This is hilarious. Dr. Laura, proud defender of 1940s stereotypes.

I can't pick a favorite from the list above. They're all so rich!

Here's a good one:

Women tend to be so verbal, so expressive, that they can tire out men easily unless they exercise some restraint....It confuses them, frustrates them, and their response is to turn off. That's when they unfairly become labeled insensitive." Husbands and fiances are not girlfriends or psychologists, and women who want attention should adjust their communication style accordingly when speaking with them.

Ah yes, little women. You talk too much! Yapyapyapyapyap. That's all you do. Can't you just shut UP already? Women, you just need to adjust to your precious man's needs. Change your boring, droning ways if you want him to actually *listen* to you. It's so unfair that men are called insensitive when women are the ones boring them to death with all that noise. What do you expect?

And this one:

Too many women, though, act like Alice Kramdens, constantly belitting their husbands, shooting down their aspirations, treating them like children. Dr. Laura writes: "When a wife treats her man like he's one of her children, when she puts him down or thwarts his need for autonomy, adventure, risk, competition, challenge, and conquest, she ends up with a sullen, unooperative, unloving, hostile lump."

You overbearing shrews! What do you expect your man to do if you don't just leave him alone and stop nagging him?

I get Dr. Laura's recipe for happiness: Women, subjugate who you are so your man can be a MAN. Don't be a feminist! If you do, it will be your fault if your marriage fails. You are responsible for your own behavior AND the behavior of your spouse. It's your job to change your nasty, feminist ways and just let him be a MAN.

DINGBATS!

Also, can't let the lead-in from the main page go without comment:

Dr. Laura does it again: The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands contains a wealth of great advice for women who are ready to put aside feminism and instead be happy and fulfilled in their marriages.

Yes, feminism ruins happy marriages! Feminism = unhappiness. It's so simple. I see it now, really, I do.

Oh, holy crap (which is a great description for most of what Ms. Schlessinger does and says.) Whatever few good points she makes is undone by her position that a good wife gives in to her lord and master's sexual urges even if she isn't in the mood. What a dolt she is.

I also love how Dr. Laura is neither a parent nor a wife, and yet she dishes out "advice" for women who are with that overbearing tone.

Actually, she is in her second marriage and she does have a teenage child. Her long-used radio boast is that she is "my kid's mom." Her spouse is her manager. I wonder if she gives it up whenever hubby demands it...

I wanna know how much time she spends neglecting her husband while she's off writing yet another I-need-to-show-you-how-to-live-with-another-human-being book.

Yeah, if she is the breadwinner, one would imagine it must take some doing to make him feel like The Man.

Geez, bhw derides Dr. Laura as a "defender of 1940s stereotypes" but her advice sounds more like enlightened post-feminism than anti-feminism to me.

Saying that "Women tend to be so verbal, so expressive, that they can tire out men easily" is not saying "shut your yap, little women" or cater to your husbands. It is just acknowledging real, lab-proven differences in the way men and women communicate.

In general (your mileage may vary), we men are serial thinkers and problem-solvers. Try as we might, when women engage in their rich, native communication style of painting interwoven word pictures of relationships, events and feelings, it is a struggle for most men to pick out the actionable-items our hunter/defender brains are listening for.

That doesn't mean men have a right to tune women out, but if they really want to be heard, women sometimes need to "dumb down" their speech to serial Man-speak periodically.

or at the least, not expect us blokes to be psychic so much of the time.
Actually, that's unfair, there must be women out there who realise we men, in general (i.e. there are exceptions, as always), aren't nearly so intuitive as women. I just haven't met any of them yet =+)
But a lifestyle book can only ever be used as a rough guide at most - it'd be impossible to come up with an infalliable course of action for any possible situation that may arise in a relationship.

get in the kitchen and make me sammich, woman!

(not directed at you, Eric, but at any man who would make such a neanderthal comment):

eff off, man, and make it yerself!

Natalie,regarding comment #2. A Hispanic
lady friend of mine said that her mother
had taught her basically the same thing
in regards to lovemaking when you aren't
in the "mood". She said that succumbing
to his wishes gives the man the illusion
that he is somehow in "control".

I can't say that I agree 100% with her
as I wouldn't want to make love with my
girlfriend if she was not "feeling it".
I mean what fun is that??? But,since the
majority of us men are simple creatures quite easily manipulated by sex & given
to self delusion,she may have a point
there,obscure as it is. As to why anyone
would ever want to think that they are
"in control" of a relationship I dunno.

And the "Hispanic" reference is germane because...???

Not Every Thought and Feeling Needs to be Said. Women tend to be so verbal, so expressive, that they can tire out men easily unless they exercise some restraint. Dr. Laura reports that wives generally overwhelm their husbands with communication. "Husbands imagine (so foolishly) that their wives are telling them something they actually need to know because they're supposed to do something about it. Otherwise, men can't imagine why the 'communication' is happening at all. It confuses them, frustrates them, and their response is to turn off. That's when they unfairly become labeled insensitive." Husbands and fiances are not girlfriends or psychologists, and women who want attention should adjust their communication style accordingly when speaking with them.

I agree. Men are generally hard-wired to be "problem solvers." When a woman mentions something that is a problem, EVEN IF SHE IS JUST LOOKING FOR EMPATHY, OR LETTING OFF SOME STEAM, the man will generally feel that he is now obligated to find a solution to this problem. When the man proposes a solution, the woman sometimes views this as insensitive. I've seen it, and I've lived it.

Women, in general, verbally communicate (or so I have read) something like four times as often as men do, in general. This is probably because when men talk, there is usually something of importance they want to communicate to others in order to get something done, i.e. to solve a problem. Women are more wont to talk for the sake of talking.

This does not mean one gender is superior/inferior to the other. It just means they are inherently different. And we could do worse than to realize what these differences are and appreciate them.

Has anyone here ever actually listened to Dr. Laura's radio program? I find her to be a horrible little woman, belittling her callers, making half of these sad-sacks burst into tears by the end of the call. Why in the name of sweet Jesus would anyone willingly go on the air to be humilitated by this woman?

That being said, she is an absolutely brilliant debater. Even if you disagree with her opinions/advice, she does make quite compelling arguments for her side.

Anyway, my two cents...

I thought I'd mention the fact because
many Hispanic women are often seen as being subservient and docile.In reality
of course this stereotype is bullshit,
as is the case with 99 1/2% of all the
stereotypes in this world.

