My Husband Is Scared Of Me

I had a short conversation a few days back that has stuck with me. I was asked point blank “who makes the decisions in your marriage?” by a fairly newly married woman I know vaguely, but who also knows Jennifer reasonably well. I’ve never been asked this question directly by a person in real life and I was struck by how very personal of a question it was. Answering it truthfully had a slight sense of “outing” us…
“…so who makes the decisions in your marriage?”
“I do”.
“Really!”  
“Yes. We talk a lot about things but…
Buy Me!

Comments

  1. To the husband of this acquaintance of yours:

    Your wife yearns to be married to a leader. Be that guy!

  2. I just talked to my buddy who lives across the country, on the phone, and his wife made him get off after ten minutes. This has happened with several of my married friends; it disgusts me to no end, it makes me question whether I really want to get married. My married buddies are so whipped.

  3. In abusive relationships, especially with cluster "B" personalities, one spouse often has to walk on eggshells. It's a form of fear that crushes the soul since it's so difficult to handle.

    In the more intense versions of these relationships, to "man up" means getting physically abused, likely having false police reports filed against you and losing your kids and house.

    (I'm in a mild version of this kind of relationship, but have talked with those who have been in the above.)

    A second point is that ALL relationships involve compromise. A lot of compromise. You have to pick your battles carefully (especially if you are male, have kids and don't want to lose custody.)

  4. She is so proud to be in control by the burst out it seems. Its like a kid in a candy store "I rule here now!". That's what I get from the scared of me comment.

  5. David Collard says:

    I think a LOT of men are scared of their wives. She may have just meant that he lets her rule because she is too much trouble if he doesn't. If a man is happy in other areas of his life, he may not mind all that much if his wife rules.

    My wife is not scared of me, although I think she cares a lot about my opinion. And I have trained myself not to be nervous of my wife. Women go nuts a lot of the time, to get their way. A man has to be quite brave to weather that. Once he does, he is OK.

    My wife came home from Mass last night in a shit of a mood. I just left her alone for a couple of hours. She calmed down, ironed my shirts, packed lunches, did all the usual stuff. A man just needs a modicum of courage, and endurance.

    Feminists of course want men to be scared of their wives, and have the legal system set up to provide maximum threat (at least in America, not so much here in Australia which is fairer).

    A man who rules his family, as I do, gets called "abusive". But a woman who rules (or claims to) her husband will get lots of online support.

  6. "Feminists of course want men to be scared of their wives,"

    I read this sort of thing and I just go, "Wow, people really have no clue what feminism means these days, do they?" It's not a female supremacy movement or a misandry collective. Any woman who thought a husband being afraid of his wife was a sign of a healthy or positive marriage would be looked upon as a potential abuser and a really fucked up person by any feminist worth their salt. (To be clear, there are, I'm sure, plenty of people on the internet who'd be fine with it; I just don't think any of them are actually feminists. Feminism strives for equality and safety of the sexes and therefore works toward elimination of marital abuse, and any person being afraid of their spouse is antithetical to that aim.)

    The divorce and custody law inequalities of the US justice system are based, in large part, on the idea that women are inherently better parents than men and the system ought to do whatever it can to facilitate the mother being the primary carer, and also based on the idea that women can't support themselves without men so they need alimony. Feminists, the ones who actually champion fathers' ability to be great parents and thing women should get equal pay in the workplace, don't like those laws one bit. (There have been people who call themselves feminists who believe those things; the majority of the movement disowns them.)

    For the record, this sounds like an awful marriage to be in. Being scared of one's spouse sounds horrid, and I've known people who've lived in that kind of relationship – it does generally escalate to outright verbal abuse at the very least. I hope he gets out.

  7. David Collard says:

    Sam, what you say sounds reasonable. Except that I think you are either disingenuous or starry-eyed. I think many, many feminists are perfectly happy for men to suffer. Sorry, but I think it is a movement built on resentment.

    Secondly, when a feminist says equality, a man hears castration.

    The only place men can tell the truth about what they really want is the Internet, where we can be anonymous. What does that tell you about how men view feminists and their true attitude to men.

    I repeat, a man being scared of his wife is regarded as a positive good by many women these days.

  8. David, I'm neither disingenuous nor starry-eyed. I think many, many humans are perfectly happy for other humans to suffer, and bad people will often select a label to hide under that they feel legitimises their particular desire to do harm. Should Fred Phelps be held up as an example of the majority of Christians, or a fucked up aberration?

