 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / November 2006Gottman's Marriage Tips 101
Sorry if this comes twice. The following is something I found on Gottman's website. Their stuff really inspires me, so I thought I'd share: "Gottman's Marriage Tips 101 Since 1973, Dr. John Gottman has studied what he calls the "masters and disasters" of marriage. Ordinary people from the general public took part in long-term studies, and Dr. Gottman learned what makes marriages fail, what makes them succeed, and what can make marriages a source of great meaning. By examining partners' heart rates, facial expressions, and how they talk about their relationship to each other and to other people, Dr. Gottman is able to predict with more than 90% accuracy which couples will make it, and which will not. What advice does Dr. Gottman have to offer? Below are some of his top suggestions for how to keep your marriage strong. Seek help early. The average couple waits six years before seeking help for marital problems (and keep in mind, half of all marriages that end do so in the first seven years). This means the average couple lives with unhappiness for far too long. Edit yourself. Couples who avoid saying every critical thought when discussing touchy topics are consistently the happiest. Soften your "start up." Arguments first "start up" because a spouse sometimes escalates the conflict from the get-go by making a critical or contemptuous remark in a confrontational tone. Bring up problems gently and without blame. Accept influence. A marriage succeeds to the extent that the husband can accept influence from his wife. If a woman says, "Do you have to work Thursday night? My mother is coming that weekend, and I need your help getting ready," and her husband replies, "My plans are set, and I'm not changing them". This guy is in a shaky marriage. A husband's ability to be influenced by his wife (rather than vice-versa) is crucial because research shows women are already well practiced at accepting influence from men, and a true partnership only occurs when a husband can do so as well. Have high standards. Happy couples have high standards for each other even as newlyweds. The most successful couples are those who, even as newlyweds, refused to accept hurtful behavior from one another. The lower the level of tolerance for bad behavior in the beginning of a relationship, the happier the couple is down the road. Learn to repair and exit the argument. Successful couples know how to exit an argument. Happy couples know how to repair the situation before an argument gets completely out of control. Successful repair attempts include: changing the topic to something completely unrelated; using humor; stroking your partner with a caring remark ("I understand that this is hard for you"); making it clear you're on common ground ("This is our problem"); backing down (in marriage, as in the martial art Aikido, you have to yield to win); and, in general, offering signs of appreciation for your partner and his or her feelings along the way ("I really appreciate and want to thank you for...."). If an argument gets too heated, take a 20-minute break, and agree to approach the topic again when you are both calm. Focus on the bright side. In a happy marriage, while discussing problems, couples make at least five times as many positive statements to and about each other and their relationship as negative ones. For example, "We laugh a lot;" not, "We never have any fun". A good marriage must have a rich climate of positivity. Make deposits to your emotional bank account. " > Sorry if this comes twice. > > The following is something I found on Gottman's website. Their stuff > really inspires me, so I thought I'd share: This was great, Caren. Thanks. I will coment on a few of these, and snip a bunch. > Edit yourself. Couples who avoid saying every critical thought when > discussing touchy topics are consistently the happiest. I like the way he put this. "Editing" means changing the words to better express what you want to express. "I statements" and all that. It really does make a difference IME. "I'm feeling a bit lonely and neglected" really does go down better than "you are so selfish," and I'd say that it is more accurate, too. > Accept influence. A marriage succeeds to the extent that the husband > can accept influence from his wife. If a woman says, "Do you have to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accepting influence from men, and a true partnership only occurs when a > husband can do so as well. I wonder how men feel hearing/reading this? I think it is fairly true, and I don't usually find much use in gender stereotypes. My H does listen to my requests and sometimes modifies his behavior in response - and it is extremely important to me that he does this (and I remembner dating a guy who didn't - briefly). It shows respect for both my reason and my happiness. And I do think women get much more training in being accomodating and considerate - sometimes too much so. This isn't to say there aren't selfish women and generous men. That is obviously nonsense. I am only saying that culturally, men tend to learn more about how to go their own way and women learn more about how to maintain relationships. Hopefully this is happening less over time, though I certainly still see a huge difference between, say, a boys' basketball team and a girls' basketball team. > Have high standards. Happy couples have high standards for each other > even as newlyweds. The most successful couples are those who, even as > newlyweds, refused to accept hurtful behavior from one another. The > lower the level of tolerance for bad behavior in the beginning of a > relationship, the happier the couple is down the road. One of my faves. People treat you how you let them. > In a happy marriage, while discussing > problems, couples make at least five times as many positive statements > to and about each other and their relationship as negative ones. I suspect this is true, but there is no possibility that I will ever be able to keep even of rough count of these proportions. > > Sorry if this comes twice. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I wonder how men feel hearing/reading this? Well, I can't speak for "men." What Gottman says about women having more practice at accepting influence rings true to me as a cultural observation, but it may just be prejudice (on my part or his). When I think of the couples I know well enough to judge this, both partners seem to be at similar levels of "able to accept influence." > > > Sorry if this comes twice. > > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > When I think of the couples I know well enough to judge this, both > partners seem to be at similar levels of "able to accept influence." I would not say that about the couples I know. (Duelling anecdotes!) The men have to work harder to learn this IME. > Well, I can't speak for "men." What Gottman says about women having > more practice at accepting influence rings true to me as a cultural > observation, but it may just be prejudice (on my part or his). > > When I think of the couples I know well enough to judge this, both > partners seem to be at similar levels of "able to accept influence." In my current marriage, I think I have to work harder to accept influence than my husband does. In fact, I have to occasionally stop myself from steamrolling him in the decision-making process. The things I hold opinions on I tend to hold strongly, and I have a strong, and in some cases majority (such as when it comes to my kids/his stepkids) interest in both the "macro" issues (career, locale, etc.) of family and the micro ones (paint colors, choice of activities on the weekend, what we're having for dinner). In my first marriage, neither of us was very good at accepting influence. > > Well, I can't speak for "men." What Gottman says about women having > > more practice at accepting influence rings true to me as a cultural [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > influence than my husband does. In fact, I have to occasionally stop > myself from steamrolling him in the decision-making process. I know what you mean here. I made sure this time to marry a man who is as strong willed as I am, because I was always having to pull my punches in my first marriage. I don't want to be a steam roller. But I don't want to have to maintain someone's else boundaries for him either. >>>Well, I can't speak for "men." What Gottman says about women having >>>more practice at accepting influence rings true to me as a cultural [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in my first marriage. I don't want to be a steam roller. But I don't > want to have to maintain