Theravive

The following article is, in my opinion, an excellent expose about this topic.  Most of all, this manuscript is non-judgmental, fair-minded and comprehensive.  It is not written to tell you what do or not do.  It is oriented toward helping couples and professionals reset their intellectual compass so as to think about the process of determining the impact of your specific divorce given your specific familial situation.   In short, the issue is not a binary is-divorce-good-or-bad-for-children.  Read on and you you will get the full picture. Jim Hutt, Ph.D., MFT

What Researchers Say About Divorce Russell Collins, MFT  &  Laura Collins, JD

Over a million kids will become children of divorce this year. About 20 percent of divorced families seek help for their children—a whopping number when you remember that by most estimates, around 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. If you are a therapist in private practice or you are with an agency, chances are you deal daily with families and kids in one stage or another of a divorce. In a perfect world, you would have at your fingertips all of the knowledge that’s been collected about divorce. This knowledge would add immeasurably to your understanding of your clients’ problems and the effects– intended and unintended—of your therapeutic interventions. In reality, few therapists have enough time to sort through the academic journals and extract the useful information. It is unfortunate, because research conducted over the last three or four years has shed new light on the questions that psychotherapy clients most often want answered: Just how damaging is divorce to children?
*  Should we stay together for the kids?
*  How important are fathers in the lives of the children of divorce?
*  How damaging to children is the legal battle over children and money—and is there a better way? The good news is that much of this research has itself been researched and mined for data that therapists and others can use. Here are a few of the most important findings.

Q: Are our kids going to suffer if we get divorced? Will they be emotionally damaged?

This is the controversy that has been brewing since Judith Wallerstein first published her startling research findings in the 1979 book, Surviving the Breakup. Wallerstein found that children really do suffer in a divorce, a fact that she believed had gotten lost in the euphoria of the “divorce revolution” of the 70s. In 2000, Wallerstein reignited the controversy with the publication of The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, a follow-up study that showed children of divorce continue to suffer into adulthood. On the heels of Wallerstein’s book, E. Mavis Hetherington (For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered) and Constance Ahrons (We’re Still Family) published studies making the opposite argument: that most grown children of divorce recover quickly and are as emotionally stable as those from continuously married families. Many people, including mental health professionals, have been confused by these findings. How could serious researchers come to such contrary conclusions when studying the same subject? To make matters worse, the media has exaggerated the controversy and given it a distinctly political slant.

To get a straight answer, we turned to Robert Emery, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children and Families and the Law at the University of Virginia. Emery is the author of the 2004 best-seller, The Truth About Children and Divorce, a highly readable and informative guide for parents on the effects of divorce on children. He is also one of the nation’s leading researchers on the topic of divorce. “The truth is in the middle, not at the extremes,” he said, speaking from his office at the University of Virginia. “The media has done a great disservice to families struggling with this issue by presenting it in such black and white terms.” Emery has reviewed virtually all the relevant research—hundreds of studies—from which he has extrapolated a core of verifiable facts. From his viewpoint, it is misleading to talk about divorce being “good” or “bad” for children. He speaks instead about the difference between the pain that almost all of these children feel and the pathology that a minority of them develop. When you look at the data this way, Emery says, much of the controversy melts away.

What emerges instead are useful distinctions that can help light the way for divorcing parents and the therapists who advise them. And, surprisingly, Emery says, proponents on both sides of the argument— even writers as diverse as Wallerstein and Ahrons—are able to get behind these conclusions. The highlights are these: Divorce is almost always stressful and painful for kids—especially during the first year or two. Therapists should expect this, advise parents to expect it, and help them understand and deal with it as it arises. 
There is no doubt that some of these children are at risk of developing emotional problems. It’s hard to get an exact fix on how many, Emery admits, as the problems sometimes start early, long before the divorce. But most researchers put the number at around twenty to twenty-five percent. Eighty percent of children from divorced families have no more psychological problems than children from continuously married families.

This information is key for both for parents considering divorce and the therapists who advise them. To use the technical jargon, most children are resilient. Resilience isn’t the same as getting through divorce without pain. Nor does it mean that the pain of divorce won’t linger long into adulthood. In fact, most adult children of divorce report painful memories. “Forty-eight percent of young people worry about events where their parents will be together, like weddings or a recital,” Emery quotes from the research. “And, about a third of young people who did not live with their dads wondered whether their dads loved them. These painful experiences do not qualify as “pathology” in the sense that psychotherapists use the word. But this kind of pain is certainly not something that you want for a child.” Of course, every divorce, and every divorcing family, is different.

