paper,,,,

:nono:


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

wasn't aiming for that appendage.....


----------



## gleamer (May 7, 2012)

I think it means the prof was an ass.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Just as long as nobody confesses to any crime on the world wide web, share (or not) as you wish!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Yes, share if you wish, but please don't kiss and tell! T'aint nice. Some of us remember what people posted years ago.


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> This lady told me that a Psychology prof there said "In good marriages a man must never beat his wife, but he must never let her forget that he is capable of doing so".
> 
> Now what do you think he meant by that?


I think he meant "I have absolutely no idea of pyschology as it applies to roughly 50% of the population"

Mary


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

I actually liked Home Ec., which was called "Domestic Science" when I was in school. We learned a lot about nutrition (as it was viewed at the time) we learned basic cooking, baking, sewing, knitting and crochet. We learned how to choose the freshest meat, fish, vegetables and fruit (yes, it was a LONG time ago) set a proper table, how to treat various fabrics for stains... Things that are still pretty relevant.

We did not get any sort of family dynamic education. The closest I got to that was when I and a friend got caught sneaking off from school. When I complained that the girls were not allowed to do "real science" - i.e. chemistry and physics - I was told that before long I would find a "suitable" man, get married and not have to worry about that. LOLOL. This from a headmaster who had THREE degrees - Law, doctor of medicine, and doctor of theology. Yet the only advice he could give a girl thirsty for knowledge was "find a man"

Mary


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

I didn't commit any crimes.
I did consider it in the heat of the moment (cigarette butts, overflowing ashtrays, we didn't smoke & had no ashtray. She used some very nice dishes of mine as ashtrays)

I had just returned from a 3 day pass- caught the train to Paris. Was supposed to go with 1st dh. He was called in to work. 
I returned, after a pleasant time wandering the streets of P. I'd done it a few times already, and loved that city.

I saw the condition of our apartment; how my things had been treated, stuff flung around. I immediately knew who it was; the same terd that had been passing false rumors about me, and saying plain old nasty untrue stuff that wasn't true. I barely knew her, never had any issues with her, so when she started her smear campaign, I at first ignored it.
We all held high security clearances; many things could get those clearances revoked.

Had asked him a few weeks prior to tell her to stop. (he was her boss) He said he couldn't controll her actions on or off duty.

I never committed any crimes, nor hurt any one (on purpose).
Was in a towering rage, when I heard him ascending the stairs, to our attic apartment. He was laughing, bringing a female up the stairs.
I took the large knife, hid behind the door. He walked through the door alone.
He'd been talking to the young lady who lived below us. He saw me, and jumped. (I came back early)

The next day, he ordered the terd to apologize to me, and retract her b/s and not bad mouth me again. She did.

It was my own immaturity, and ego that made me so angry. He wasn't worth hurting anyone over. She could have him; and she was manipulative to many men. (she had the last laugh--she was gay, but it was not recognized in the army yet--or I guess by those men...)
Shame on all of you for thinking that I hurt someone !!

oh, I forgot-- when he walked thru the door and jumped, was the exact reaction I wanted. Not to kill or maim.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, Sherry; An old fellow here told us that one night when he went to bed he happened to move his wife's pillow and found a butcher knife under there. He took that as a sign it was time for him to move out. 

Another, formerly a sheriff here, told me that he was repeatedly called to a house where the drunken husband was beating his wife. Exasperated, he told the woman that "If I were you I'd kill that ..." Next time the husband got drunk and started beating the woman she did just that.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

When I was a very young bride, my then-hubby grabbed my by my shirt front and slammed me up against a wall (over a mis-played card in a card game!) When he put me down, I said, "Do NOT go to sleep tonight where I can get ahold of you." He slept in the (locked) car that night. I did NOT respect him, nor did I fear him!

Oh, and I hated Home Ec, too. My own mama taught me more than that befuzzled teacher ever thought about knowing. I wanted so badly to take Shop Class, and always looked with envy as the boys carried their cool projects thru the halls.


----------



## RubyRed (Sep 24, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> LOL, Sherry; An old fellow here told us that one night when he went to bed he happened to move his wife's pillow and found a butcher knife under there. He took that as a sign it was time for him to move out.
> 
> Another, formerly a sheriff here, told me that he was repeatedly called to a house where the drunken husband was beating his wife. Exasperated, he told the woman that "If I were you I'd kill that ..." Next time the husband got drunk and started beating the woman she did just that.


And why in Gods name would anyone, especially one that was in law enforcement say this? He should somehow be held accountable, if indeed this is accurate.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

RubyRed said:


> And why in Gods name would anyone, especially one that was in law enforcement say this? He should somehow be held accountable, if indeed this is accurate.


