Before I show you how to find the best solutions to the problems you face in marriage (win-win outcomes), I will introduce some of the most common solutions where one spouse wins while the other loses. These win-lose outcomes are common because not only are they much easier to find than win-win outcomes but they are also somewhat instinctive. We seem to be naturally drawn to those kinds of solutions.
While dating and during the first few months of marriage, Tony and Jodi, our couple from the first chapter, could not have imagined having a fight over who would care for their child at night. During those years, they had expressed an eager willingness to help each other whenever a problem would arise, even if it meant sacrificing their own personal interests. If they had obtained premarital counseling, and the counselor had asked how they would be handling such a conflict, they would both have offered to care for the child so the other could rest. The conflict might have been seen as who would do the caring, with both of them offering their services.
The Sacrifice Strategy
Sacrificing one’s own interests for the interests of someone you love is a time-honored solution to many problems in life. It’s regarded by many as being the ultimate form of care. The more spouses give sacrificially to each other, the more ideal their marriage is considered by some to be.
This ideal is described in the short story The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry. An impoverished couple wants to give each other something significant for Christmas but have no money to do so. The wife wants to give her husband a watch fob to go with his prized possession, his watch. The husband wants to give his wife a comb for her hair, her crowning glory. So he sells his watch to buy the comb and she sells her hair to buy the fob. It’s a very sentimental story of sacrificial love, appropriate for the Christmas season when Christ was born to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
But sacrifice has several pitfalls in marriage. First, sacrifice is usually done in secret. Instead of a couple working together on a solution to a problem, they work apart, keeping their plans to themselves. In the last chapter, I described the dilemma faced by a young mother. Her husband “gave in” and let her have her way. She liked getting her way, but she felt that in so doing, he was closing her out. She wanted him to open up so that she could know how he really felt. But personal sacrifice for the sake of someone you care for usually means that you don’t reveal your innermost feelings. He can’t give her what she wants and open up at the same time. Sacrifice usually prevents openness in marriage.
Second, sacrifice doesn’t lead to long-term solutions to marital problems. At best, it’s something that can be done only occasionally because the sacrificing spouse usually isn’t willing to make it a habit. But it sets a precedent that leads to unsustainable expectations. When one spouse’s gain is at the other spouse’s voluntary loss, what was voluntary one day easily translates into an expectation that’s demanded the next. For example, if on a special occasion a wife decides to sacrifice her own enjoyment, to have sex the way her husband wants to have it, sooner or later he’ll be pestering her to do it the same way again until she gives in. Eventually, she will dread the very thought of sex because it’s not done in a way that is enjoyable for her.
A third reason that sacrifice doesn’t work well in marriage is that reciprocation is expected. If I do something that’s unpleasant for me so that Joyce can have what she wants, I’ll be waiting for her to return the favor. And if she doesn’t do that—if I’m the only one making sacrifices—I’ll assume that she doesn’t care about me in the same way I care about her. Sooner or later my resentment will bubble to the surface.
In a mutually caring relationship such as marriage, sacrificing for each other doesn’t make much sense if both spouses really do care about each other. Why should I expect Joyce to suffer for my happiness? Why should she expect me to suffer for her? Neither of us should want the other to lose so that we can gain. It’s only if we are being selfish in an uncaring moment that we would expect the other to sacrifice. Mutual care means that both of us want each other to thrive and neither of us want the other to suffer.
So is there any place for sacrifice in marriage? I would suggest that it makes a great deal of sense to work together in joint sacrifice to accomplish a goal of mutual value. For example, my education was very difficult for both Joyce and me. We gave up many comforts and borrowed heavily to complete it. But my education was for our mutual advantage and eventually compensated for our joint sacrifice.
But joint sacrifice does not require secrecy. It’s done in the open with both spouses knowing what will be involved, and what they will receive for their effort. It also has a well-defined ending—the sacrifice is not expected to last indefinitely. Finally, since the sacrifice is mutually agreed upon, requires joint effort, and benefits both spouses, there is no expectation of reciprocity.
So when I warn couples to avoid personal sacrifice, I want them to understand that, as tempting as it is for a mutually caring couple, it’s a win-lose strategy. Don’t do it if one gains at the expense of the other.
But if a couple can agree that a mutual short-term sacrifice for each of them can achieve a mutual long-term advantage for both of them, such a plan can actually be helpful to their marriage as long as basic emotional needs are met during the time of sacrifice.
The Dictator Strategy
While the sacrifice strategy for resolving marital conflicts may seem on the surface to be the ultimate form of care, most other strategies with win-lose goals are not at all altruistic. Instead of “I’ll lose so that you can win,” they turn it around to be “You’ll lose so that I can win.” They’re downright selfish. There should be no doubt that these strategies that lead to win-lose outcomes should be avoided. I’ll begin my analysis with the traditional husband-in-charge approach that dominated society for millennia. I call it the dictator strategy.
For thousands of years it was customary for husbands to make all of the major decisions in marriage. A husband may have discussed the issue with his wife to gain her perspective, but that wasn’t a given. And in the end his will usually prevailed.