someone's else boundaries for him either. My husband has been somewhat accepting of my influence in telling him that it's ok for him to try to influence me (or to reject my influence!) > >>>Well, I can't speak for "men." What Gottman says about women having > >>>more practice at accepting influence rings true to me as a cultural [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My husband has been somewhat accepting of my influence in telling him > that it's ok for him to try to influence me (or to reject my influence!) LOL! [snip] >> > Accept influence. A marriage succeeds to the extent that the husband >> > can accept influence from his wife. If a woman says, "Do you have to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >When I think of the couples I know well enough to judge this, both >partners seem to be at similar levels of "able to accept influence." As often the case, I think the 'men' label and generalization distracts from the real point -- that it is important that both partners accept sufficient influence from each other. If the man accepts less influence than the woman, but she doesn't accept enough either, then they're in trouble, and will remain so even if he improves to her level. In my first marriage, I definitely, and by an enormous margin, accepted more influence than my wife. In my current marriage, I probably accept less influence. But that isn't the question, imho. Question is, do we both accept enough? Knock wood, it seems yes. But (we have our own copy of the book) we're also aware of it as a potential issue.  SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > distracts from the real point -- that it is important that both > partners accept sufficient influence from each other. In general, I think you're right. But Gottman is _specifically_ making the point that "accepting inflence" is more likely to be something that men fail at than something that women fail at. How useful it is to know that may be debatable, except that if you are a man in a relationship, this is good food for thought. > But Gottman is _specifically_ making the point that "accepting > inflence" is more likely to be something that men fail at than > something that women fail at. > > How useful it is to know that may be debatable, except that if you are > a man in a relationship, this is good food for thought. Maybe it means that one partner has more leadership or control in one area and the other has it in other areas? Traditionally, though, many areas were more gender specific in areas of leadership and women are now stepping up as leaders in areas where they were under represented before? I do think we have definately had a cultural bent where men were more the Leaders or Heads of the Household.....more black and white....in my geeration, half a click up from yours though. The early Babyboom opened a lot of doors in the gender equity arena and larger numbers in your age group....a 10-15 years difference IIRC are walking through them in large numbers. i wonder how it will be for those who are now 20 somethings? Grace Grace >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >How useful it is to know that may be debatable, except that if you are >a man in a relationship, this is good food for thought. It's the utility matter I'm interested in, in the context. It's a step up from the French 'cherchez la femme' (look for the woman -- a common saying, we were told, in any case where something had gone wrong). But, as an isolated comment, it's rather akin to 'if there are problems in the marriage, look to the guy not accepting influence sufficiently'. Now I know there's more to the book than this, and more to the point he was making than this -- because I've read the book. But in newsgroup brief comments, the elaborations are lost (brevity being the soul of wit and folks being witty). Since we've both read the book, I mentioned this one to my wife and asked her how I was doing about influence. Her first response was that I was a good influence on her, and oddly (if you didn't know her history) including especially the part about my exerting influence on her to do things that she wants to be doing. (Ok, a complaint that I wasn't telling her to eat peanut brittle often enough :-) First response to the more specific question of me accepting influence was to laugh. Uh oh. But it was more an amused chuckle than guffaw of amusement at the notion of me being influenced. Then there was the elaboration: that I do take influence ... in my own way. Uh oh again. But, no, not a bad comment and I'm ok about doing so. The thing is, I, like she, adapt to the influence in our own ways. They're often different, but she uses my prime mechanism often enough to understand it (and had been similarly called on it herself). The thing is, a command to change X is not likely to result in me changing X, much less in the desired way. But after she suggests I change X in way Y, I generally say something to the effect of 'let me think about it'. And ... the important part ... I do think about it, and generally do make the desired change. The thing I think is for general consideration in the group is that matter of there being different ways of accepting influence. It would be easy to take, for example, my 'let me think about it' response as blowing off the idea -- as rejecting influence. It isn't; but if a spouse took it that way, rejecting influence would be the result (who's going to make the change after getting railed at and being told that what they said _means_ that they won't make the change?) A different side is that 'accepting influence' may not occur in the way the influencer expected. Suppose a spouse asked for the other to help out more around the house. What was in mind was, say, washing dishes but what the responsive spouse actually did was to do more picking up of stuff. It can be easy to not notice the response when it isn't what you expected. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences > >> [snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a common saying, we were told, in any case where something had > gone wrong). I thought it was just used in discussing films noirs! > But, as an isolated comment, it's rather akin to > 'if there are problems in the marriage, look to the guy not accepting > influence sufficiently'. Now I know there's more to the book > than this, and more to the point he was making than this -- because > I've read the book. But in newsgroup brief comments, the elaborations > are lost (brevity being the soul of wit and folks being witty). Yes, as an isolated comment it is not especially useful. One could also isolate one of his "horsemen" which would not be useful if one ignored the other three! Here is the thing though: Gottman is as close as that field seems to have to an actual scientist. That is, he has spent time doing studies (admittedly only obervational ones) of married couples to try to figure out how to tell the difference between successful ones and unsuccessful ones. Observationally he finds this to be an important difference between the two. That observation seems both interesting and useful to me, though it is of course subject to abuse. > wife and asked her how I was doing about influence. Her first > response was that I was a good influence on her, and oddly (if [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The thing I think is for general consideration in the group is that > matter of there being different ways of accepting influence. Absolutely. Having said that, I suspect it is important not only to accept influence from one's spouse, but also for the spouse to be aware that this happens. > A different side is that 'accepting influence' may not occur > in the way the influencer expected. Suppose a spouse asked > for the other to help out more around the house. What was in > mind was, say, washing dishes but what the responsive spouse > actually did was to do more picking up of stuff. It can be > easy to not notice the response when it isn't what you expected. This happens fairly often in our household. My husband is, in some ways (as I pointed out), very accepting of influence. He tries to take into account my needs, wants, and interests whether those things have been explicitly stated or merely intuited. However. His "influenced" responses do tend to channel down certain paths that reflect his own needs, wants, and interests! Two concrete examples: The old Johnny Depp thing. He'll add Johnny Depp movies to the Netflix queue, thinking of me and my interests....except, the ones he adds are the ones that are in the genres he likes and that I don't...thrillers and heebie-jeebie stuff. Or, if I've been stressing out about housework and he's feeling pangs of guilt for