    It is indeed a movement built partly on the resentment of mistreatment – but that doesn't mean its members have decided they want tit for tat suffering. The American Black Civil Rights movement was built on resentment of slavery and later of unequal treatment; would you say the followers of Martin Luther King were any less compassionate and desirous of genuine peace because their drive to act was partly based on resentment of cruelty?

    Men who hear castration when feminists say equality are afraid that giving something to women means taking everything away from men. Do you believe that a woman being able to participate equally in household decisions would castrate her husband, or a woman who made as much money as her male coworkers would be castrating them? If the ideal of manhood relies on women being lesser, less powerful, weaker, less worth listening to, what kind of ideal is that, really? How weak are its foundations; how painfully and wretchedly must it be clung to in order to keep it going? It's a shame, because when a feminist says equality, what many women hear is freedom, nothing more and nothing less.

    Not all women want the life that you and your wife have chosen, and nor do all men; feminism allows for women to be able to live as their husbands' and boyfriends' equals, to be able to make that choice. Is that really so threatening to one's manhood – to have equal decision making power, to both want an active interest in raising any kids, to both be able to participate in chores and housework and earning according to their strengths and preferences rather than according to the expectation that the wife must be better at the home domain and the husband must be better at work?

    Is the essence of manhood control and dominance over the woman in your eyes, and the absence of that control castration?

    Can you not see why lots of women might see that as a little unfair?

  9. I'm scared of my wife for sure. Scared of having to deal with her in a foul mood that is.
    So… She is the boss.
    Always the boss and I let her be.
    The one good thing about such situations is that when something very important comes up (important in my view) and I do take the boss position it isn't even something to talk about.
    She is boss 99% of the time and I save my little bit for when it really counts.

  10. Interesting turn this discussion is taking. :)

    It's hard to say who makes the decision in our relationship. Much like Athol said I believe it to be a 51/49 (Miss out on some mathematics classes Athol? :D ) division of power. But I would add to that that both of us also have a Veto-right if it completely goes against our wishes.

    With Athol's help I've come to understand my wife as being the submissive kind, which sometimes throws a tantrum. The best thing to do is to just stay calm and not let it phase you. If it's hard to find a good response then I suggest just ignore the behavior and do your own thing.

    Of course having that decisive percentage of power in the relationship also means that you are responsible for your wife's happiness and that sometimes you'll have to decide against your own wishes. It doesn't mean you get it your way every time.

    Reading this blog I've also come to understand that women pretend to be (probably subconsciously) unhappier than they really are. What they say they want is not what brings them long-term happiness, so in that sense you don't have any obligation to give into their every whim.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Cheers,
    Fred

  11. David Collard says:

    Feminists talk openly of "redress" and "revenge". I tend to believe they mean it, and the misrepresent history to fake up resentment.

    Sam, live the life you want. If you can find a man who wants absolute equality, good luck. But a LOT of men and women were and are happier in a traditional relationship. And they will admit, when they can speak safely.

    The success of "players" (I am not one, myself) depends on their understanding that women are turned on (lubricated, to put it bluntly) by displays of male dominance and superiority. This has been my experience.

    Men who sign on to totally equal relationships are welcome to them – but they may be ultimately disappointed when their wife loses interest in them and runs off with someone more exciting.

  12. David Collard says:

    Another thing, Sam. Given the chance, women chose superior men. Hypergamy. Your own sex (I assume you are female) prove you wrong. Actions speak louder than words.

  13. David Collard says:

    Inferno, women are paper tigers.

  14. David Collard says:
  15. This talk of "feminists" vs. "feminism" reminds me of the whole "Christians" vs. "Christianity" and "Muslims" vs. "Islam" debate. Haters parade under the aegis of lots of different philosophies/religions. That doesn't define the philosophies or religions.

    Why does this matter? Because every time a woman spits at me that I'm chauvanistic, I like to tell her I'm a feminist and mean it. Realism and feminism are quite compatible if you ignore the angry, thick-necked haters out there.

  16. I used to be afraid of my wife. Most of this I've described in the comment that Athol converted to a post not too long ago.

    Barbara was a master of emotional abuse, because she had the ability to grow angry at the slightest provocation and explain — after the fact — how, from her point of view, what I had done was "wrong." I walked on eggshells every day because I was so weary of the constant opprobrium. And I was always so thirsty for a pleasant interaction that over time, my idea of what was acceptable or unacceptable treatment became wildly miscalibrated. That miscalibration, I think, is at the heart of all abusive relationships.