But over the past few decades, this custom has changed, at least in most Western cultures. Consider for a moment the comedy program Father Knows Best. Can you imagine a show ever being given that name today? It originated on radio in 1949 with the father portrayed as lord of his kingdom. As the radio program morphed into television, the father’s role softened, but he was still the boss right up through the last show in 1960.
By the time a similar comedy concept, All in the Family, appeared (1971–1983), comparison between the old and the new in marriage was the major premise. Archie Bunker’s traditional dominant role contrasted with his modern son-in-law Michael’s weak and confused role as husband. “Those Were the Days,” the title of the show’s theme song, made it clear that in Archie’s view life sure was simpler when men ruled.
The changes in our culture that gave women the same rights as men were both long overdue and yet fraught with difficulty. For years, husbands had expected to be dictators. They would make the final decisions regarding the family, and their wives would dutifully obey them. In fact, obedience was a key promise in their wife’s wedding vow.
But today you’ll rarely hear the word “obey” mentioned in a woman’s vows. Most often, today’s wedding vows reflect equality for both spouses in marriage. Old habits, and traditions, do not die quickly, however. And to this day, many husbands keep trying to tell their wives what to do.
Benevolent Dictators
When a husband uses the dictator strategy to resolve marital conflicts, he usually doesn’t intend for it to hurt his wife and children. In fact, he’ll typically argue that his decision is ultimately in the best interest of the entire family.
But even if a husband makes personal sacrifices as part of the process, most modern wives don’t want their husbands to make unilateral decisions. They want to be equal partners in their lives together, and that includes decision-making. If a husband tries to force a decision upon his wife without consulting her, she finds it to be controlling and abusive. She doesn’t want to live under the absolute authority of a husband.
Besides, what may seem benevolent to a husband may not be considered benevolent from a wife’s perspective. If a final decision is not mutually agreeable to both spouses and instead is made unilaterally by the husband, it’s very likely that the wife’s interests are not being fully considered. I’ve witnessed many decisions made by husbands that were intended to be in the best interest of the family but turned into disasters. If the wife’s reluctance to go forward would have put on the brakes, the family would not have suffered. A couple’s decisions are usually much wiser when they both agree on a course of action.
Partnership is a key concept in modern marriages, and most women expect to make joint decisions with their husbands. Benevolent or not, a husband who expects to make all of the final decisions in marriage is often viewed as arrogant and disrespectful. After all, many women would argue, what right does a man have to make the final decisions? Isn’t a woman’s judgment just as wise—or sometimes even wiser?
Wives Taking Charge
In the 1970s, women were encouraged to attend assertiveness training classes to resist the dictators in their lives. The gist of what they learned was to say “no” without having to explain why. At that time, many women still thought that they had to obey orders, especially the orders of their husbands. And a class teaching them how to say “no” was viewed as a first step in helping them gain control over their lives.
Today, most wives are beyond knowing how to say “no.” In fact, many have now caught on to the traditional negotiating technique long employed by husbands—dictatorship. They’ve turned the tables by becoming the dictators themselves.
In decades past, a bossy wife would have been the butt of ridicule, with very uncomplimentary names ascribed to the woman who took charge in her family. But today, that’s changed and the same woman may even be seen as a hero to some. No one bosses her around—she’s the one who does the bossing.
Some husbands of such women have tried to accommodate their wife’s leadership. Instead of challenging their wife’s aggressive approach to problems, they try to simply fit in. When there is a conflict of opinion, these husbands capitulate to maintain peace. The adage “When mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” is taken to heart, and they do whatever they can to keep their wife happy, even at their own expense. Maybe that was what the husband was doing in my earlier example—when he “gave in” to his wife’s wishes, he wasn’t sacrificing, he was capitulating.
Dueling Dictators
Some wives submit to the demands of their husbands, and some husbands do the same when their wives take charge. But a far more common response of husbands to dictator wives and wives to dictator husbands is to fight back. Arguments between dueling dictators are now so common in marriage that therapists have resorted to encouraging couples to “fight fair.” Trying to resolve marital conflicts without fighting is often viewed not as a legitimate option but rather as wishful thinking.
Because you can usually see dictatorship for what it is when your spouse uses it but can’t see it when you use it, the dueling dictator strategy becomes very common in marriages, especially after children arrive. Both Jodi and Tony were trying to force their will on the other when they fought over Emily’s care, which made them both dictators. And it didn’t work very well.
Can any spouse get away with a demand these days? Do you ever do what your spouse tells you to do? Even if you only occasionally oblige, I’ll bet that you resent it. Yet I’ll also bet that you make demands of your spouse—at least occasionally. You already know that it’s a tactic that doesn’t work very well with you, but you keep trying to make it work because you don’t know what else to do.
The next time you make a demand of your spouse, imagine for a moment that he or she is using the same words and inflection to demand something of you. How would you react? You’d be more likely to fight than submit. That’s what most spouses are doing when they try to resolve a conflict. They try to force their solutions on each other, and that usually leads to a duel.