being "lazy," he'll throw himself into some productive task for hours to be "useful." Now, that does reflect my influence, because if I weren't around, he'd probably spend those same hours reading political blogs or watching Link TV. Except he'll throw himself into home-improvement tasks that don't lighten my load at all (which is what I really want when I'm stressing about housework etc.) Never mind the fact that his project list tends to function like a Pez dispenser--last one in is the first one out--so the projects that have been sitting around for a long time unfinished and getting on my nerves are passed over in favor of the last thing I mentioned an interest in getting done. We've had a few miscues over why my reaction to his project productivity is not met with the effusions of enthusiasm on my part that he expected. [..] > In my first marriage, I definitely, and by an enormous margin, > accepted more influence than my wife. In my current marriage, I > probably accept less influence. And this is why I am confused by the term. To my thinking, and the way I understand the word "influence", If I am open to being influenced by someone it means I value and respect their opinion *more* than someone whom I'm not willing to accept as much influence from. So to me if you were willing to accept a lot of influence from your ex it means you really liked her, no? But then, I am assuming that you were not happy in your first marriage and are happy (or happier) now. > [..] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > opinion *more* than someone whom I'm not willing to accept as much > influence from. That is very good if that is how you lead your life, and I think it is a positive example. But let me point out that many people accept influence from others whose opinions they may _not_ value and respect especially highly. For example, the world is full of people who neither value nor respect their bosses. But almost everyone weighs their the desires of their boss heavily (even if they don't always _do_ what the boss says). There seem to be married couples where one partner has explicitly or implicitly agreed to give in to the wishes of the other partner. There could be various reasons for this, but unfortunately valueing and respecting their partners opinion is _not_ the only possible reason! > So to me if you were willing to accept a lot of > influence from your ex it means you really liked her, no? But then, I > am assuming that you were not happy in your first marriage and are > happy (or happier) now. >>[..] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > their bosses. But almost everyone weighs their the desires of their > boss heavily (even if they don't always _do_ what the boss says). Yes, that's true if "influence" means "taking their desire into account". That's not what it means to me, but if Gottman uses it that way it makes perfect sense. I certainly believe that couples should consider each others' desires and, furthermore, try to accommodate them as much as they can - whether or not they are influenced by them! BTW, I don't think my boss would like the idea of me "accepting influence" from him in that sense! I'd be out the door fast if I told him that after weighing his desires heavily, I've decided not to implement them. :-) > >>[..] > >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > him that after weighing his desires heavily, I've decided not to > implement them. :-) Well, maybe we disagree on nuance, but surely there are things your boss could ask you to do which you wouldn't do. And (I don't know what your job is) but in any job I've ever had (including some jobs of not much complexity) there have been situations where the best thing to do turned out _not_ to be what my boss told me to do. When that is the case, and it is impossible to consult first, I've certainly done things differently from how I was told. So what I'm told to do is important, but it isn't the _only_ think that is important. >>BTW, I don't think my boss would like the idea of me "accepting >>influence" from him in that sense! I'd be out the door fast if I told [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, maybe we disagree on nuance, but surely there are things your > boss could ask you to do which you wouldn't do. It very much depends on what it is that he's asking. My boss is more like a project leader in technical issues. As such, he actually doesn't tell us what to do, but we decide together. In those areas he accepts as much influence from me as I do from him. In the nitty gritty details he defers to me and my judgment, and even when he thinks something should be done a certain way he'll accept my influence on it. But in broad areas (like what should be our next group project) he is not only way more knowledgeable than me but also has a different level of responsibility, and I sure won't go against his decision even if I think we should be working on something else. Having said that, I genuinely accept influence from him because he's brilliant and has a lot to offer. But I don't view "taking his desires into consideration" as a part of that influence. I simply *do* what he wants in the areas that he is the ultimate decision maker. > And (I don't know > what your job is) but in any job I've ever had (including some jobs of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So what I'm told to do is important, but it isn't the _only_ think > that is important. Yes, I agree. But would you characterize your relationship with your boss as "accepting his influence"? I don't disagree with any of the points made, just don't relate to that phrase the way that some others seem to do. > >>BTW, I don't think my boss would like the idea of me "accepting > >>influence" from him in that sense! I'd be out the door fast if I told [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > points made, just don't relate to that phrase the way that some others > seem to do. Not really. For the most part I do my job the way I see fit. On certain things we consult. If we hit a place where we absolutely disagreed and couldn't find a good compromise, I would either do things his way, or ask him to have someone else do that. That hasn't happened. He accepts my influence also! >[..] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >assuming that you were not happy in your first marriage and are happy >(or happier) now. 'willing' is what's misleading you in your thinking. Better to say that I was _un_willing to stage multi-hour arguments over every single thing either of us did, every day. As a result, aside from those things which I did think warranted pitched fits over (mostly health and welfare of my stepdaughter), what was done was what the ex wanted. Earlier on, this was less an issue because I do like to try out different activities and ways of doing things. So 'accepting her influence' in those days was a matter of trying out novelty, which was ok with me. In later days, it meant that I never did ... well, quite a few things that I like to do (always did, just deferred for a while -- which turned out to be the rest of the marriage, not the expected week or month or three). And the things that I did do, were also necessarily done in the way she wanted them done (which didn't always make much difference to me, but that business of how I stacked the dishes being a life or death matter, for example, did not increase my enthusiasm for the task). More in my response to Doug. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >>[..] >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that I was _un_willing to stage multi-hour arguments over every single > thing either of us did, every day. Yes, and I consider that "giving in" or "compromise" or "doing what she asked", etc. Influence, to me, is either willingly accepted, or subconsciously imposed upon. I don't consider conscious unwilling acceptance of someone else's decree as *influence* - and IMV when my friends talk about "accepting influence" they really mean "doing what they want", but feel that using the former phrase makes it sound more legitimate or something! >>>[..] >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >"accepting influence" they really mean "doing what they want", but feel >that using the former phrase makes it sound more legitimate or something! I, and, from some of the other back and forths, most other folks you've been having back and forths with, am using a more neutral notion of influence. If you do something differently because of something (someone) than you would without it/them, then you've been influenced. The influence could be for good, bad, neutral, and could be an intentional thing, accidental, horrible side effect of the actual request. In the Gottman context, he's focussed more on the things you do specifically because of your spouse (whether explicitly requested or not). But, again, the influences can be of all sorts from huge to small. Picking up your socks because your spouse asked would be an influence of theirs. Not putting a box of books on the end of the couch your wife likes to sit on is an influence of hers. Being considerate of someone is an influence of them on you. Certainly I've known people who would not let their spouse's (or roommate's) seating preferences influence where they dropped their stuff. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >>>>[..] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > something (someone) than you would without it/them, then you've > been influenced. Yes, I realize that, and have acknowledged that my understanding of "accepting influence" is different from how it's used by most. IMO the phrase is appealing because it takes a somewhat unpleasant concept that people can feel resistant to (doing what someone else wants), and make it *sound* positive, pleasant, and simple and profound at the same time! Like other concepts of this kind, it's easy for it to become a catch phrase that's used in all sorts of situations even if it doesn't apply. My original entry, which most everyone disagreed with, was that regardless of what Gottman means what I've seen in practice (especially when a person complains about their spouse not accepting influence) is that it means "doing what I want". Nothing that I've seen here has change my mind yet. Your example actually confirms how I see it. In your first marriage you accepted more influence (i.e. followed Gottman's advice) and weren't happy. In your current marriage you accept less influence and are happier. At least in this *one* case you proved him wrong! In good relationships people naturally influence each other (in every sense of the word). I certainly do things for my husband and he does the same for me. Close to 95% of the time we do it willingly and happily. We also have influenced each other greatly in the way that *I* use the word. But if I ask him to change something, and he does it while preferring not to, I'd say he's compromising for my sake. If he doesn't change, I'd say he is not willing to compromise on that particular thing. *Thinking* in those terms keeps it at my conscious level that the issue is, really, about give and take and compromise when there are conflicts. Because I think of it this way, I neither get very upset when he refuses to *compromise* on something, nor do I forget that I should be willing to compromise on something else. I have observed that my friends who use Gottman's terminology feel differently. They view it as *him* not willing to accept influence from them (which he's advised to do by Gottman!), and as a result they don't see the give and take nature of the whole deal. In other words when conflicts aren't resolved to their satisfaction it's because of their husband's failure. I am in no way saying that everyone sees (or subconsciously uses) the phrase that way. But I believe that it has the potential of making women feel their husbands are more responsible for the problems in their marriage than they really are. Seeing it in action with some of my friends makes me more convinced! > >>[..] > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes, and I consider that "giving in" or "compromise" or "doing what > she asked", etc. I'm confused Ellie. I thought you believed (based on earlier posts) that "accepting influence" was the same as "giving in." Was that not correct? Has it changed? > Influence, to me, is either willingly accepted, or subconsciously > imposed upon. I don't consider conscious unwilling acceptance of > someone else's decree as *influence* - and IMV when my friends talk > about "accepting influence" they really mean "doing what they want", > but feel that using the former phrase makes it sound more legitimate > or something! I feel like you want to pin down "accepting influence" as either being positive (in and of itself) or as being negative (in and of itself) when, devoid of context, it is neither. >>>>[..] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > that "accepting influence" was the same as "giving in." Was that not > correct? Has it changed? No, it hasn't changed. I meant that from what I've seem people *use* the phrase to mean "giving in". However, I think "doing what I want" is a better and more accurate way of putting it. *I* think accepting influence means changing the way one thinks or feels about something. >>Influence, to me, is either willingly accepted, or subconsciously >>imposed upon. I don't consider conscious unwilling acceptance of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > positive (in and of itself) or as being negative (in and of itself) > when, devoid of context, it is neither. No, it has nothing to do with the term being positive or negative, just how it's used, and what it means to some people who use it. I think I have clarified my views in the other post. If it's still not clear to you I'll be happy to explain further. > > Accept influence. A marriage succeeds to the extent that the husband > > can accept influence from his wife. If a woman says, "Do you have to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and my happiness. And I do think women get much more training in being > accomodating and considerate - sometimes too much so. I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been observing the various relationships that I am intimately familiar with. My conclusions may be skewed because of the people that I know, but I share them here anyway. First of, it seems to me that "accepting influence" means "giving in" in practice! Among the marriages that I know, when the man is dominant (woman "accepting influence"), the dominance is at macro level, in that, overall lifestyle and values are set by the man, but the woman has decision making freedom in minor everyday stuff. When the woman is dominant, the overall lifestyle is much more egalitarian, and both influence the general path of the family's life, but the man gets micormanaged much more in details. I've also observed that in the male-dominated model the woman is either miserable (because of lack of influence in major life decisions), or if she can accept the role of the man as the decision maker, she's pretty comfortable with her level of control in the details of their life. In the female-dominated models, though the man usually accepts it and doesn't make major fuss, he's mostly unhappy with the level of micormanagement, but resigns to it and tries to satisfy his need for control outside of their home and family life. Overall, I don't think I'd be happy accepting influence in either case! Unless there is a feeling of equity and shared control, the mere fact that people don't make much fuss or seek divorce isn't an indication that they are *happy* being the one who is usually made to accept "influence". In my view the reason that man accepting influence works better (meaning less divorce and voiced discontent) is that the *kind* of influence that's imposed by women is wide and shallow, and as such, less life altering than the narrow but deep influence of men! The patterns are changing as the overall male/female power structure of society is changing. > I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence > from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been > observing the various relationships that I am intimately familiar with. > My conclusions may be skewed because of the people that I know, but I > share them here anyway. First of, it seems to me that "accepting > influence" means "giving in" in practice! Yikes, that's not good. I honestly think that DH and I both accept influence from each other, and that neither one of us is dominant. Also, I don't think accepting influence is the same as giving in. Although I might question how much influence was being accepted if decisions never ever changed! If I say "I'd like you to go shopping tonight" (DH is in charge of the shopping) and he says "I'd have to go really late because I have hockey. I'm going tomorrow night instead." I would still feel that he accepts my influence. He would go tonight if there weren't a reason not to. > > I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence > > from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm going tomorrow night instead." I would still feel that he accepts my > influence. He would go tonight if there weren't a reason not to. Yes, I know what you mean and agree with it. But I wouldn't call this accepting influence, rather cooperating in running our lives. There are many