“For some families, particularly those where conflict is a pervasive and damaging presence, divorce can come as a relief,” Emery acknowledges. “For others, the transition is extremely painful.” Influences affecting a family’s experience of divorce range from socioeconomic variables to parenting competence to the individual personalities involved. The research makes no prediction about how an individual family will fare during divorce. But it does provide signposts to help therapists understand the process as it unfolds, and it provides guidance for getting through it with minimal damage to family members and family relationships. On the topic of which factors are correlated with resilience versus pathology, Emery is quick to point out that conflict between parents is at the top of the list. He thinks that therapists can be incredibly important in mitigating pathology. “Many couples believe that divorce is the end of their relationship and the end of their troubles with the spouse,” he says of the often naïve expectations of divorcing parents. “But for many divorcing parents, the opposite turns out to be true, because they find themselves battling over, through, and on top of the kids.” Without proper guidance, couples hoping to escape the unhappy, complicated entanglements of married life through divorce may find themselves more deeply entangled than ever. Rather than reducing the damaging conflict in their children’s lives by divorcing, Emery says, these couples increase it.

Q: So, are children damaged by divorce?

The answer from research is that they don’t have to be, and that in many cases, the parents themselves can make the choice for their family by the way they behave toward each other both during and after divorce.

Q: Should we stay together for the kids?

The idea that parents might consider ignoring their difficulties with each other and sticking it out for their children’s sake has enjoyed a resurgence in the last few years. Until recently, most social scientists have taken the position that unhappy parents make unhappy families and unhealthy children. The opposite viewpoint—that family cohesion should take precedence over the personal fulfillment of parents—has been maintained primarily by experts speaking from a religious or politically conservative point of view. This view has made it difficult to do serious research in this area without being tagged as a member of one faction or the other, according to Paul Amato. Amato chairs the Sociology Department at Penn State and has studied the structure of families for 20 years. Nevertheless, objective research is being done on the issue, with surprisingly specific conclusions.

In a 2001 study carried out with fellow researcher, Allan Booth, Amato found that divorce in high-conflict marriages often results in beneficial effects for the children, while the dissolution of a low conflict marriage is more likely to have a negative impact. Emery, who has reproduced Amato’s findings in more recent research, can think of several reasons why this effect might be so. “A marriage can be ‘good enough’ for the children without being good for the parents,” he points out. To the children, a family may feel like a safe and nurturing place, even as the parents suffer in silence. These findings may have other implications too—about how parents should responsibly let children in on the less-than-perfect aspects of their marriage. “It may be that parents in low-conflict marriages overprotect their kids,” Emery says. “Maybe these parents need to alert their kids—‘Hey, your mom and I aren’t getting along right now’.” Sharing this information might reduce the traumatic impact of a divorce announcement that comes out of the blue and helps to prepare the children emotionally. “And, if they don’t split up,” Emery adds, “the kids learn you can have conflict and work it out.” Obviously, these observations don’t provide a clear-cut answer to the question whether parents should of stay together for the kids.

In fact, they make the decision process a thornier one by adding a new layer of complexity. If children from low-conflict families are better off when parents stay together, then the choice may come to, “Whose happiness am I going to choose?” High-conflict couples confront the opposite dilemma: “Am I hurting my child by trying to save the marriage?” For therapists too, this scenario further complicates an already difficult question: how do I educate and inform these parents of likely outcomes without pushing them toward one decision or the other? Therapists must be skillful in introducing this news in a way that opens up new levels of responsibility and freedom for clients, rather than the opposite. Done properly, however, it can be tremendously helpful for clients to know what the new findings are, even if it reopens a question many considered closed.

Should we stay together for the kids?

The answer from research is this: in a low conflict marriage, you can stay together for the kids with a reasonable hope that your sacrifice will pay off. In a high-conflict marriage, on the other hand, you can separate or divorce with confidence that you have helped your children escape the seriously damaging consequences of fighting between parents. Used wisely, both the questions and the answers can enrich the decision-making process and make your client’s time in therapy more useful and productive.