Assuredly this was only ambiguity on my
behalf,nothing sinister as your question
as your question seems to imply.

Comment 15 is in response to Natalie D.
and comment 12.

Dr. Laura seems to mean well, but her tone is a bit abrasive. This country is in need of help. Marriages every where are in trouble. Divorce is as common as a cold. I commend Dr. Laura for taking a stand and doing something to help, however I don't think she is realistic.

Ok, those who wrote negative comments about Dr. Laura have obviously not listened to her
or listened to the news recently. If they have they would know that marriages in the USA,
are in serious jeopardy. Dr. Laura calls the shots as they should be, no bull, no excuses,
just action. This country has forgotten all about personal responibility, well Dr. Laura
has not.

It makes me laugh to read the crazy feminists saying, "Oh yea, be submissive to your husband",
they think that is a bad thing?!?! Ok, all you Dr. Laura bashers, first, how many of you know
any men/guys who DO NOT like sex? Yeah, not too many, that's what i thought. How many of those
men who 'don't like sex', would or could be bribed with sexual favors? Oh yeah, none of them...

So, being submissive to your husband, that's a bad thing? Example: what is a woman's favorite
thing? Why not do that favorite thing to make them happy? Even if you don't want to, or don't
like to, but you know the other party does like it?

Second, how many divorces and/or children out of wedlock were there in 1940? Yeah, not too many,
so they must have been doing something right, but again, the crazy feminists will deny that.


Come on, just look around, read the news or watch the news on TV. The country is going down
the tubes because adults are too bull-headed and selfish to think about the other person
in their marriage or their children.

Men are very basic creatures, they need only food, sex and water, ok a few more things too,
but those are the main points. You are a lying sack of XXXX if you think otherwise.
The same goes for women and "talking" or "communicating". For a man not to have sex, it's
like a woman not talking....they almost feel empty without it.

If these stupid Dr. Laura bashers would listen to her radio show or read this book, you would
learn she is actually on your side. She is just trying to show you women how to use this
'sexual' power over men...we all know sex sells, you're ignorant if you think otherwise.
So, why not learn to use this to help in other areas. I just wish it was this easy for men.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger thinks feminism has turned women into angry, hectoring, nagging, sneering, pent-up, vicious shrews -- and if she's any example, she's absolutely correct.

I listen to her on the drive home from work sometimes. I can't take more than a few minutes of her. I just feel plain BAD for the callers. EVERY caller gets shabby treatment, IMO.

That being said, her advice is hard to argue with. While I sometimes wonder how she can listen to someone talk about their relationship for 30 seconds and then say, with authority, "Oh, you need to dump him, you weak person you" she still usually gets her callers to agree.

Either these people are complete sheep, or Dr. Laura actually knows her stuff pretty well.

Color me ambivalent...

I know what you're saying, RJ. Everyone who calls seems to be wearing a sign on their forehead that says: PLEASE ABUSE ME.

Dr. Laura's bottom line is children. Perhaps if this country based it's decisions on what was best for them, we'd all be better off. On another tact, it's an act of love, not subservience, to satisfy a man's needs and vice versa. And, finally, most of Dr. Laura's callers are searching for the ethical answer. It's humility you're hearing, not humiliation.

Finally, people are beginning to understand how so-called Dr. Schlessinger is part of the vast female-type person conspiracy to turn husbands and fathers into helpless dolts--not that they need too much help. Her other books are equally as insidious.

These are dangerous times. Male-type persons are clueless when it comes to surviving marriages and children, a condition that the conspiracy is out to capitalize on.

For help, check out the help at the blog established by Docter Schmock, NRAMD (Not Really A Medical Doctor.) Http://askdocterschmock.blogspot.com

You people are so ridiculous. Get lives.

I'll share something we have found of IMMENSE help:

Wife says: Let me just blow off some steam here... (commences rant)

Husband says: Um-hmm... Oh?... Uh-huh... (secure that he isn't expected to really react)

OR Wife says: This is driving me crazy! I can't figure out what to do next... (commences rant)

Husband: *gears up problem solving skills* Have you tried... What happened when you... Maybe you could...

Such signals may be unique to each marriage, but like "please" and "thank you", are the essential lubricant for smooth communication.

Since we instituted this kind of signalling, our marriage has been much more pleasant for us both!

Dr. Laura isn't writing about anything new here. She is merely bringing back into focus the values that used to make marriages work. Feminism has created a terrible problem in society, although society as a whole is in pretty bad shape. Man was created to be the head of the household, the bread-winner, the protector. Woman was created as the help mate, the encourager. This is the foundation to a healthy, lasting marriage. Our differences are what make us compliment each other. Women need to feel protected and taken care of, while men need support and approval. This has nothing to do with whether you like Dr. Laura as a radio show host, because honestly I cannot stand her program and the way she treats her callers. However, in the case of this book, she is dead on. Unfortunately most women will never get that equality does not mean "sameness". It's sad that women today actually think they can have happy, lasting marriages when they try to reverse our natural roles in life.

On a side note: I also totally agree with satisfying your husband sexually if you aren't in the mood, but not as a means to get what you want. It's a matter of love and the willingness to give of yourself for your spouse. This is the whole purpose of the act. If you are doing it for the gratification of self, it means nothing. If you are doing it for the gratification of your partner, it's making love.

I wonder how most men feel when his gender is insulted constantly on sitcoms, talk shows, counseling sessions, parties, to their face, etc?

I also think there is something in alot of us women that hurts a little when we're told we talk too much or drive people nuts with endless chatter. While we have some very good things to say, we should agree - sometimes we are better off holding back or practicing some more conciseness. I will not be too concise now, however.

I know why so many of my gender are mad at you guys... After getting affectionate or getting otherwise physically intimate and you don't fall for us as we have for you, we are trained to hold you in contempt and mistrust you.

It's no wonder so many women find Dr. Laura's comments hard to swallow.

What our world look like if men had to marry us to "get some?" Well maybe men would be better catches because alot of that sexual drive would be directed instead at getting ready to be a good catch, husband and father - thus less "loser men."

And women, instead of wasting our time being with losers and mooning/ranting over guys who "luved" us and left us, we might spend more energy becoming the delightful kind of creatures that men adore and kids would enjoy being raised by.

But if we keep giving men freebies before marriage or a real commitment, there will be more of the same... angry, defensive, controlling, critical women that men run from or yawningly co-exist with, just to get a little sex, partnership and avoid divorce lawyers.