    I once complained to her that even though she often had reasonable points, if she took a step back, she would see that she got angry with me every day and that I couldn't deserve that. It just didn't make sense. This logic did not win the day.

    Or the marriage. This constant failure to stand up to my own wife — i.e., tell her she was being ridiculous and to come talk to me when she was feeling like an adult — had me about as betamized and emasculated as you can imagine. In retrospect, it's no wonder I'm divorced.

    The trick for men caught in this cycle (assuming they want to fix the marriage, rather than end it) is to become okay with letting your woman be mad. Her unwarranted anger must take a toll on her. Also, you must extract an extra price for the abuse. Athol has a post on tit-for-tat somewhere that's worth reading again.

    The key with tit-for-tat is that the response must be immediate. This goes right back to Pavlov's dogs: the correlation between her unwarranted anger and the pain and apathy (on your part) that ensues must be strong. Beta men tend to sit on it, and the anger bubbles forth over time in the form of passive aggression, over-eating, and affairs with ugly, young, or uneducated (i.e., not challenging) women. In other words, failure to stand strong at the appropriate time can turn a man into a straight up bitch.

    -Confidunce

  17. Novaseeker says:

    The trouble is that feminists are capable of spouting relatively reasonable rhetoric, while at the same time both the lobbying/political wing and the academic/theoretical wing are spinning a completely different yarn.

    NOW is the largest feminist lobbying group in the US, probably the largest feminist political group in the world. And NOW has consistently come out *against* any meaningful reform of family law that would result in the regularization of equal custody between men and women. That is because NOW is the National Organization of WOMEN, after all. It is AGAINST the interests of most women to have a regularized system of joint/equal custody after divorce. The current system favors women, so it is, of course, defended with some degree of vigor by the largest feminist political group. Yet feminists like Sam get to call this "extremist". Balderdash. If you don't stand with NOW, you're not a "feminist" in any meaningful way, politically.

    And let's not even get started about the academy. They want us to be rid of sex and gender altogether, seeing "man" and "woman" as harmful binaries, straitjackets that are designed by some invisible power structure to preserve "cisgendered privilege" and similar mental mastusbatory constructs supported by government funding of universities. Of course, people like Sam will distance themselves from these "radicals", but what is radical today in the academy is the realistic political agenda of groups like NOW in 1-2 generations.

    Feminism has always been a war against men, because it perceived men as being the "class in power". As ill-conceived as that worldview was, even taken at its own face value, it's clearly not in men's interests (if men really *were* in power, why on earth would it be in men's interests to give up this power to anyone else? It's a similar question as to why men should be happily acting like Mr. Mom and so on when women themselves collectively said that this work sucked, that they didn't want to do it anymore and so on. Why would men then do it with enthusiasm, if it sucks so hard to do it? Of course, the whole worldview is made up, and is based on sex-rooted antipathies that probably go back thousands of years and will be with us still thousands of years from now — the kind of mutual antipathy that exists in men and women alike regarding the opposite sex, really, and the grievances that arise as a result of that antipathy. Of course, in a healthy world, this is ordered and channeled and balanced by the attractiveness between the sexes as well. When the relationship between the sexes is stripped down to a Marxist analysis of power relations, however, all you are left with is resentment among men and women alike (for different reasons, of course), which pretty much sums up where we are in terms of collective sex relations in the West today. Yay, feminism.

  18. "If the ideal of manhood relies on women being lesser, less powerful, weaker, less worth listening to, what kind of ideal is that, really? How weak are its foundations; how painfully and wretchedly must it be clung to in order to keep it going? It's a shame, because when a feminist says equality, what many women hear is freedom, nothing more and nothing less."

    1. This is exactly how feminism depends on its concept of patriarchy, just with the genders reversed.
    2. Hearing a feminist talking about equality is like hearing a modern Republican talking about small government.

  19. Feminism has always been a war against men, because it perceived men as being the "class in power".

    Men WERE in power. Educate yourself on the past; how men could beat the shit out of their wives or even kill them and get away with it. How a boss could rape his secretary and get away with it–hell he'd brag about it and be congratulated. How women couldn't vote or receive an inheritance in many states. How women were paid much less than men for the same exact work.

    Feminism was a response to a real problem. It did make the blunder of thinking they were fighting an organized power structure. (The civil rights movement made the same mistake.) A great illustration of this is the Eddie Murphy sketch where he becomes a white man.

    Most men saw the inequality and had experienced it themselves in business and marriage. Laws that made it nearly impossible for an abused wife to leave a marriage also made it impossible for an abused husband to do the same.