Q: How important are fathers in the lives of infants and toddlers?

This question is another that has galvanized debate among advocacy groups for the last ten years or so. It is also a question that may come at a therapist from various directions. A divorcing mom says the father is incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed significant time with their very young children. A discouraged father is considering “dropping out” of his children’s lives.
 Both parents want the father to spend more time with his children, and want to know the developmentally “correct” way to go about it. Paul Amato has spent the last ten years immersed in the question of father’s involvement in their childrens’ lives. His conclusion, at the end of that time is, fathers are very important.  Paul Amato has spent the last 10 years immersed in the question of father’s involvement in their childrens’ lives.  His conclusion, at the end of that time, is that fathers are very important. “Positive, frequent involvement on the part of nonresident fathers benefits children,” Amato says.  But he is quick to distinguish between “real parenting” and the “Disneyland dad” kind.  “Going out for ice cream, seeing movies, or visiting amusement parks may be 
enjoyable, but these activities do not necessarily contribute in a positive way to children’s development,” Amato says.

Instead, children benefit when dads are involved in the activities that significantly effect development. “Keeping track of how their children are doing in school, talking with their children about right and wrong, helping their children with personal problems, and even disciplining their children when they misbehave.” And, of course, he adds, “fathers need to let their children know that they are loved deeply.” Research like Amato’s that demonstrates benefits for fathers’ involvement is still being aggressively challenged.  Critics see insufficient evidence that multiple caregivers do a better job of raising small children than mothers who raise kids alone.   But the tide of opinion may be changing. The research is piling up and having its influence on policymakers and judges figuring out the best course of action when mothers and fathers battle for the custody of their children. But statements like these have been aggressively challenged by those arguing that there is little evidence that multiple caregivers do a better job of raising small children than mothers who raise kids alone.

The issue is highly politically charged, of course, as policymakers and judges try to find the best course of action when mothers and fathers fight over the custody of their children. To add substance to the debate, Marsha Kline Pruett has just this year completed a five-year study on the effects of divorce on very young children. As she talks, her reasons for focusing her efforts here become apparent. “So many divorcing families have children under six,” she says, “yet the legal system knows so little about young kids.” Not only that, but an increasing number of unmarried couples now want to share parenting time. “In the absence of empirical evidence, people are making judgments about parenting relying on outdated assumptions.” One of the effects of this, says Pruett, has been that fathers have often been excluded from the lives of their young children, to the detriment of the very kids the system is trying to protect. “Dad’s often get hit with a double whammy,” she says. “First, they are going through a divorce that they often don’t want, then they are being cut out of their young children’s lives.” This leads to fathers feeling disenfranchised, discouraged, and, in many cases, they quietly slip away. “Fathers of young children are at high risk,” she says, “because they haven’t had time to develop the relationship.

Three or four years later, when the system finally grants them significant access to their kids, it’s just too late—for both the fathers and the kids.” Pruett and her research team at Yale conducted a sizable study of 132 divorced families over a period of one and a half years. Their purpose was to discover the effects of parenting arrangements that allowed young children to spend time in both parents’ homes. What Pruett discovered was, “by 18 months, not doing overnights is bad for kids, especially for girls.” In fact, Pruett discovered, among the variables she studied, the most important one for young girls was overnights with their dads. “And by age three,” she found, “boys and girls who are not doing overnights look worse socially and cognitively, and in all kinds of other areas, too.” Psychotherapists working individually with divorcing parents need to understand what’s at stake, Pruett says. “When fathers drop out of children’s lives, they are at risk for a whole host of problems.” But parents are often too busy protecting their own interests to notice. “A young mother or mother-to-be may find the idea of giving up two or three nights a week highly undesirable.

A father, conversely, may feel discouraged by the messages he’s getting from the courts or the mother herself.” These situations can easily result in the father being absent. Yet, what the research is telling us is, for most of these very young kids, a missing father can leave a hole in their lives and a damaged link in their development. This is where the therapist’s role can be pivotal. Looking systemically at the problem rather than addressing just the immediate complaint of a mother or father, the therapist can help his/her client see his/her choices in relation to the whole family picture. And the research can be most helpful in persuading parents to “play ball.” “Kids can’t speak for themselves in this situation,” Pruett laments, “and the parents simply have no idea.” Sometimes, the therapist is the only one who can see the damage in store for the children and intervene to head it off. A little parent education can go a long way as therapists help guide their clients who are considering divorce. “They need to have a picture of what life is like after divorce,” says Pruett, “and many of these parents turn to their therapist to get some perspective.