things that have to be done on daily basis which are not fun to do. In good relationships people find equitable ways to distribute these *chores* so to speak. I assume that your husband doesn't think he is being burdened by much more than it's equitable in your lives, does he? To me, "accepting influence" sounds like something that one accepts while not thinking it's quite fair, or different from what one wants done and stuff like that. For example, I have one friend who has decided that holidays should be celebrated with her family and not her husband's. She socializes with the in-laws in other occasions, but not holidays. The husband made a bit of complaint originally but eventually decided that in the interest of keeping peace and making her happy he's willing to accept her choice. Of course he is not that close with his family, but it wasn't something that he wanted to do. He accepted his wife's influence, and though not too happy about it, hasn't made it an issue for quite some time. > > > I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence > > > from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > while not thinking it's quite fair, or different from what one wants > done and stuff like that. It is hard to come up with better examples because we work so hard at finding solutions that we are both happy with. Ah, I have a better example. I am working hard at decluttering and organizing our house. DH would much prefer to keep everything he has ever owned. Seriously - he doesn't like to throw away broken appliances when we have a new one that works. He may know intellectually that our house would fill up and we'd have to live in the back yard, but his emotions are just what you describe - he thinks it isn't quite fair and not what he wants that stuff leaves our home. And he is accepting my influence on this. > For example, I have one friend who has decided that holidays should be > celebrated with her family and not her husband's. She socializes with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > though not too happy about it, hasn't made it an issue for quite some > time. It is so hard to know what to think about stories like that. It does sound like just giving in. But maybe there is more to the story. Or maybe not. > > I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence > > from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm going tomorrow night instead." I would still feel that he accepts my > influence. He would go tonight if there weren't a reason not to. I call it complimentary completion....where both compliment and complete the other. > I have been very conscious of this concept (men accepting influence > from women) ever since I heard it a few years ago, and have been > observing the various relationships that I am intimately familiar with. > My conclusions may be skewed because of the people that I know, but I > share them here anyway. First of, it seems to me that "accepting > influence" means "giving in" in practice! Thinking about this a bit more I'd like to clarify what I am talking about. When I hear "accepting influence" as an advice to improve marriage, what comes to my mind is "giving in". That doesn't mean that I deny positive *influence*. Quite the contrary, I believe that a happy couple influence each other all the time. That's one of the benefits of marriage IMV. I have been greatly influenced by my husband, especially in the areas of learning how to be less tense and more content in some situations. I've also been positively influenced by him in expanding my appreciation of different kinds of food. He has been happily influenced by me too. He loves the way I have changed his sense of style and fashion for instance! We have both influenced each other in widening our world views. In all these cases I'd say we have invited and sought the influence instead of accepting it. If there is no resistance to the influence it doesn't translate to "acceptance" to me. :-) Talking about fashion, I have a girlfriend who never owned a skirt or any shoes other than sneakers until she met her husband. He turned her into a high-heel and tight skirt woman who matches every pair of shoes with an appropriate purse (the thought of that!). She LOVES it. She says she never knew better and feels like she's been exposed to a whole new and exciting world. Has she accepted his influence? Sure. But for some reason I don't think the phrase applies here! If she *didn't* like to dress up but did it anyway to please her husband, then I'd call it "accepting influence". My understanding may not be what Gottman means, but more often than not when I hear people talk about their spouse to "accepting their influence" that's what they are talking about! > My understanding may not be what Gottman means, but more often than not > when I hear people talk about their spouse to "accepting their > influence" that's what they are talking about! Yeah, I don't really know either. I assumed that he/they meant what I mean, but I read the book a long time ago. >>My understanding may not be what Gottman means, but more often than not >>when I hear people talk about their spouse to "accepting their >>influence" that's what they are talking about! > > Yeah, I don't really know either. I assumed that he/they meant what I > mean, but I read the book a long time ago. Well, you are far ahead of me. I haven't read the book (that's why I don't know what he means), but I have quite a few friends who have, and my impression of what *they* mean by the phrase (which they like very much!) is that their husbands should go along with what they want when there is a conflict. Methinks that sometimes people read something and interpret it very differently from what the author intended - because it suits them that way! > >>My understanding may not be what Gottman means, but more often than not > >>when I hear people talk about their spouse to "accepting their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Methinks that sometimes people read something and interpret it very > differently from what the author intended - because it suits them that way! I absolutely disagree that it's about being told what to do and to become compliant. It's more about learning how to be open to learning a female way of doing things...or in the case of a same sex couple...to do things in a different way. Here's a great example (well, I think it is anyway :-) Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a pile and as I was folding, it suddenly struck me that he was taking twice as long because he'd hang a shirt on a hangar, go into the closet and then return with another hanger. I said, "why not just grab a bunch of hangers, and after you get them all on hangers go into the closet once?" HIs reaction was, "why don't you mind your own business and do laundry the way that you do it and I"ll do it my way?" I could not believe that what I said got him angry. We actually discussed this with the Gottmans. They asked dh what got him so mad and he said that it felt like I was telling him what to do. The fact is, I was not telling him what to do; I was sharing my way too many years of doing laundry and SUGGESTING an easier, less time consuming way. He heard, "do it my way." Instead of getting defensive as he did, if he did not like my idea, it would have been absolutely fine for him to not comply and to simply leave it at "it works for me". Even something like, "thanks for the suggestion, but I've tried it that way and this makes more sense to me." The point is, not so much that they comply, it's that they listen, respect and learn that interaction they might not have been taught. My dh is the son of a very, VERY controlling woman, who still tries to do her thing with her, him and our whole family, so I do see where he's coming from. However, he has gotten better, he does realize that it's not about trying to tell him what to do and it does create more closeness and warmth when he is RECEPTIVE to my suggestions. In fact, I think that the word receptive is a better word to use than accepting influence. >>>>My understanding may not be what Gottman means, but more often than not >>>>when I hear people talk about their spouse to "accepting their [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > do things in a different way. Here's a great example (well, I think it > is anyway :-) Yes, you are right. When I hear my friends talk about it I get a different impression. My guess is that it's their frustration talking, because whatever that influence is, they don't feel their husbands accept it! > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > closet once?" HIs reaction was, "why don't you mind your own business > and do laundry the way that you do