    The problem is that SOME feminists got carried away and are at war with men. Novaseeker that NOW and other feminist activist groups have campaigned heavily against a revising family law. This isn't about fairness to them, but power. (And their philosophy is extremely Marxist.)

    On the other hand, most the women I've worked with HATE the feminist label. They want the same civil rights, but want to retain their femininity. This is especially true amongst my twenty-something daughter's generation. They don't use the word but typify what feminism was originally about–they are in control of their own lives.

  20. Given the chance, women chose superior men. Hypergamy.

    GIVEN THE CHANCE. Given the chance, most men would choose extremely beautiful women who catered to their every needs.

    Even that statement is bullshit since it's extremely misogynistic. While I disagree with alpha theory, I think Athol has is more right observationally, though I respectfully think he overdoes it in the ability for an individual to make a big difference (because he listens to much to alpha theory.) He calls it sex rank; I'd call it sex/emotional/intellectual/wholistic rank. We ALL try to go above our rank and sometimes succeed. If we go too far above our rank, or that rank changes drastically, we either become unhappy or have to make huge compromises. Either way, the relationship suffers.

    The blanket statement that women tend to marry up is misguided since they bring other aspects to the table. With rare exceptions, an ugly, poor, uneducated woman isn't going to marry a very handsome, rich, educated business executive. The reverse is just as true.

    And this has nothing to do, one way or the other, with equal civil rights for all people.

  21. @Inferno "She is boss 99% of the time and I save my little bit for when it really counts"

    I don't think this approach usually works. When first married or living with a girl, it's easy for a guy—especially if he's really involved with his career—to let her make decisions on things he doesn't really care about, say the color of the wallpaper and even where to go out for dinner. The problem is that she will begin to think of decision-making as her RIGHT, and when he tries to take a stand on something he really cares about, she'll see it as a power grab.

  22. Viliam Búr says:

    Sam, there is a huge difference between what feminists say and what they do.

    For example sexism is bad, right? It is unfair to judge a person by his/her sex. Yet, somehow, whenever I am speaking with a feminist, I am always judged for being a man. My opinions cannot be simply "wrong", but there is always something evil about them, because… well, because I am a man. If a woman says the same thing, she gets a very different reaction.

    Men and women should be equal, right? Unless an advantage for women is proposed. Then it is somehow OK; because you know because women were opressed, so today they deserve some advantage. But with this reasoning you could excuse anything… and still see yourselves as fighting for equality, even when you are not.

    When a woman says that she wants something, it is liberating. When a man says that he wants something, it is sexism. Women are free to say and do anything they want. (If it costs money, well that's what taxpayers are for.) Men should rather be quiet, unless they 100% agree with feminists, because any dissent male opinion is a patriarchal opression.

    Men should try to understand women, to accept their needs and desires, etc. But this empathy never goes both ways, because we are taught that any needs and desires or men are wrong — women should not understand them, but ignore them and fight against them; this is how they prove they are liberated from the ideology of patriarchy.

    Anyway the word "feminism" is not clearly defined; you can use it to express many things. Whatever feminism means to you, you are right… but it is only one of many possible feminisms.

  23. BTW, the George Clooney effect is poorly named. The research found "that as women become more financially independent, they want an older, more attractive male partner."

    This is not hypergamy; it's no shit Sherlock.

    (They are talking about women in general, but as specific women earn more and become more financially independent, they shift from seeking men primarily for financial security because they already have that.)

  24. "I make the decisions. My husband is scared of me."

    She might just be indulging in a little cocky tough-talk; I've heard guys do this all the time in regards to their wives or girlfriends, in some cases when I know both parties and it ain't really that way at all!

    The laziness factor plays a part in some of this submission and dominance behavior; leadership and decision-making can be hard, thankless work; much easier to let your partner to take the wheel and follow along. Of course, if you want to go that route, you lose your shame and blame privileges!

    I have come to hate the word feminist because it's a misused, misunderstood word and is verbal kryptonite to most men; I prefer to just think of myself as a human being with double xx chromosomes.

  25. namae nanka says:

    Joe

    "Men WERE in power."

    you need to read the fraud of feminism which was published in 1910. Men were still discriminated against, the things haven't changed. Only the focus has.
    Those who control the present, control the past..

    "How women were paid much less than men for the same exact work."

    BS and still BS

    "Feminism was a response to a real problem. It did make the blunder of thinking they were fighting an organized power structure. "

    It's straight out of communist manifesto. They made a blunder? no shit sherlock.