The Anarchy Strategy
A few years ago, as I was thumbing through an issue of Reader’s Digest, I came upon an article entitled “The Science of a Happy Marriage,” by Michael Gurian.* The subtitle of the article was particularly intriguing: “By nature, men and women aren’t made for each other. How to outsmart our DNA and live happily ever after.”
The thesis of this article was that couples experience five stages in marriage: (1) romance, (2) disillusionment, (3) power struggle, (4) awakening, and finally, (5) long-term marriage. We can all understand the romance, disillusionment, and power struggle stages, but what does he mean by awakening and long-term marriage? Awakening, Gurian explains, is coming to the awareness that romance is possible only in the beginning of a relationship and if a couple wants a long-term marriage they must give up hope for a romantic marriage. When that happens, the couple is able to settle into a long-term relationship.
In other words, in the best marriage each spouse goes his and her own way. Gurian claims that they should have different sets of friends, create separate hobbies, go on separate vacations, and in general, create independent lifestyles. They experience a realization that they can remain married only if they have as little to do with each other as possible. After going through an irrational struggle to blend the lives of a man and a woman, something that’s required in a romantic relationship, they finally realize that living independent lives is the only way for their marriage to survive.
Gurian, like many other spouses, likely experienced the results of the dueling dictators strategy for marital problem solving. That strategy does create a power struggle that seems endless and fruitless. What begins as a romantic relationship morphs into the worst nightmare a couple could have ever imagined. The caring lovers have become assassins.
So by his estimation, to remain married, a couple must give up on the illusion of ever maintaining a romantic relationship and rise to the realization that men and women are simply not meant to blend with each other for any length of time. They’re just too different. Independent decision-making becomes the ultimate solution to marital conflicts.
Really? Is that what every couple must look forward to in life? Is that what you want your marriage to become?
You may have found, like Tony and Jodi, that the dueling dictators strategy doesn’t resolve your marital conflicts, and in fact only makes matters worse. Maybe a man and a woman are so different that they can’t be expected to blend their lives. So you may have started making at least some of your decisions independently of each other. If your spouse doesn’t want to cooperate with you, then your only other hope for survival is to go it alone. I call this the anarchy strategy for resolving marital conflicts. And it’s yet another win-lose strategy that doesn’t work.
The good news is that, contrary to what Mr. Gurian and others may want you to believe, it’s not your only option. Unfortunately most couples don’t realize this before having to learn the hard way how win-lose strategies fail to solve their problems.
The Anatomy of a Conflict
Let’s return to my opening illustration of Tony and Jodi’s marital conflict: Who should get up with little Emily at night?
When their first child, Robbie, had arrived, Tony had suggested that Jodi should get up to care for him at night because his job required greater mental alertness than her job. At first, she willingly sacrificed her own sleep so that Tony could be well rested. But as time went on, she felt that it was unfair to her.
By the time little Emily arrived, Jodi was no longer in agreement with the arrangement. She suggested that Tony take turns with her. But he refused and demanded that she take sole responsibility for Emily’s care at night. He had become a dictator.
Jody tried to submit to his demands for a few days, but eventually decided to take matters into her own hands. So when Emily was crying, she pushed him out of bed to make her point. She had become a dueling dictator.
Of course, the dueling dictatorship strategy didn’t solve the problem for them. Instead, it triggered a fight. Each had their own perspective of how the conflict should be resolved and tried to force it on the other. When his demand was not met, Tony told Jodi that she was not being a good wife and mother by refusing to get up each time Emily cried at night. Jodi in turn told Tony that he was being selfish in assuming that she should be the only parent caring for their children.
The name-calling escalated to such a point that they were both screaming obscenities at each other, which woke up Robbie. Now both of their children were crying and the parents couldn’t even hear it over their own voices.
That fight became a turning point in their marriage, at least for Jodi. She came to the conclusion that arguing was pointless because it didn’t solve anything. So she did what she thought would be the wisest alternative: make some decisions as if Tony didn’t exist.
Regarding the conflict at hand, Jodi decided that she would take care of the children when they cried at night, not because Tony told her to do it but because he wouldn’t do it and she wanted them to be comforted. However, the next time he wanted something from her, he would discover that he’d be on his own.
Jodi began using the anarchy strategy for resolving conflicts: she did whatever she pleased.
At first, Tony was happy that Jodi let him sleep at night. He knew that she was upset with him and had become emotionally distant, but he had important business to transact and didn’t have time to think about Jodi’s issues.
But as the days and weeks followed, Jodi’s independence became increasingly upsetting to Tony. She lived her life without letting him know what she was doing or where she was going. Some evenings, after he arrived home, she would get in the car and drive off, returning after midnight. When he wanted to know where she was, she said it was none of his business.
Tony tried to fight with Jodi when she would just take off, but she wouldn’t fight back. She had her own car, her own checking account, and her own cell phone. She wouldn’t discuss any issue with him, including why she refused to make love. He eventually decided that, to avoid a divorce, he should adopt the same approach: he would do whatever he pleased. Now they were both using the anarchy strategy to solve their problems and were headed down a dangerous path.
So what should they have done instead? That’s what we’re about to find out.
__________________
*Michael Gurian, “The Science of a Happy Marriage,” Reader’s Digest, August 2004, 151–55.