It's no wonder porn is so big, we have given them reason to go off looking elsewhere.

Women, why don't we divert some of those billions being spent on porn to spoiling us? They will, if we are more appreciative and easier to love. Sex-life might even get more interesting. But we are afraid to let our guard down and look what we have? Divorce, cheating and marriages and families that drive many onlookers like myself to stay single.

Laura Doyle who wrote The Surrendered Single and The Surrendered Wife said that besides the obvious vices(heavy drinking/gambling, drugs, abusiveness) the only thing we should be afraid of with a man is our tendency to criticize and control him.

I think Dr. Laura is one of the many out there on the cutting edge, trying to get us to quit blaming and blasting eachother and take some responsibility for our part. We woemn do have the power. And I think it pisses us off, because we are losing our some of our excuses to complain. As much as I have, I know many men want to please us, the ones that don't we should dump. If your married though, give it another try and see what happens, try some of Dr. Laura's ideas. You might have a real hunk you never knew, and he might discover a gem in you, too.

Other than some basic human rights issues, feminism has not helped women too much in marriage and family life. In fact, violence and disrespect against women and children has done anything but decrease. Maybe if the vocal feminists spent more time on that than abortion and contraception, it might have been different. Where were they when Terry Schiavo needed their help? Silent.

Except for a pro-life feminist named Patricia Heaton, the big guns in the feminist movement were cowards because respect for bedridden (likely formally abused by husband)women who can't feed themsleves, come to close to their need for abortion. This is where much of feminism has gone today, into the toilet ranting about reproductive rights.

We women who have not been so brainwashed, need to build the bridge.

But especially those of us men and women who are single, we can turn America around from the inside out.
But we need to get our heads straight before we get married. We could start by quitting shacking up, using eachother and get some real courtship in dating. Maybe we could try actually knowing who someone is and making a lifelong committment before taking everyone's clothes off?

Kudos to Dr. Laura and anyone else who has the courage to speak some truth. You may not agree with all of it or how she operates, but come on, she is saying some true stuff.

http://www.godofdesire.squarespace.com/twelve-principles/

"Attraction and desire are of the essence of love" -JPII

In response to DMichelle (and others), allow me to point out that we need to get a few real "facts" out here instead of all of these assumptions; not the least of which has to do with that era in the 1940's-1950's which has somehow been glorified as being a kinder, gentler time than it actually was. ;)

The divorce rate (depending on whose statistics you want to believe ) ranged from 37-39%. That's right. 37-39%! And, more than 1/2 of those divorces were filed by (you guessed it) MEN. One might argue that 37% is far lower than the present day 50% but that argument doesn't hold water when you look at it in a per capita view. That is, there are far more marriages today than there were in the 1940-50 era. But, even if you were to refuse to believe these statistics, let's look at why the divorce rate actually was lower during that time period.

To begin with, women didn't work outside of the home. In fact, pursuing a college education was difficult. I have had older women friends reveal to me that some colleges turned them away back in the day, because they were women. So, most women were relegated to the professions of nursing, teacher, librarian, secretary or waitress, none of which were high paying careers. Hence, wives with children who were unhappy in their marriages had no other option other than to stay in the marriage since self-sufficiency outside of the marriage was non-existent. Many of these women (as we have since learned today) endured great physical and psychological abuses in their marriages but such abuse went under reported because it was considered taboo to bring society's scrutiny upon one's family.

The feminist movement merely gave women an option they hadn't had prior; the ability to sustain a career outside of the home and to be more self sufficient. It is no surprise, therefore, that the divorce rate went up steadily, is it? You see, marriages weren't more solid or happier in the 40's-50's. They just "looked" that way. Think back and I'm sure each of you knows of at least one couple who divorced as soon as their kids were grown and out of the house. Many of these couples were married 30, 40, even 50 years. Why?

And why did men make up 50% of that 37% that did file for divorce? If they lived in the eutopia that Laura Schlessinger paints, why on earth would they want out? And, what on earth would provoke a man to stay in a marriage today, even if his wife abided by the societal norm of the 40's? I don't have the answers to these questions...but, I'm working on it. ;)

As to DM's observation that we should get men to drop pornography for us by being a more chaste and moral woman...well, sorry DM, but that won't work. It's never worked, not even in biblical times. Schlessinger herself maintains that men are visual creatures who will always seek outside stimuli regardless of his sexual satisfaction within his marriage. So, my guess is, porn isn't going anywhere but up....

As for the rants against feminism, I fail to understand why such angst? I can't think of many women who don't hold a job and often wonder who it is they think they have to thank for that. Feminism has helped to develop laws to protect women, to provide greater punishment for violent crimes such as rape, to ensure women are given equal right to marital property in the event of divorce. How can any woman say she is against being given an equal opportunity and voice in society as a human being?

At any rate, Schlessinger's book (much like Schlessinger) is simply a heap of hypocritical, self-serving, hateful rhetoric aimed at making women feel bad about being women. Consider that it is attitudes such as Schlessinger's that actually fueled the feminist movement in the first place! Further consider that Schlessinger is ultra-conservative, has no degree is psychology or psychiatry and is NOT a medical doctor. Given that, it's not hard to understand why her advice is not only without foundation, but it can be downright dangerous.

Lastly, the idea that a woman should submit to sex on demand is a concept so outrageous that words fail me. Sex is the most intimate activity that two people can share. The very suggestion that only partner's satisfaction is relevant, belies the true selfishness of any man who would adopt such an attitude. "Dave" quoted the Opus Dei as saying that "the marriage bed is an altar". Well, altars are made for one thing: sacrifice. And Schlessinger believes it is the woman who should always be the sacrifice.

Schlessinger's book puts 100% of the blame and responsibility for the success of a marriage squarely on the wife's shoulders. Clearly this cannot be true as such a concept doesn't work in day to day life. Teams are not formed for the purpose of having one person do all the work. The success of any team is dependent on the equal contribution of each of its members; not the tolerance of one member to forgive the apathy and selfishness of the others. How can one possibly believe that a marriage could be successful by handing a giant to-do list to only one spouse?