Moms may imagine their lives as single moms living with their child, not realizing how important— and how likely—it is for the father to be sharing those nights.” Pruett echoes one of Emery’s points about the therapists’ role in divorce. Much of the value of therapy is helping to paint a realistic picture of life after divorce. The unexpected sources of conflict, like overnights with young children; the unanticipated experience of loneliness when the kids are with their other parent; or, as Emery points out, the fact that parents must go on parenting together although the marriage is over. These are the realities of life after divorce, and therapy clients are often surprisingly blind to them. The therapist who has a full and authoritative grasp of these realities and who can convey them effectively provides a benefit that contributes substantially to their clients’ lives in the years ahead. Q: Are there ways to get through the legal process without damaging the kids? 
Just this year, Emery completed a landmark study on the effects of the legal process on children in divorce. Specifically, he asked the question about whether an alternate process—divorce mediation—would make a difference over the years in post-divorce families.

The results came as a surprise. “I was shocked,” he told me. “Twelve years later the mediation—just five or six hours of it—produced huge differences in important variables, like the amount of contact with the father or non-residential mother.” Better parenting, more involvement from non-residential parents, and greater cooperation between parents were all apparent twelve years later. “And how often does five or six hours of anything make that much difference twelve years later?” Emery asks. “Emory’s new research takes on particular significance in light of what we already know about the effects of parents’ fighting on kids.” Conflict is often the direct cause of kids’ pain and confusion during the time of divorce. The anger and grief that many children of divorce feel as adults can also be linked to conflict. And the psychological scarring and emotional damage that a minority of children suffer as a result of divorce, that, too, is often traceable to conflict. Inter-parental conflict is just bad for kids, and the legal system makes this kind of conflict all but inevitable. “To put it the way my kids would say it, the choice to mediate is a ‘big duh.’” Emery said. “Should parents carry their conflict into the public arena and put each other down in a courtroom, or sit down in private and work out this intensely personal matter?”

As dramatic as they are, Emery’s conclusions about the superiority of divorce mediation over the litigation route come as no surprise to those in the field. Judges, therapists and lawmakers watching the pernicious effects of court battles on families have, for years, been scratching their heads at its ineffectiveness and inappropriateness for dissolving marriages. Adding it up—The good news and the bad for divorcing parents:
 Most children make it through divorce without damage-and some children even gain a little resiliency in   the process.
*  The number of children who suffer lasting damage is relatively small—twenty to twenty-five percent.
*   The choices parents make—about fighting and about fathers staying involved, specifically— can spell the difference between pathology and resiliency in their children.
*    Parents can stay together to the benefit of their children. Or, they can choose to separate to spare them from damaging conflict.
*    Mediation works far better than the court system in helping parents get through divorce without damaging their children. These are all things we didn’t know with certainty just a few short years ago. But this is what the new research is telling us. Therapists who know and understand these findings are guiding their clients more effectively through the turbulent waters of divorce, providing significant benefit to their clients, their client’s families, and their communities.

Russell Collins, MFT, and Laura Collins, JD, are a psychotherapist/ lawyer co-mediation team specializing in child-friendly divorce. They live and work in Santa Barbara. They can be contacted at (805) 969-6370, or through their website at www.collinsmediation.com.
by: Russell Colllins, MFT and
Laura Collins, JD
The Therapist - November/December 2006

YELLING AT CHILDREN

This is a topic that has meaning for everyone.  All of us have raised our voices, probably more than once.  No, I did not come from a home of screaming parents or siblings.  However, I do see many families and couples who yell a lot at each other, and the short and long-term consequences of regular yelling/screaming are not pretty. Those of you who experience yelling know what I’m talking about.

Let’s start with the impact of yelling at children:

First, it teaches them how to yell, when to yell, and that yelling is an effective response to emotionally charged situations.  By extension, it teaches them an ineffective way to process anger, as anger is usually associated with yelling.