    "On the other hand, most the women I've worked with HATE the feminist label. They want the same civil rights, but want to retain their femininity."

    Indeed they do, it's called having their cake and eat it too. No wonder you buy into their words.

    "This is especially true amongst my twenty-something daughter's generation. "

    because their sexual power is at its peak and they don't need to rant for other stuff.
    sheesh, you don't get it do you?

    "Even that statement is bullshit since it's extremely misogynistic. "

    women-hating seems to be ingrained in truth, eh?

  26. namae nanka says:

    Sam you're living in an alternate reality. Paper equality between the sexes is alright for feminism but it ain't the ground reality. Keep believing in unicorns.

    Joe

    "This is especially true amongst my twenty-something daughter's generation"

    http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/

  27. namae nanka says:

    The whole raison d'etre of feminism, nay female nature itself is to remove regulations on female sexuality. And women will believe in anything in order to achieve that. Go any lengths in order to have that, even emasculate their own men to keep them under their control.
    Not realizing that they are leading themselves on a path to destruction.

  28. namae nanka, simply making stuff up is not an argument. If you think salaries were equal in the fifties, you are being intentionally stupid.

    The biggest problem with this site is that it attracts extreme misogynists who are just as bad as extreme misandrists on making hysterical points and ignoring reality.

    You didn't even make an attempt to understood what I wrote so further debate is useless.

  29. The everlasting Defense of Feminism, invoking a past that never existed and denying what's going on in the present.

    But here's the key to moving forward – forget the labels, ignore the words, pay attention to the actions. Don't worry about intentions, understand the results.

    What are the goals of Feminists? Don't care – what are their actions and what are the consequences of those actions.

  30. Fred who thought that thought I failed math – 51/50 is intentional. It essentially means in mind a balanced relationship but a tiebreaking vote for me.

    Joe – actually I think individuals can make moderate but real changes. My background is sociology so I'm quite familar with social stratification issues. I don't focus on social change as a goal as that's largely outside the scope of the blog. An individual man isn't going to make individual progress on his own relationship by seeking social change. There's far more traction to be made by self-improvement.

    Feminism unquestionably in my mind sought to redress the negatives in the status of women and have done some quite positive things. However it seems to increasingly become an industry in and for itself that has started to lead to more questionable ends.

    Modern Feminism is a creation of cheap and effective birth control more than anything else. Which is not to say I wish birth control away by any means.

  31. David Collard says:

    Confidunce is correct. Women can be extremely verbally (and even physically) abusive in a marriage unless they are handled correctly. Feminists don't want to see this discussed, but one of the biggest causes of marital unhappiness is men mishandling their wives emotionality.

    Don't be fooled. Even the "sweetest" woman has a nasty side.

    Women's emotions and complaints should not be taken too seriously by their husbands. MOST of it is just static. My wife constantly tells me what she is not going to do, sometimes while actually doing it. Her moods bear little relation to my behaviour. Men, you are not to blame.

    Occasionally something happens that makes a man realise what he is really dealing with it. I remember my wife once asked me to move a chair, and sixty seconds later complained that I had moved it. There is NOTHING a man can do when a woman is in this frame of mind.

    The stereotypes about women are true. That is why they are stereotypes. They only cease being funny when women get real power to impose their silliness on a foolish husband, who tolerates it, or on society as a whole. The crazily unfair laws feminists get passed are indeed crazy. They are crazy because they represent femininity at its worst. And men stupidly pandering to it.

    If a woman is being childish, tell her so. If she is yelling, ignore her. Walk away. Let her sort herself out. Don't argue with her. It is a waste of time. When she is ready for a sensible discussion, talk to her.

    Don't supplicate. Don't become reactive.

    Women will ALWAYS complain. It is in their nature. Women seem to lack the capacity to be independently happy. I sometimes suspect it is the Curse of Eve.

  32. My wife constantly tells me what she is not going to do, sometimes while actually doing it.

    LOL.

    David, I think you might appreciate this article.

  33. Women will ALWAYS complain. It is in their nature. Women seem to lack the capacity to be independently happy. I sometimes suspect it is the Curse of Eve.


    Men will always complain. At least if you put them on an MRA site.

  34. namae nanka says:

    "namae nanka, simply making stuff up is not an argument. If you think salaries were equal in the fifties, you are being intentionally stupid."

    Of course salaries weren't equal, but you said equal pay for the exact same work.