Hm. Based on a lot of comments I've read, it seems as if the majority of you have NOT read the book, just based your opinions on the synopsis. That's too bad. You miss the point. If I, as a woman, am in constant competition with my husband, where does that get me? Just think about it. If you are constantly in competition with a friend or co-worker, what happens? If I, as a wife, constantly place my children's needs above my husband's, where might he go to get the little attention he needs? If I, as a intelligent, professional women, who does work outside the home and hold a degree, realize his needs and lovingly caters to him because I am his helpmate, his friend, his lover...guess where that gets me? It gets me treated with respect and tenderness, folks. It's recripocal, and you who slam this book fail to see that most important point. My husbands sexual needs are greater than my own. I will never use sex as a weapon or a manipulative tool against him, and yes, when he is in need I happily comply unless I'm really not feeling well. How selfish to do otherwise! He, on the other hand, does not rape me every night. On the contrary, when I am in the mood he goes above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that I am completely satisfied.

We as a society are so selfishly motivated, that listening to some basic solid advice that suggests we think of others for a little bit (and yes, smacks of some good, sound Biblical principles, which by the way do NOT belittle women but place them as equals, unless you choose to misinterpret one of Paul's letters...) seems so repulsive that we are compelled to critize and debunk it. No wonder people are so unhappy and marriages are failing.

The competition thing between husband and wife? Doesn't work. Been there, tried that, almost got a divorce. Changing my attitude and giving my husband (as a fellow human being) the respect and care he deserves? Been there, still doing that and still maintaining my identity as an individual. Imagine that!

Happily married and going strong for 28 years, and have raised three very competent, strong-minded, well-grounded and independent young adults.

Joy, you probably heard Dr. Schlessinger say recently (she repeats it every few days) that what every husband yearns to hear is that he is a wonderful husband, a stud, handsome (to his wife), and telling him that will get the wife an amazing amount of loving attention from her spouse.

That's perhaps a condensed version of the book, and I know from my own 34-year marriage that it works for me!

Nothing feminist about it, as far as I can see -- Dr. Laura misuses that term in precisely the same way some women do in order to justify their own poor choices.

Amen to that.

In response to comment 28 which read: "One might argue that 37% is far lower than the present day 50% but that argument doesn't hold water when you look at it in a per capita view. That is, there are far more marriages today than there were in the 1940-50 era."

So what is your point? It's a percentage of marriages! It doesn't matter how many of them there are!

It's called "grasping at straws," AK...

[grumbles, 'demmed lies and statistics...']

I browsed the first few chapters of "Care and Feeding" and had to put it down, for the same reasons I can't listen to Dr. Laura on the radio.

She's an abrasive pop psychologist whose impatience makes her rude, offensive, condescending and, worst of all, quick to offer shallow solutions to deep-rooted problems. Makes for good radio, because that's what people want to hear. But it's lousy advice.

The overwhelming problem in today's world is selfishness. It's easy to pin that on women, because feminism has so focused us on self-fulfillment, life outside the home. But this problem's origins reach much farther back in our history. Perhaps if men had been more concerned about women's happiness and less concerned with control and domination, nobody would have felt the need to fight for "liberation."

Practically speaking, Dr. Laura's giving us neanderthal advice in the space age. Her approach ignores that today's economic and cultural realities very often require both parents to work long hours, just to provide food and shelter and clothing. Minimum wage is $5.35 an hour, maybe if she started railing about that...

My point is, men and women created this world together. And that's how we should solve our problems. If we are focused only on our own needs and ego in a relationship, or focused entirely on our partner's needs ignoring our own, the relationship is doomed to fail.

And that's where "Care and Feeding of Husbands" loses me. It's not about partnership so much as it is about power and manipulation.

Dr. Laura has once again jumped to the quickest "solution," treating the symptoms while the disease rolls merrily on.

Responding to comment number 28 by DJ, whom I will presume is in either the field of sociology or women’s/gender studies:

First, your per capita departure from your divorce percentages is an error. Are you claiming that more people as a percentage of the total population are married today than they were fifty years ago? While I am not a social scientist, such a claim strikes me as utterly ridiculous. In addition, the whole per capita concept is a way of compensating for population growth/reduction, but such compensation is achieved by the divorce percentages themselves. Yes, reflective of population growth, there are more marriages today than fifty years ago, which would most likely mean more divorces. But population growth cannot account for increased percentages of marriages ending in divorce. So contrary to what you claim, that argument to which you refer absolutely holds statistical waterâ€"it is yours that does not. Yours also holds no logical water either, for your reasoning would yield an eventual 100% divorce rate due to population growth alone, which is totally absurd.

Now, for the purposes of argument and my relative unfamiliarity with your data, I will assume that your statistics are correct; besides, some of your points really make sense. I do believe that we as a society tend to have a rosier picture of previous decades than is warranted, and you point out how women’s options were fewer and more restricted in the past, hence why some of the divorces that happen today didn’t happen in the pastâ€"women are more able to leave, and they are less dependent on their husbands for survival.

However, there are some conclusions that you draw that I think are more uncertain. You state that “…marriages weren't more solid or happier in the 40's-50's.� In order for that to be true, marriages must have actually improved or been stagnant since then, and I find this hard to believe. In other words, had women’s options been less restricted to coincide with the greater independence that they experience today, then we’d discover that the divorce rate would be roughly the same; I highly doubt that as well. I do think the divorce rate would likely have been higher as more women would likely exit unhealthy relationships, but to assume that all of that difference in divorce rates between the two periods of time can be attributed to women’s lack of options in the past neglects the changes that attitudes towards marriage have undergone over time.

Marriage, I believe, was taken far more seriously as a sacred commitment in the past than it is today. Take Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Celebrity press is fawning over the possibility that they may or have already “hooked upâ€�. Sure, some feel bad for Jennifer, but they gleefully wait to see whom she will hook up with. Not much mention is given to the fact that someone in the Pitt-Aniston marriage broke their vows. It’s all a big game oftentimes. The attitude is less about love and commitment than about personal satisfaction and convenience. In other words, when marriage gets difficult, a married couple is more likely to get divorced today than in the past, and again, not exclusively because women have more options to do today what they wished they could have done in the pastâ€"how about no-fault divorce?

While some of your points on how feminism has impacted women (for the better) are salient, you betray disagreeable implicit points through some of your language. That you refer to it in the past tense when you mention how it “merely� gave women the option of non-domestic careers limits the breadth and scope of feminism. It didn’t merely expand women’s career options, nor did it merely seek to, and contrary to the past tense that you use, it is an ongoing project, quite distinct from what it was.