Second, yelling scares most children—the younger the child, often the more fear they feel.  In a state of fear it is next to impossible for a child to think about their mistake or misbehavior.  If a child cannot think about their mistake, a child cannot learn from their mistake.

Third, regularly yelling at a child before the age of 3 or 4, or before they have an expansive developmental use of language, teaches them to replace useful language with yelling.  In other words, a child will not learn  useful, effective expression when yelling is their model.  The short version is, ‘if mom and/or dad yell, then so can I.’  They are too young to know better.

Back to the fear induced by a yelling parent.  Children are far less likely to learn the lesson you want them to learn when they are afraid.  Instead of the lesson they might otherwise learn from natural, appropriate consequences associated with their mistake, they learn to be afraid.  Fearful children often grow up to be fearful adults and parents.  Sometimes they grow up to be yellers.  No surprise.

HELPLESSNESS

Not only is yelling learned from our own parents in some cases, it also means a parent probably feels helpless.  It is a sign that a parent does not know a more effective alternative at that moment.  Helplessness is a very powerful feeling, and when the brain reads the ‘helpless signal,’ so to speak, it will do almost anything to reduce it.  The antidote to helplessness begins with a four step process, which will aide in reducing/stopping yelling at the kids:

First, make a conscious, verbal decision to stop.

Second,  make the commitment to learn the skills necessary for replacing yelling with effective responses.  Go to The Love and Logic Institute, and invest in their parenting CD’s, books & DVD’s.  From that material you can learn those skills (no, I do not get residuals for recommending their remarkable material, but I’d appreciate it if you would tell them I sent you!).  All you need to know about replacing yelling, and learning how to really enjoy parenting is there. OK, now that’s your skills toolbox.  But, now you have to reduce the reactivity that precedes your yelling–that’s the hard part.  Parents who effectively manage their emotional reactivity do not tend to yell.

Third, if reactivity (which I will say more about below) and anger are problems for you, which frequently is the case with chronic yellers, professional counseling may be your best investment.

Fourth,  try this new thought as a guide to changing your thinking about yelling as you consider making your decision to stop:  There is nothing a child can do that calls for yelling at them—unless it will literally save their life.

By the way, in 29 years of practice, I’ve never met a parent who remarked:  “Boy, do I regret not yelling a my kid, what a mistake that was.”

YELLING AT YOUR SPOUSE/PARTNER

Yelling at your spouse/partner induces fear, just as it does in a child.  Brain research has shown that it is very difficult to think while in a state of fear.  If you want your partner to think about what you say,  the odds for that increase  when you speak in a way that does not produce fear.  When your partner hears yelling, the brain reads it as DANGER, and your partner experiences fear.  It (the brain)  immediately goes in to some degree of fight or flight mode—how much depends on the amount of perceived threat.  The behavior from your partner at that point will probably range from yelling back/defensiveness (fight mode) to silence/withdrawal (flight mode).  Neither will produce a satisfactory outcome.

Fight mode is sometimes referred to as “reactive.”  In fight or reactive mode we tend to say things we regret or wish we could take back, which, of course calls for repair.  Part of this pattern often includes your partner reacting defensively and/or critically when yelled at.  That defensiveness triggers more frustration, anger and lashing out.  Without knowing what to do, or how to respond differently, the cycle  is repeated, and both partners suffer and struggle with a broken or unsatisfactory conflict management process.  The next time an issue surfaces it will be anticipated with dread.

Flight mode is also referred to as silence/withdrawal.  In flight mode, two common options arise:  One, you either do not know what to say due shutting down with fear; or, two, you may know exactly what you want to say, but, you say nothing because a part of you believes that what you think and/feel is unimportant, so why bother.  Either way you have no voice.  In the end, both you and your partner are probably angry, hurt, disappointed and frustrated, and blaming the other for the “breakdown in communication.”

More accurately, there was no “breakdown in communication,” per se.  In fact, there was plenty of communication, too much of it ineffective.  More significant was the breakdown in reactivity management.  All the good communication skills in the tool bag will be of little use in the face of unchecked or poorly managed reactivity.  Why might professional counseling helpful at this point?  Because chronic ineffectively managed reactivity almost always has some roots in our early history.  A competent marital therapist can help connect early roots to current events, finish some old business, and help you develop reactivity management alternatives.