He probably told the woman that because he thought SHE would be the one dead, eventually at least. Usually the way it turns out.

Mon


----------



## RubyRed (Sep 24, 2011)

frogmammy said:


> He probably told the woman that because he thought SHE would be the one dead, eventually at least. Usually the way it turns out.
> 
> Mon


I understand that, and I know all too well about domestic violence. I am glad that the laws now, for the most part, arrest both parties involved, at least in Iowa. That offers resources to the one that is actually being victimized and accountability to the perpetrator. 

But for a law enforcement officer to "tell" someone to 
kill that..." is extremely out of line, if not, unethical. I know I wouldn't want to be called to the witness stand and having to defend against a comment like that.


----------



## 355946 (Mar 23, 2013)

Sounds like this is the spin you wanted to put on the professors statement. Why ask for input? As a psychologist myself I'd say that I've never heard any person in a happy marriage discuss whether their spouse could beat them! I also don't know anywhere that this thought is promoted or backed by research. That some women like strong men, sure - but forget the reference to abuse!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

RubyRed: When I heard the story from the fellow he said that the moment he said it he wished he'd not opened his mouth---this happened many years ago. 

PatK; I put NO spin on this at all. Neither do I subscribe to this theory---My opinion is much like that Laura posted. And just how many happily married people feel the need to discuss their marriages with a psychologist?


----------



## 355946 (Mar 23, 2013)

Of course some happily married people get help with other issues from therapy but I was thinking of people I have known over the last 60 years. I am impatient I guess with someone trying to make a rationale for such a statement.


----------



## txplowgirl (Oct 15, 2007)

My ex tried to control me thru fear but when I got fed up with his crap he learned to fear me after he kept me up 3 days with no sleep. I just didn't care anymore. :hammer::catfight:

Side note: I took Ag I didn't take Home Ec.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm amazed at some of these stories. I suppose that is why we have so many "ex's" here.

I cannot imagine a man abusing a woman he is supposedly in love with. For that matter I cannot imagine a man abusing ANY woman. 

I must live in a parallel universe. In every relationship there has to be a leader. As TwpTom says, let the one who knows the problem lead. What would you call that? Shared leadership? Alternating leadership? 

But back to the original statement. It has never made any sense to me. Assuming that the prof. was a rational man he could only have been attempting to provoke a discussion. What do you think would happen if he made that statement to a group of today's college seniors? The man would probably be driven off the campus.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

txplowgirl said:


> My ex tried to control me thru fear but when I got fed up with his crap he learned to fear me after he kept me up 3 days with no sleep. I just didn't care anymore. :hammer::catfight:
> 
> Side note: I took Ag I didn't take Home Ec.


And a darn sight more interesting too, wasn't it?

Mon


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> ...What do you think would happen if he made that statement to a group of today's college seniors? The man would probably be driven off the campus.


I imagine most that would happen is students give each other a few looks, then all get up and walk out.

Thing is, society has evolved so much from what it was decades ago. Don't know if it should be "blamed" on women's rights, better education, TV and radio, the internet, or just one particular thing at all. 

The fact is, beating a woman (or child) is no longer the "dirty little secret" that families and local communities once hid, or looked the other way, when it happened.

Mon


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

frogmammy said:


> <snip>.
> 
> The fact is, beating a woman (or child) is no longer the "dirty little secret" that families and local communities once hid, or looked the other way, when it happened.
> 
> Mon


While this is somewhat true, it depends many times on the public standing of the individual and the image they have cultivated. My first husband was a 'good ole' boy' and politically involved in our community, particularly with LEO. When brought to the attention of the authorities, including blackened eyes, dislocated shoulders, and bruising that covered a third of my daughter's body, I was threatened with being arrested for being a 'vindictive ex wife', even though it happened multiple times with each of our daughters. Some people operate under a guise of normalcy that only those who get close to them know is a lie. There is nothing more despicable to me than a psychological or physical bully and I will not tolerate it in a man or a woman.

The world is not fair, and truth does not always prevail. But there is always hope.

~ST


----------



## RubyRed (Sep 24, 2011)

SimplerTimez said:


> I was threatened with being arrested for being a 'vindictive ex wife', even though it happened multiple times with each of our daughters. Some people operate under a guise of normalcy that only those who get close to them know is a lie. There is nothing more despicable to me than a psychological or physical bully and I will not tolerate it in a man or a woman.
> 
> The world is not fair, and truth does not always prevail. But there is always hope.
> 
> ~ST


There are many different types of playgrounds with bullies. It usually catches up to these types of people that abuse power, in one way or another.


----------