The kind of feminism that gets the criticism from people on this page, I suspect, and especially from Dr. Laura herself, is the kind that says a woman should be able to have a full-time career while having children and being marriedâ€"that women should be able to “have it allâ€�; the kind that demeans thoughtfully chosen, stay-at-home motherhood; the kind that would seek to literally apply double standards to men and women (such as those applied to the rigorous physical requirements for firefighting jobs, for example.); the kind that posits that most heterosexual sex is rape. Some tradeoffs between dedication to career and dedication to family are not unreasonable. It is current feminism that often holds that such tradeoffs are unreasonable (or are evidence of patriarchal oppression), and that attracts criticism.

To the extent that “old school� feminism sought to liberate women from arbitrarily limited options, it made valid contributions. To the extent that current feminism prescribes a correct path amongst the various options (such as career over motherhood), it oversteps is bounds. In fact, current feminism suggests that women should be able to walk multiple paths simultaneously, refusing to acknowledge the tradeoffs that women must make.

Responding to comment number 28 by DJ, whom I will presume is in either the field of sociology or women's/gender studies:

First, your per capita departure from your divorce percentages is an error. Are you claiming that more people as a percentage of the total population are married today than they were fifty years ago? While I am not a social scientist, such a claim strikes me as utterly ridiculous. In addition, the whole per capita concept is a way of compensating for population growth/reduction, but such compensation is achieved by the divorce percentages themselves. Yes, reflective of population growth, there are more marriages today than fifty years ago, which would most likely mean more divorces. But population growth cannot account for increased percentages of marriages ending in divorce. So contrary to what you claim, that argument to which you refer absolutely holds statistical water--it is yours that does not. Yours also holds no logical water either, for your reasoning would yield an eventual 100% divorce rate due to population growth alone, which is totally absurd.

Now, for the purposes of argument and my relative unfamiliarity with your data, I will assume that your statistics are correct; besides, some of your points really make sense. I do believe that we as a society tend to have a rosier picture of previous decades than is warranted, and you point out how women's options were fewer and more restricted in the past, hence why some of the divorces that happen today didn't happen in the past--women are more able to leave, and they are less dependent on their husbands for survival.

However, there are some conclusions that you draw that I think are more uncertain. You state that "...marriages weren't more solid or happier in the 40's-50's." In order for that to be true, marriages must have actually improved or been stagnant since then, and I find this hard to believe. In other words, had women's options been less restricted to coincide with the greater independence that they experience today, then we'd discover that the divorce rate would be roughly the same; I highly doubt that as well. I do think the divorce rate would likely have been higher as more women would likely exit unhealthy relationships, but to assume that all of that difference in divorce rates between the two periods of time can be attributed to women's lack of options in the past neglects the changes that attitudes towards marriage have undergone over time.

Marriage, I believe, was taken far more seriously as a sacred commitment in the past than it is today. Take Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Celebrity press is fawning over the possibility that they may or have already "hooked up". Sure, some feel bad for Jennifer, but they gleefully wait to see whom she will hook up with. Not much mention is given to the fact that someone in the Pitt-Aniston marriage broke their vows. It's all a big game oftentimes. The attitude is less about love and commitment than about personal satisfaction and convenience. In other words, when marriage gets difficult, a married couple is more likely to get divorced today than in the past, and again, not exclusively because women have more options to do today what they wished they could have done in the past--how about no-fault divorce?

While some of your points on how feminism has impacted women (for the better) are salient, you betray disagreeable implicit points through some of your language. That you refer to it in the past tense when you mention how it "merely" gave women the option of non-domestic careers limits the breadth and scope of feminism. It didn't merely expand women's career options, nor did it merely seek to, and contrary to the past tense that you use, it is an ongoing project, quite distinct from what it was.

The kind of feminism that gets the criticism from people on this page, I suspect, and especially from Dr. Laura herself, is the kind that says a woman should be able to have a full-time career while having children and being married--that women should be able to "have it all"; the kind that demeans thoughtfully chosen, stay-at-home motherhood; the kind that would seek to literally apply double standards to men and women (such as those applied to the rigorous physical requirements for firefighting jobs, for example.); the kind that posits that most heterosexual sex is rape. Some tradeoffs between dedication to career and dedication to family are not unreasonable. It is current feminism that often holds that such tradeoffs are unreasonable (or are evidence of patriarchal oppression), and that attracts criticism.

To the extent that "old school" feminism sought to liberate women from arbitrarily limited options, it made valid contributions. To the extent that current feminism prescribes a correct path amongst the various options (such as career over motherhood), it oversteps is bounds. In fact, feminism suggests that women should be able to walk multiple paths simultaneously, refusing to acknowledge the tradeoffs that women must make.

Sorry about the nearly duplicate posts. My first one somehow got garbled up and had replaced various quotation marks, apostrophes, and semicolons with gibberish. If a site administrator wants to delete one of them, delete the first one.

funny thing, I just did a piece on Dr Laura for my site a few days ago. Since it would seem to be the smallest post in recent history... I'll post it in it's entirety here. enjoy, and if you do stop over and read more:

I'm worried about Dr. Laura

Dr. Laura has given us a great piece of work with this one. I disagree that women need to dumb down their speech. What women need to do is learn how TO GET TO THE POINT! Most woman reitterate things over and over (redundant and redundant).

My advice is to speak directly to the issue in a clear concise and logical fashion. Stay away from the put-downs and superfluous information and you will have a happy man.

Remember when it comes to communication, it is quality, not quantity that makes a man happy.

Pat

Its amazing to me that the coments over this book have spanned so great a time period and have evoked such passionate debate. One thing I would like to see is some vitals about the people posting ie. Age, gender (its not always obvious) years married, number of marriages, number of relationships, whether you have read any part of the book you are commenting on.

I'm 34 years old, I am a male and have been married 10 years. I have two lovely children 6 and 3 years old. This is my first and only marriage and the woman I'm married to is my second lover, although I knew my share of women intimately before her.

When I piched up Dr. Laura's book and read it I cried. I'm no victim and I loath those who flaunt that status since it seems to grant these people so much unnecesary attention. I have willingly been apart of this marriage and have lived with my growing dissapointment throughout the marriage.

Dr. Laura's thoughts allowed me to take a step back and breath for a moment. I realized that while not all of the book aplied to me or women totally, it nailed the source of my pain dead on.

About my wife and I we are social, attractive, outgoing, active and by the measure of all we know a solid couple. But as in all marriages there are issues. Most of which relate to her insecurities and innability to empathize with me. (this is ironic since she is regarded as an extremely empathetic person to all others). Of course I am not perfect and don't mean to express that.