it and I"ll do it my way?" You know, I am wondering if the core issue wasn't him rejecting your influence, but an underlying tension or resentment between the two of you which made him (and perhaps you, in a different way) defensive? I can't imagine responding that way to one's spouse even if one didn't think the suggestion was good and rejected it. > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can't imagine responding that way to one's spouse even if one didn't > think the suggestion was good and rejected it. (jumping in) I know exactly what Caren means, because my stepfather is like this (though he has gotten much better). In his case he had an extremely controlling father, and *any* suggestion as to how to do something more efficiently puts his back up. > > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > controlling father, and *any* suggestion as to how to do something more > efficiently puts his back up. I, like most others, interpret things based on my own experience. If my husband responded that way to me I'd think he's in some way or at some level upset with me, not merely unreceptive to my suggestion. Other than the almost inevitable influence that a couple have on each other because of blending their lives, I am tying to understand what people mean by "accepting influence". I understand it conceptually and in theory, but am still wondering how it manifests itself in practice - if it doesn't meant "I want you to do things my way", that is. > > > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > in theory, but am still wondering how it manifests itself in practice - > if it doesn't meant "I want you to do things my way", that is. Here is what I think it means. I think for me to "accept influence" from my wife means that if she wants something to be a certain way, then I weight that desire as a serious consideration - even if it is different from what I want or if it doesn't seem sensible to me. It doesn't necessarily mean that I _do_ what she wants, but it means that in a case of conflict, I am more likely to do what she wants than I would be if I didn't "accept her influence." Since (of course) I think I'm interpreting what Gottman means correctly, I'll point out that he uses the word "influence" and not the word "obey" (or any other form of that verb). I believe he also uses that phrase in conjunction with the phrase "share power." Again, take my interpretation for what it is worth, but I think Gottman approaches the relationship as if it should be relatively egalitarian, but believes that women are more likely to be predisposed toward taking the desires of their mates into account, so that the determining factor in this realm is likely to be whether the _man_ is willing to take his wife's desires into account. > > > > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > > > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > determining factor in this realm is likely to be whether the _man_ is > willing to take his wife's desires into account. I believe that you've captured the essence of what the Gottmans teach. Now would you please go clean up the damn kitchen and scrub the sink the way _I_ do it! > > Here is what I think it means. I think for me to "accept influence" > > from my wife means that if she wants something to be a certain way, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Now would you please go clean up the damn kitchen and scrub the sink > the way _I_ do it! And Doug...please note: I used a softened start up! [..] > > > I know exactly what Caren means, because my stepfather is like this > > > (though he has gotten much better). In his case he had an extremely [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that in a case of conflict, I am more likely to do what she wants than > I would be if I didn't "accept her influence." Thanks for the input. How does this differ from *compromise*? > Since (of course) I think I'm interpreting what Gottman means > correctly, I'll point out that he uses the word "influence" and not > the word "obey" (or any other form of that verb). I believe he also > uses that phrase in conjunction with the phrase "share power." Yes, and perhaps the choice of words is what's confusing to me (that, and what I've observed in my friends who use the phrase). Influence, to me, means an inner effect on a person. When I say my husband has influenced me in xyz, I mean that he has changed my understanding/view/attitude/approach in xyz matters. And yes, in order for him to reach me at that level I have to be open and receptive to his ideas and respect them enough to allow myself be influenced by them. But when I hear examples of "accepting influence" from people that I know they're mostly about accepting one way of doing things as opposed to another, regardless of whether or not the person thinks it should be done that way. My test for influence vs asking things to be done a certain way is to see how I feel and react if my husband doesn't respond the way I hoped he did. Would I be upset? If I want to influence him, say, in his political views, and he's not agreeing with me, I sure don't feel upset with him. I may keep discussing things, hoping that he'll agree with my view, but it won't make me mad that he doesn't agree with me on a political issue. But if I want him to, say, go see a show with me and he refuses because he prefers to stay home that day, it may bother me. I don't view the latter as him not accepting influence, just disagreeing with a particular thing that I want to do in a particular way! > [..] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for the input. How does this differ from *compromise*? It may, and it may not. Compromise is an outcome, accepting influence is part of the process. In a difference of opinion, you have a number of options. I can think of at least 4: 1) do it my way. 2) do it your way. 3) compromise (not always an option) 4) find a third way we both like (preferred) Accepting influence can lead to _any_ of those outcomes. Outcome 4 seems best to me, but is again, not always possible. > > Since (of course) I think I'm interpreting what Gottman means > > correctly, I'll point out that he uses the word "influence" and not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > opposed to another, regardless of whether or not the person thinks it > should be done that way. Well, I don't know what to say. That isn't how I think of this term, or use it. But it is a common human failing to take something said by an "expert" and then to try to use it as ammunition to get your own way. > My test for influence vs asking things to be done a certain way is to > see how I feel and react if my husband doesn't respond the way I hoped [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > disagreeing with a particular thing that I want to do in a particular > way! > Other than the almost inevitable influence that a couple have on each > other because of blending their lives, I am tying to understand what > people mean by "accepting influence". I understand it conceptually and > in theory, but am still wondering how it manifests itself in practice - > if it doesn't meant "I want you to do things my way", that is. I was trying to find my copy of "The Seven Principles..." so I could quote it, but it seems to have gone missing at the moment. But at any rate, I think accepting influence goes beyond "giving in" (though it does include that) to mean also taking the other person's wants and needs into consideration. As a trivial example, if my husband does not like onions, say, it is accepting influence to simply stop putting onions in the spaghetti sauce. It's not really "giving in," because I haven't staked out a position on onions/no onions that is then conceded. I'm simply and quietly taking my husband's wants into consideration. It also includes something as basic as consulting the other person on decisions. There are a whole number of decisions and topics on which there may not be clear-cut his-vs.