    Yes, there it was, in an appendix: Census Bureau figures show that even during the 1950s, (which Alex studies in ancient history class!) there was less than a 2% pay gap between never married women and men, and never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106% of what their never-married white male counterparts made.

    I thought about these findings in relation to affirmative action. Obviously, this was prior to affirmative action. In fact, this pay equality had occurred even prior to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. And prior to the current feminist movement.

    http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Media/

    "The biggest problem with this site is that it attracts extreme misogynists who are just as bad as extreme misandrists on making hysterical points and ignoring reality."

    I ain't ignoring reality, I am just telling you that history can be molded, even objective facts can look drastically different if you think differently.
    If you knew the above, if the society knew the above, and never had to deal the stupidity that "wage-gap" is, my argument would be as off-handedly stated the same way you stated that feminism is/was relevant because men were beating the shit out of women and killing them.

    And consider this,in our current society, we aren't even at facts yet. Who knows what else has been twisted out of reality? Maybe your "beating the shit out of and killing" assertion is one of the many lies it has promulgated.
    Was "gender is a social construct" a blunder too?

    "You didn't even make an attempt to understood what I wrote so further debate is useless."

    right back at ya.

  35. Wake up – whipped men are the norm in the US.

    http://www.anvari.org/fun/Gender/Whipped_Magazine_for_Men.html

  36. I know I'm commenting on an old post …

    My ex husband was scared of me (still is) and I hate it. I would have loved for him to pull some Alpha on me, but instead he'd bully me, whine, and cave in.

    I am not one of those angry, bitchy women either … I hate confrontation and ager displays. He just had such a poor self-opinion he couldn't face even mild disagreement without blowing up himself. I like Joe's idea:

    "He calls it sex rank; I'd call it sex/emotional/intellectual/wholistic rank. We ALL try to go above our rank and sometimes succeed. If we go too far above our rank, or that rank changes drastically, we either become unhappy or have to make huge compromises. Either way, the relationship suffers."

    My ex and I were equal rank when we got married, but mine rose as his fell.

    Z

  37. confused says:

    Hello,

    I came upon this site bc my husband and I had a similar conversation today. I found out that my husband kept something from me regarding his job, that effects our entire family. I asked him why and he said that he is scared of me and my reaction to things when I get angry. I was completely taken aback. I honestly had absolutely no idea that he was scared of me, (crying as I type this) and I don’t know how to take it.
    The only thing I can think is that I never back down from an argument and when he gets angry and in my face, I shove him away from me. This completely rocks me to my core and I don’t know if I can deal with a man that is scared of me. However, from the time we were married, I had to take care of the bills, the cleaning, the cooking because he has never really made the attempt to, the only time he does is when I’m sick.
    I’ve read the other comments and I still don’t know how to react. I told him that I don’t know if I can be in a relationship knowing that my husband is scared of me. He told me that he loves me and he deals with it. I find that sad and unhealthy for him. I don’t know what to do!!

  38. Louise Krekic says:

    My husband was very strict and mentally abusive when we were a young couple. I always listened to him and worked hard and eventually I toughened up, and I became a leader in our marriage. He is 77 now and scared of me. He even told our daughter recently that he thinks I am a leader, and that he is disappointed in me because he always wanted me to follow him. How could I follow a coward who doesnt even tell me in my face that he thinks I am a leader, but goes behind my back and tells stuff to our kids. That itself shows that he isnt made to be a leader and that he doesnt have it in him. He was always self-employed and was under horrible stress because he couldnt even handle being on his own, and be able to confront his customers and tell them the truth when he had to. Instead he was a coward who vented on his wife and that just made me stronger, and now he is complaining. He never learnt how to be a real man. A real man doesnt talk behind his wife’s back. I also obtained a lot of education and he became jealous of me. I never prevented him to get more education or to make more money. He made lots of money but kept giving it away. What kind of a leader would he be, how could he manage finances and invest and learn anything in business with a weak personality like his. It is really interesting how people tend to blame others for their shortcomings. So it looks he was born to be a follower.

  39. I know this blog post is old, but I don’t think most husbands are afraid. They just don’t care, or don’t want the hassle. Fighting is unpleasant. If it’s about something unimportant, like housework/yard work, why bother. If you don’t want to talk on the phone, it’s an easy out to blame the wife. Divorce is expensive. If the current situation is survivable, why go through the cost she hassle. Just avoid her.

    I disagree. To say he’s afraid of her assumes he is engaged. Once the nagging starts, most aren’t engaged. Women are just as replaceable as men. Sometimes with just a pet to keep you company.

Speak Your Mind

*