I gave the book to my wife in desperation, frustration, fear and anger. You know what she did, she very nearly threw it in my face. You want to talk about power issues between men and women? She wouldn't even read it. She claimed she was offended by it, yet she hadn't even read it. Then argued that she couldn't read it becasue she would worry that every little criticism in the book applied to her.

She then went on a campaign to chastise me with each and every one of our couple friends at my gall for having done such a thing. She brought it up indirectly but in the end she came to the hot button: "Dr. Laura" everyone has an opinion on her and many I know see her negatively. If you ask me its because these people don't want to be told what to do, much like spoiled teenage brats.

My wife is a social person and when she feels threatened she circles her social waggons. All of her friends were shocked at me and completely supportive of her, in the end. This is how my wife works, she can't help it and she won't change. She is craven of power and control in this relationship as far as I'm concerned and frankly I'm tired of babysitting her.

She should have read the book and you know I should have divorced her after she carried on about it the way she did. But what good comes out of divorce and is there any good that can be gained from a poor relationship? Interestingly I am being abused as a person and if I had stated: "is there any good that can come from an abusive relationship?" the question comes off quite differently, yet it is the same.

I recently discoverd that I have another problem with my wife. You see I have grown to understand her insecurities and why she takes me for granted and I live with it. The thing that kept me going was that I've known this girl for half of my life 17 yrs (we met in H.S., married after college) and I trusted that while she had her faults that she was true to me, faithful to her vows. This meant something to me. As you may suspect I discoverd quite recently that she had fallen in love with a married man. A man her sister dated a decade ago. (I've got to laugh because that's pretty funny and strange) they carried on some kind of affair and broke it of several months into it. Mutual guilt?
For our 10th anniversary I planned a surprise trip to an exciting destination withouth the kids. The entire event wnt off without a hitch and I wined her dined her and presented her with several meaningful, thoughtful gifts on our trip. During the trip she said "I don't deserve this." one too many times and I realized that she had sliped.
I looked into things and I found emails about this man, and a couple of others. I confronted her just days after our dream trip and she apologized but obfiscated and witheld information continually. Her final story was that yes she had had a "mental" affair with this man she had not slept with him or anyone else and that she was very sorry and ashamed for her selfishness.

This occured 10 weeks ago and I still do not trust her. I am devastated by the lack of security I feel, and the sense that my trust in others could so quickly be shaken. She said: "I will spend a lifetime making this up to you." and here we are 10 weeks later and its like nothing ever happened. That statement in itself leads me to believe there was more to this affair than she is willing to admit. I cannot suffer the indignity of this and will no longer continue in a marriage riddled by infidelity. I think she knows this and maybe thats why she is being dishonest with me.

Bottom line. She should have read the book last October when I gave it to her. The affair happened in March 05'. Obviously she no happier in this marriage than I am so are we to become another sad statistic?

re: comment # 28
She seems to have the credentials and experience needed. From her website:

EDUCATION

BS, Biological Sciences, SUNY Stonybrook, Long Island, NY

MS, M Phil, Ph.D. (Physiology), Columbia University (College of Physicians and Surgeons), NY

Post-Doctoral Certification in Marriage, Family and Child Counseling, Human Relations Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Licensed Marriage, Family and Child Counselor (MFCC), California, formerly in private practice for 12 years

Past member of the Biological Sciences faculty of the University of Southern California (five years) and the graduate Psychology faculty of Pepperdine University (eight years)

UCLA and UC Irvine Extension course instructor

I highly respect and admire Dr. Laura and agree with her advice in her books, especially her beliefs in The Proper care and feeding of husbands. I have never in my life had my eyes opened up and my brain expanded so much by anyone other than her. I am 23 years old and have been in a serious relationship (marriage soon) with my boyfrien of over 2 years. In the beginning, I was mean, disrespectful rude and unloving. After listening to her and reading her books I have realized what a selfish B**ch I was acting like and changed. The results I have seen in my relationship are truly amazing. She has reminded me of my obligation to respect and love the person that I care for most. You really do make your own happiness. My boyfriend and I honor and respect one another and are happy to do anything for each other. I no longer resent him when I do something for him. I am so happy to do it because I love him so much! Sadly, the feminist movement has turned women into egotistical, self-serving, career-driven selfish idiotic jerks that have no concept of thinking outside themeselves. These days, women are on their "high-horses" of personal success and independence. It makes me sick. I am so happy not to be one of those women. I couldn't be happier or more grateful, loving, caring, compassionate and positive than I am right now. I listen to Dr. Laura religiously and read her books over and over to instill her concepts into my head forever,without even having to think. The world is so messed up and she is the most level-headed person I have ever known of. Women need to give up the idea that they don't need a man to be happy. Any normal person longs for love, commitment and companionship in their life. If you don't, I say you're messed up and/or in denial or stuck on your "independence high-horse". The most powerful statement that sticks in my mind is one that I learned in the 2nd grade: The Golden Rule- "Do Unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is what Dr. Laura is talking about. It's about Having respect for your partner/spouse and treating them the exact way you wish to be treated. I can guarantee that if this is done, there will be an instant relief of tension and hostility. I know from experience. I am so grateful for Dr. Laura's advice. I am a completely changed person and am happier than I have ever been. My outlook on life has done a turn-around for the good. Can the feminists honestly say they are truly happy with themselves and/or their marriages? Are they really happy in their careers? With the money they make? With the way they treat their husbands? With their hostility? With the sex they aren't having? I think not.

I have‎'t read the book nor heard the radio program.. But I think the woman is at least making it simple for those of us that actually need to be told what to do.
I kept a relationship for 11 years before marring my wife 4 years ago.
Now I have a beautiful 3 month old boy. And all I feel is deep hurt and letdown by the person I fell for. The truth is that women are biologically and instinctually selfish. Their primary objective is to insure the well being of themselves and their children. Other than that, it's all a show. Know matter what is said, you can't change people. It's up to us men to learn how to read into women and uncover what they are really like as apposed to falling endlessly in love with who we want to believe they are!
The Muslims have a lot to say on this matter up to the point of what the women of heaven have to say to the women of earth when they abuse their husbands. I must admit I did find peace in that..

