Really enjoyed this book, was put on to it after reading The Will To Change.
Girls tend to be more aware than boys about the ways in which they are oppressed. Boys learn to keep their feelings in, and, rather than rebelling against this censorship, they choose to deny it. To not complain. To silence it. To numb themselves to their emotional needs. They follow a "stoic code".
Research has shown that boys show a measurable decrease in expressiveness and connection by the ages of 3, 4, and 5. By the time they reach kindergarten, they are less willing to express emotion or show vulnerability.
Women are not asked to beat off wild animals, and men are not asked to be wrangle with their feelings. While there is a strong and thriving community of support around emancipating women, there is less of a movement behind pushing men to open up.
Don't cry. Don't be vulnerable. Don't show weakness. Ultimately, don't show that you are . --WOOOF. I fear that these ideas are deep in me, to the point that it's difficult to care about things, people...you stop showing other people raw feelings, and even worse, you stop showing yourself your own feelings. And you grow numb. You don't even know what you're missing. A frog in boiling water.
Patriarchy doesn't just manifest between women and men. It happens in a man's mind: the tough, strong masculine side actively despises the feeling, emotional feminine side. The censorship happens in our own skulls.
The hurt boy inside hurting men, the sweet vulnerable self wrapped in the armor of denial, walled off behind business work drink or rage, the hidden feminine behind the bluff masculine. That is the truth of the masculine that must remain unspoken...because women and children fear triggering grandiosity or shame in their men.
Disassociation troubles women: of knowing, but not knowing. King something, and refusing to acknowledge it. Repressing truth.
I liked his point about the fair tail that we should be even handed in our compassion for men and women. The truth is that the playing field is totally uneven, which makes uneven treatment more just. As he says, if a couple comes in, and the woman seems more hurt, he lets her speak first. And if the man seems more hurt, he still lets the woman speak first.
"...two decent people, trapped inside a dying relationship. So go love's small murders: tiny everyday escalations of injury, reacted to by disconnection, causing more injury, until you fast-forward to a couple whose initial passion has become so encrusted with disappointment that they barely function as a couple any longer."
There are two parts of a relationship: the parts you get, and the parts you don't get. Being in a relationship is both about cherishing the things you get, and accepting, grieving the things you don't get. You own your choice.
I wouldn't say I feel more passionately, but that I feel more willing to open up. To open your heart, not to an idealized lover, but to this flawed man, woman.
"Perception battle": a contest about reality. They are a huge waste of energy. Where the two are competing with their versions of the truth. His advice? Both people are allowed to be nasty at times. But take turns. Don't be nasty at the same time. "Objective reality has no place in interpersonal relationships."
Our capacity to stay in deep connection on our capacity to bare solitude in the relationship. Only after giving up "the truth" can we learn to speak our truth.
Loving passionately means being able to protect yourself but also to deliver yourself into someones hands, vulnerable and shivering, open to being left, hurt.
The 5 skills he says couples should develop:
Relational-esteem: cherish the relationship, despite it's glaring imperfections. Walks hand in hand with "cherish yourself, despite your glaring imperfections". Esteem.
Learning to speak relationaly: "The way to keep passion alive is by telling the truth."