-hers positions. Again in the food realm, simply asking "what would you like for dinner tonight?" is accepting influence. > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > closet once?" HIs reaction was, "why don't you mind your own business > and do laundry the way that you do it and I"ll do it my way?" Gee..that reminds me of my husband!!! In the reverse.....i was folding shirts in the way i've always folded shirts..which is sort of backwards now that i think of it...and he said, "Why don't you fold them forwards so the collar stays in tact!" And i just looked at him in shock!! (my ex didn't even know how to fold a shirt and here was this new age guy commenting on my folding!) I actually tried doing it his way, but i was so engrained in doing it my way that in the end i just did it my way..and he does it his way..and when we watch each other do it, we are just amused! I think.....don't say a word....."Celebrate our differences"..............:o) My ex used to always put his dirty clothes on top of the laundry basket as well...and never in it! And i used to say, "Can't you just put it inside the basket, just once!" Laundry....is such a contentious issue.....:o) Temily > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > think.....don't say a word....."Celebrate our > differences"..............:o) There are no such problems in our house. No one folds anything except me. > > > Several years ago, early in my marriage, I threw our clean/just dried > > > laundry on our bed and asked my husband to help fold. We each had a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > There are no such problems in our house. No one folds anything except > me. Yes. I'm finding this conversation amusing. The idea of my wife folding and putting away her clothes at all is somewhat foreign. I believe, left to her own devices, Her system would be the three pile system. 1) a pile of dirty clothes. 2) a pile of clean clothes (next to the dryer, on the floor) 3) a "pile" of clothes which have been worn once, but might get worn again before adding to pile 1. This third "pile" is more like a "layer" and tends to be spread throughout the house. > > There are no such problems in our house. No one folds anything except > > me. > > Yes. I'm finding this conversation amusing. The idea of my wife > folding and putting away her clothes at all is somewhat foreign. I must give my husband credit because he uses a chair, instead of floor, to pile his stuff - and he has gotten pretty good at doing his own laundry and hanging shirts right out of dryer so they don't get wrinkled. For an extremely smart man in every way, I'm amazed at the time it took to teach him how to hang a shirt on a hanger properly. I gave up on teaching him how to fold things though - even towels and flat sheets! > I believe, left to her own devices, Her system would be the three pile > system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > again before adding to pile 1. This third "pile" is more like a > "layer" and tends to be spread throughout the house. LOL! We were just talking with the older son about "piles of clothes" last night, because we're reclaiming his room and he's decided to use the basement room (that is about to be soundproofed, remember?) for his crash days at home. Separate piles on floor would be a great improvement for both of them. They say that the reason that clothes are piled on the floor (in one heap) is that they can't tell what is dirty and what's clean. They can only identify visibly dirty stuff which will end up in laundry basket. But they can't keep track of things that are worn but not ready for the basket yet. They claim that if they could tell, they'd definitely put away the clean stuff! Freshly laundered clothes first get piled on the bed *ready to be hung*, then move to the floor because... well... they only notice things on the bed when they're too tired and want to go to sleep! And of course they find it utterly unreasonable to hang clothes that are already worn, even if they're going to wear them again. Why waste a hanger on something that's semi dirty? Not their housekeeping, but I am proud of their advanced logical thinking. :-) >> > There are no such problems in our house. No one folds anything except >> > me. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > already worn, even if they're going to wear them again. Why waste a > hanger on something that's semi dirty? The solution is incredibly simple, of course. Coathooks. It's way less trouble to put clothes on a coathook than it is on a hanger, so simply install enough coathooks to hold the clean-enough-to-wear-again clothes. It looks best if you can install the coathooks in the closet, but go with what works :-) > The solution is incredibly simple, of course. Coathooks. It's way less > trouble to put clothes on a coathook than it is on a hanger, so simply > install enough coathooks to hold the clean-enough-to-wear-again clothes. It > looks best if you can install the coathooks in the closet, but go with what > works :-) Brilliant! > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>Freshly laundered clothes first get piled on the bed *ready to be >>hung*, then move to the floor because... well... they only notice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > looks best if you can install the coathooks in the closet, but go with what > works :-) Yes, that sounds like a great idea. We have hooks on their walls and doors. They use them for caps, coats, heavy sweatshirts, etc. But they refuse to use them for their shirts, because, supposedly, they get them out of shape! Don't ask me why kids who pile their clothes on the floor care about the effects of a hook poking in their shirts! I understand them not wanting to ruin their expensive Polo shirts (thank god they finally got *that* out of their system, they were using most of their allowance for $65 shirts), but T-shirts? They also came up with a technique to reduce the wrinkles of the shirts that they leave in dryer or move from pile to pile. When they want to wear it, they spray the dry shirt with water and throw it in the dryer for a short spin. I have told them that it'll take less time to hang the shirts when they're still a little damp and warm right out of the dryer instead of repeating the process, but they can't be bothered with that... > They also came up with a technique to reduce the wrinkles of the shirts > that they leave in dryer or move from pile to pile. When they want to > wear it, they spray the dry shirt with water and throw it in the dryer > for a short spin. I have told them that it'll take less time to hang the > shirts when they're still a little damp and warm right out of the dryer > instead of repeating the process, but they can't be bothered with that... Would you guys over there mostly use dryers rather than an outside clothes line? Temily >>They also came up with a technique to reduce the wrinkles of the shirts >>that they leave in dryer or move from pile to pile. When they want to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Would you guys over there mostly use dryers rather than an outside > clothes line? No clothes lines in our house, but I hang wool and other delicate garments on hangers instead of putting them in dryer, and sometimes flat dry fine sweaters. > Would you guys over there mostly use dryers rather than an outside > clothes line? They are against town by-laws to have them where I live, (for now, anyway) SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> Would you guys over there mostly use dryers rather than an outside >> clothes line? > >They are against town by-laws to have them where I live, (for now, anyway) And for 4-5 months out of the year, it's too damp and cold to hang-dry clothes outdoors here. It would be OK in the summer, but quite frankly I don't want to have bugs and bird droppings on my clothes so I've never bothered with a clothes line. Lauri in WA >>> Would you guys over there mostly use dryers rather than an outside >>> clothes line? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frankly I don't want to have bugs and bird droppings on my clothes so > I've never bothered with a clothes line. I use the dryer during the winter for sheets and towels and some heavy clothes like jeans but I can still get a lot of small items and shirts on hangers dry on frames over the heating ducts even when line-drying is impossible. In the summer I quite often put a load of laundry through after dinner, hang it on a couple of frames placed under cover on our decking or next to a screened open door and it will all be dry by morning. Tai > They are against town by-laws to have them where I live, (for now, anyway) Wow...so i guess you'd use a clothes horse instead? Some items just can not be put in the dryer.. Temily >> They are against town by-laws to have them where I live, (for now, >> anyway) > > Wow...so i guess you'd use a clothes horse instead? Some items just > can not be put in the dryer.. Not sure what a clothes horse is, but I don't have very much that can't be put in the dryer and those items get hung on a hanger to air dry or it gets sent to the dry cleaners. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Not sure what a clothes horse is... Is it anything like a clothes hound?... that would describe my wife. =R= >> Not sure what a clothes horse is... > > Is it anything like a clothes hound?... that would describe my wife. > =R= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotheshorse > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotheshorse Ha.. that's what I was just looking for.. a picture of that.. I own one. I don't think I've ever used it.. I just said to SO that I should start using that, save myself some money, lol.. We call it a clothes rack around here. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >I just said to SO that I should start > using that, save myself some money, lol.. Yeah, cos electricity is so expensive! It is here at least!!!! Hmm...another story...How much is electricity there? We use about 19 units a day..which is about $80 a month..and that's for two people and not using any air con, dryers etc.. > We call it a clothes rack around here. Sounds like a dish rack! Or rack of lamb! hehe Temily >>I just said to SO that I should start >>using that, save myself some money, lol.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > units a day..which is about $80 a month..and that's for two people and > not using any air con, dryers etc.. I don't think electricity is significantly cheaper or more expensive in Australia than the U.S. average. One interesting thing about the U.S. is that electricity prices in some areas are 4-5x higher than what they are in other areas--anywhere from $0.05/KwH to $0.25+/KwH. In places where electricity is cheap, *everything* is electric--electric stove, oven, clothes dryer, heating, hot water, etc. In places where electricity is expensive, you're much more likely to find non-electric heat, stoves, ovens, etc. So, where I live, residential customers pay around $0.14/KwH, which is more or less average. Pretty much everything that is commonly available in non-electric versions, is, including our clothes dryer. Our electric bill hovers around $100-120 during the non-AC months, and twice that in the middle of the summer when we're running a lot of AC. That's for 4 people, in a house that's about 2200 sq ft/200 m2. (gotta love that Google conversion thing!) I'm also happy to report that our energy provider recently started offering a "green energy" option, whereby we pay a higher rate (about 10-15% higher) for "green" electricity. Now, I'm not certain if this means the actual current coming into our house is green, or if that means the power company is required to buy a proprotional amount of their total electricity from green providers and then put it all in the mix they pipe to customers...my neighbor actually works for a green energy company and I should ask him how it works. I think the difference with clothes drying between U.S. and Australia has more to do with culture than with any "logical" difference. It obviously is quite possible to line dry clothes anywhere in the U.S., since all of our great-grandmothers and many of our grandmothers used this option. My grandma lived in South Dakota, which has bitterly cold winters, and never owned a clothes dryer (and not because she was poor, either--they were a solidly middle-class town-dwelling family). They simply hung up their clothes in the basement during the winter, which works passably, because the air is so dry at that time of year. > >>I just said to SO that I should start > >>using that, save myself some money, lol.. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > people, in a house that's about 2200 sq ft/200 m2. (gotta love that > Google conversion thing!) Where I am in Canada - one of the first places to deregulate the electricity market - we pay about 6.8 cents per Kw/H, plus assorted rural transmission and delivery charges. Unfortunately our utility has now skipped several months worth of meter readings, and instead, is basing our bills on a historical estimate - so we pay what the previous owners, who had three refrigerators, several TVs, light fixtures with three bulbs. Based on the meter readings I do every day, we use between $0.90 and $2.10 of electricity for the house and well-water pumping - the difference is in what we're eating, literally. > I'm also happy to report that our energy provider recently started > offering a "green energy" option, whereby we pay a higher rate (about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mix they pipe to customers...my neighbor actually works for a green > energy company and I should ask him how it works. I think you're probably right on the latter scenario - the amount of green electricity purchased probably reduces the amount of non-green purchased. It's hard to imagine that they could finesse it beyond that point. > I think the difference with clothes drying between U.S. and Australia > has more to do with culture than with any "logical" difference. It [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > simply hung up their clothes in the basement during the winter, which > works passably, because the air is so dry at that time of year. With the side effect of humidifying your home to some degree, which makes it a little more comfortable during extreme cold spells. Last spring, we bought a front loading washer that uses far less water than a top loader (and less soap too) and spins out far more - so much so that the washer can't keep up with the dryer. The dryer is electric, but I don't really notice it in our consumption. M. > They > simply hung up their clothes in the basement during the winter, which > works passably, because the air is so dry at that time of year. I wish my basement were dry, but there is always a dampness. I recall a time when I was too poor to be able to pay the dollar a load to dry my clothes at the coin-operated laundromat, so I'd wash them and then carry them in a backpack and two bags- to balance the load- back up this hill (In NH).. up to my 3rd story apartment and then hang them outside on a line.. often they would simply freeze, rather than 'dry'. At some point, it was so damn cold and I needed clothes, so I set them out to dry in my livingroom. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > I recall a > time when I was too poor to be able to pay the dollar a load to dry my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it was so damn cold and I needed clothes, so I set them out to dry in my > livingroom. At least you weren't living in a cardboard box! ;-) > > I recall a time when I was too poor to be able to pay the dollar a > > load to dry my clothes at the coin-operated laundromat, so I'd wash [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > At least you weren't living in a cardboard box! ;-) Cardboard box? That would have been luxury for her. She was living in a paper bag in the middle of the road. > > > I recall a time when I was too poor to be able to pay the dollar a > > > load to dry my clothes at the coin-operated laundromat, so I'd wash [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cardboard box? That would have been luxury for her. She was living > in a paper bag in the middle of the road. Well, she should thank her lucky stars and be grateful that it wasn't a highway. jen >> > At least you weren't living in a cardboard box! ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, she should thank her lucky stars and be grateful that it wasn't a > highway. LOL.. what a bunch o'smartie pants! lol.. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >>>> At least you weren't living in a cardboard box! ;-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Cal~ I think we should ALL count our lucky stars that we're not living in a cardboard box, especially this season. Or in a paper bag. > > I recall a > > time when I was too poor to be able to pay the dollar a load to dry my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > At least you weren't living in a cardboard box! ;-) Smart a.s! :-) snipped above > I'm also happy to report that our energy provider recently started > offering a "green energy" option Interesting 'the green energy'...As i was reading this i was thinking about our new huge desalination plant they've just installed here....as of yesterday we are now drinking water from the Indian Ocean! :o) (well 17% of it will be desalinated!) Better than recyling the water (toilet water) which they were thinking about..ew. And snipped more above > I think the difference with clothes drying between U.S. and Australia > has more to do with culture than with any "logical" difference. Yeah..and weather! (Hence the lack of water!) Clothes dry pretty quickly most of the year round..even on a clothes horse!! (rack!) :o) Temily > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotheshorse Yes Joy! That's it exactly thanks! :o) Gosh wikapedia is good.......! Must use that one more often..i usually just use google..but that gets right to the nitty gritty doesn't it! Temily > No |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message