I was loving and very supportive of my husband and I would have done anything for him,I gladly did things for him and I loved doing it because I loved him. But he never gave me that same respect. He walked all over me. A relationship works if you both can give and receive. He wanted things for himself but never wanted to do anything for me. No matter what I do for him it is never good enough. It could always be better. He is verbally abusive.
I am not a slave and I will not destroy myself for him. If I become another statistic in a divorce then so be it. I will not live for another minute like this so someone can walk all over me like a doormat. I am a human being. I rather be alone then being subjected to his misery.

Well all I know is I was struggling in my marriage. I tried my hardest to be a good husband I work come home do whatever I can think to make my wife happy, and still I didn't feel she understood me. I worked too hard to get her and she never had to work for me. She brushes my feelings aside as though they don't matter and she's tired of hearing about it. I was debating leaving her because I feel I don't deserve to be treated this way and am tired of the pain. Then I heard about this book, My wife loves Dr. Laura.

I am faithful I bring home a six figure income wife doesn't have to work. But when I come home house isn't clean, dinner isn't made, she nags all day and never get any kind of special treatment unless it is my BDay or Valentines day. That is B*** S***! I bust my A** for up to 12 hours a day some days to make her life better, I don't want to find another woman but I want more than a roommate I want a lover/friend.

To all you women who say that Dr. Laura is unrealistic or put women in a submissive position; look at it this way. For a woman who is on track to losing the best thing that she's ever had, this could save and secure her future.

I bought this for my wife a year ago, and didn't know how to give it to her without her feeling that I am saying she is the problem. She is a good woman, but just didn't have a good example of what a husband needs from his wife. She's reading now and about half way through, I think she is thinking about things. She's even mentioned parts to me. I listened to the audio book twice while driving to work. Almost brought tears to my eyes as this is exactly what I am feeling but didn't know how to express it to her.

If you criticize the book I don't think you have read it. She explains how WOMEN have the power in the relationship to keep the relationship healthy. If they just used their influence correctly. Now if the husband is abusive or crazy that is different, but most men just need to feel special and successful. If not they will look for someone else.

The comments above (which I scanned quickly, so let me appologize if THIS comment doesn't apply to you) seemed inflamitory and retaliative in nature. Over reactions, if you will. One tends to overstate ones point with this type of communication.
I read the article; unlike most of you, I read the book. I have recomended the book to several women. I always warn them to keep an open mind and that Dr. Laura writes with a directness and authority which I applaude, but can be off putting to some.
That is the percieved problem with her radio program. She is surgical in her technique to get to the point, gives precise advice and doesn't waste time with 'whiners'. I am not saying that these people don't need help. There are plenty of talk radio and jerry springer type outlets for them, not to mention private therapy options.
Dr. Laura has the right to screen and select the type of caller who will resonate with a wider audience. In this way, her advice will be benificial to the most listeners.
No, I do not always agree with her advice.
Give the book a chance. There is a lot of merit in it.

Haven't read the book but as an educated,divorced mother of two teenage boys that happens to listen to Dr. Laura on a regular basis I will say this...she may piss you off but she is more often than not right on! She doesn't suffer stupidity or weakness ,but if you really pay attention she empowers women to succeed in their marriages and to get out when it is detrimental to them and their children. Yes there are days where she can be rather bitchy but quite honestly if you are really listening can you blame her? She has the guts to say what most people don't want to hear...the truth! Get over it ladies, womens lib was the downfall of the family like it or not.

I was very fortunate and married my best friend. I recall the times that we would go to a park on Samos in the morning and talk all day until the park closed at 10 p.m. It is very difficult to find such a person in this world.

Mutual respect, forgiveness, and playfulness define a successful realtionship. Adopting a personna that makes you resonate with someone is neither shallow nor phoney. It is exactly what parents try to do.

Male or female; husband, wife or significant other. No one likes to be put down, controlled by fiat, ignored, embarrassed, or neglected. This is simple to understand - and difficult to remember.

When I was a kid, I thought that the Golden Rule was stupid - it was so obvious. Is it really so? Do we really practice the Golden Rule in our relationships? Most people don't.

It's amazing to me that in this day and age, people still fight against what works. Contempt prior to investigation! I am a college educated, professional woman, who works a few hours a day, and stays at home to raise my 3 year old, and a new arrival due in a couple of months. While I'll admit, when I got the book, I rolled my eyes--the suggestions REALLY work!! I am my husbands partner, not his BOSS--it's NOT all about me--and I'll tell you what--I'll bet I'm a helluva lot happier than any angry feminist that has been bashing the book! I've lived the "other way" and I'll take this way any day!!

In response to Chrisser55. Good for you, if this works for you-go for it and make your family as strong as possible! However, don't be so sure that your "college education and level ofprofessionalism" excludes you from waking up one day and realizing that all that feminine power that you've been exercizing to make sure that your husband basks in the sunshine of your love doesn't come back to bite you. Beware ladies, men love this kind of thing and as soon as thay are comfortable and thriving, alot won't even glance back to make sure you're not drowning in the wake of thier success. This is very old school advice...it just doesn't apply to all women or their situations.

In response to pnco: "...excludes you from waking up one day and realizing that all that feminine power that you've been exercizing to make sure that your husband basks in the sunshine of your love doesn't come back to bite you."

"Beware ladies, men love this kind of thing."

As if making a man happy is fundamentally wrong! Is it wrong for me to make my wife cry tears of joy? Should I maybe not treat her as well? Would that be better advice for me? WOULD THAT EVEN BE MARRIAGE?

That's exactly the kind of thinking that gets us into trouble. Marriage ceases to be a partnership, ceases to operate in cooperation, and everything devolves into a battle of the sexes: "Don't give of yourselves, ladies. Everyone KNOWS you'll never get any compensation. You will have regrets. Therefore, make damned sure your husband is emotionally and spiritually weak from a meager rationing of your love. Don't expect him to give. He is a man after all. Just take what you want and give as little as possible in return. Don't lower yourself in sacrifice to any other person, ever."

If you married a good man (not even a great man), he will show profound interest in his wife when he becomes a happy husband. He will find some way to feed the flame in your heart in order to keep his home-fires burning.

In my case, finding creative ways to make her heart burst with joy will become his biggest hobby.

The statistics of male violence against women make particularly grim reading. One in four women in the UK is a victim of domestic violence at some time, with two women a week being killed by their abusive partners or exes. What makes this yet more shocking is that, in 90% of cases, children are in the room when their father subjects their mother to either verbal or physical abuse, and usually both."

This whole idea that women should "give it up" even when they don't feel like it bothers me. What kind of man is OK with treating their wife like that?

My darling boyfriend of 2 years was born and raised in Southern Italy. He is fiery, manly, and horning most of the time. So, I asked him what he thought about the idea that as part of properly caring for her husband, and good wife should have sex, even when she is not in the mood. In his oh-so-adorable broken English he said: "What! Am I some kind of animal? That is disgusting. If you ever did that I would be so piss-off. If you are not in the mood then maybe I do something wrong."

There you have it Ladies and Gents. From a man who could have sex 3 times a day if I was willing but only gets it twice a week (with full enthusiasm). If I'm not in the mood, then maybe HE'S doing something wrong. Something for all of you under-sexed men to think about.

I agree with Vanessa ... really, what's the point of having sex with someone who doesn't want to.

Defeats the object of the exercise really, which should be: "Good time had by all".

Also, pretending to enjoy it, would, in my book, be tantamount to fraud and almost a breach of trust.

Where would the honesty be in that? Shaky grounds for a relationship, I reckon.

I agree with the principles in Dr. Laura's book. It's too bad that feminists can't take more PRIDE in being WOMEN and all the attributes of FEMININITY instead of glorifying men by acting like them.

It is a fact that only about 10% of couples know how to be happy in a relationship. Some by luck and some because they are best of friends to begin with.

It appears from most of the comments, people can't see the forest through the trees. Knowing what I know now, I chuckle at some of the negative comments stemming from ignorance of the intent of Dr Laura.

It is easy to fall in love but it is work to stay in love. Most people think that romantic love will last and they do not have to work on their relationships. When relationships fail they assume they just picked the wrong person. This may be true in some cases, but in most they just don't know how to stay in love. Unless you educate yourself and your partner, understanding their specific needs, your relationship is probably doomed.

I have been married for 29 years and we stayed married more by luck and circumstance. A few years ago after our children were out of college and self-sufficient, I was very concerned about an "empty nest". After researching the subject and following the advice of Dr. Willard Harley and Dr Laura I found a whole new world and this changed my marriage! We are now in that 10%!

Do you know that women initiate 70% of divorces and the male is the last one to know.

Try marriagebuilders.com to get the nuts and bolts of relationships, how they work and how they fail. You will find it fascinating and then you might understand Dr Laura.

I find being my husband's wife very fulfilling, and no one would confuse me with a feminist. I listen to Dr. Laura's show and I sometimes agree with her, but I don't agree 100%. The same for this book. I work outside of my home part-time, and my husband has always been okay with it. I don't always have time to cook - my husband is a terrific cook himself and our family enjoys his meals. Sometimes I'm too tired for sex, and he understands.

Sometimes *he's* too tired for sex, and I understand.

Our marriage has always been one of give and take, and it's worked well for 22 years now. No one cheats, no one abuses.

Here's what I find objectionable about Dr. Laura: I'm a survivor of domestic violence (against my mom, my brothers and myself by my father). Dr. Laura puts 100% of the responsibility for making a relationship work on the wife. My mom tried until the day my Dad died to make him happy. He still drank and became violent. Dr. Laura has, on her show, begun to blame women for the violence against them. According to her, women provoke violence and abuse because they are nags. Nothing could be farther from the truth in my situation, and I'm not alone.

I take her advice with a grain of salt because, although I'm not a feminist, I recognize misogynism when I see it.

Wow. The comments just go on and on about feminism this and sexism that. What I don't understand is this:
If you love your spouse why wouldn't you WANT to make them feel happy, and successful and loved? Yes, it's hard to overcome the selfishness we all feel, but if you think that the "sacrifice" of putting your spouse's needs ahead of your own is too much, then don't get married. Sometimes my spouse drives me nuts, but at the end of the day loving and being loved by that person is my privavlege, not some huge sacrifice.

In response to Dee Dee, I believe that Dr. Laura has mentioned a few times (in this book in fact) that there are exceptions to these rules. Some men are just plain bad eggs, and cannot be dealt with. I have not listened to her show recently, but to think that she would say a woman would provoke violence from a man (especially in circumstances similar to your own, with substance abuse) is rather...outrageous, frankly. I believe that is squarely on the man's shoulders.


I agree with Dr. Laura that women probably do have a lot of influence of how the relationship will pan out, but of course, in any partnership, there has to be some give and take.

I must say that after reading the majority of these comments I am saddened by the fact that so many people have lost sight of the purpose of marriage. The two shall become one. There are so many opportunities in our life to be independent and I believe that whole-heartedly but when you enter marriage you have decided (both of you) to love honor and respect the other. EQUAL partnership different roles. Take pride in your role and create a balance that works for your family.

when you are taking care of your husband, you are taking care of both of you.

If there are any women out there who agree with most of this book apart from the sex bit then would you like to go for a date it would help if you lived n the sw london area seen as im the boss.....lol.....
Seriously though blog #60 is bang on and i totally agree with you Cindy.
Cheers
Frank

Men and women should love and care for eachother, the title of the book should be proper care and feeding of a spouse. By human nature, we want to be thought of as needed, loved and cared for. Two people marry because they are in it to win it, they're a team and as a team they should cheer eachother on.

you are not responsible for the actions of your spouse... you cannot control the actions of your spouse either... part of having a harmonious marriage involves taking responsibility for your own actions and setting an example, behaving toward your spouse the way you want your spouse to behave toward you, doing what you believe is right and hoping they follow suit. wives are not slaves nor maids, and neither are men, but marriage should be a partnership, you shouldn't compete with one another, you shouldn't compare, and you shouldn't rack up lists of all the things you've done and they haven't. you should embrace your differences, accept them, work around them, make them work for you -- instead of nagging and criticizing and holding back intimacy just because you're angry. if we were meant to marry someone exactly like us in nature, there wouldn't be such a stink about gay marriage. men and women are different for a reason but it's not so that one can serve the other without respect.

I totally agree with Mary (comment #63). Both parts of a marriage should take care of each other and not put the burden on only one part. That's what makes relationships and marriages work.

It's really the one sided-ness of things that I don't like about people like Laura Schlessinger. What she says applies to both sexes, not just the women. The specific arguments are perhaps different for the two sexes (generally speaking) but the bottom line is that either part need to care for the other.

And I also believe that it's totally ok to actually leave someone. Sometimes people actually change inte different persons over the years (!) and you may not be right for each other. I think it's much better to leave someone than to keep living in something that just isn't right for one partner (which means it's really not right for the other partner either)