AN ALTERNATIVE TO YELLING

I am aware that many of you prefer counseling as a last resort.  If that’s the case, on your own, try the following:

1.  Before you begin your discussion,  each of you verbally acknowledge your willingness to break the pattern that is not working.  It might sound like this:  “The last time we discussed this, I did not react effectively.  I am going to try some new behaviors.”

2.  Next, each of you openly acknowledge to your partner how you aspire to be during the discussion.  If you tend to be the yeller, acknowledge that you aspire to be calm, and what new behavior you plan to employ if you begin to feel activated.  You might say, for example,  “I’m starting to feel like I want to yell, my frustration is building, I would like to stop for a few minutes so that I can get calm again.”  THAT WOULD BE NEW BEHAVIOR.  If you begin to feel activated, take responsibility for it—do not blame your partner.  What ever new behavior you decide to try, let it be known in advance of the discussion.  No surprises, unless they’re pleasant ones.

3.  Hold yourself to the healthy code of conduct to which you aspire; let your partner do the same for him/herself.  How you aspire to be is all you have control over.

4.  In advance, put a time limit on the length of the discussion.  If you each feel comfortable continuing on, agree to another time limit. Repeat as necessary.

5.  When either of you call for a time out, especially to lower your reactivity, decide on a time to resume.  This reduces the chances of  avoiding your way out of the discussion entirely.

6.  After the discussion, and only if you both agree to, analyze YOUR own respective roles in how the discussion went.  Talk about yourself, unless complimenting your partner.  Determine where you might become more effective, and tell your partner.  Focus on your behavior, not your partner’s.

Good luck in your attempts to break this difficult pattern.  It’s not easy.  The fact that you made an attempt builds trust and self confidence.

CONSIDERATION VS. PERMISSION
Don’t you hate to approach your spouse/partner with questions that can elicit the answer “NO!”?   For example: “Honey, is it OK if I …(fill in the blank)?”  Or, “Can I …(fill in the blank)?”   Some of you guys out there, more than once, have implored your partner/spouse:  “Can I go bowling tonight?”  And then there’s the all-time favorite guy question—“Sweetie, I can go to the (name of favorite sports bar) and watch the football game tonight, right?”

This isn’t reserved for men only.  A wife/partner may ask:  “Dear, is it OK if I go shopping?”  Or, “Can I go with the girls to Vegas this weekend?”   “It’s OK if I go to the movies tonight and leave the kids with you, right?” Permission-seeking opportunities among couples are endless.  But are they necessary, and is it healthy to seek permission?
Well, consider this:  A marriage/partnership is our only opportunity for a non-hierarchical, balanced relationship.  How and why is a CounselorLetter for a later date.  For now,  think of  a non-hierarchical relationship this way:  it is  a collaboration between equals.

Equals who collaborate are reasonably well differentiated.  Well differentiated couples approach each other as adults, and respect each others  separate desires, requests, thoughts, feelings and needs.   As collaborators,  decisions and plans are made together.  Generally speaking, collaborative adults live by consideration. They tend to avoid permission-seeking, and instead offer and seek consideration.

PERMISSION SEEKING
The questions in the first two paragraphs (above) are permission-seeking questions.  Many women have expressed that permission-seeking questions trigger maternal feelings toward their husbands.  Men,  that  has serious implications:  It is very difficult for the woman in our lives to feel simultaneously spousal and parental toward us without a cost to the relationship.
One woman, to her husband, said it best:  “If you want me to treat you like a man, and you want me to respond like a woman & wife, stop asking me for permission like a child.  I’m not your mother!”

It’s very much the same for women who seek permission from their spouses/partners.  In both cases, permission seeking sets up and reinforces a relationship hierarchy. The short version is described as follows: The marital relationship is more PARENT to CHILD, (hierarchal) than it is ADULT to ADULT (collaborative)  While some relationships may seem to thrive within this type of hierarchy, many, if not most, do not.  Sooner or later, the one who tends to be the permission-seeker, i.e. CHILD, will experience resentment, and distance.  The PARENTAL spouse often feels frustration, irritation and distance.  Couples who experience this hierarchy are frequently in conflict about a lot of “little things,” and don’t know why.

CONSIDERATION
Rather than seeking permission, employ consideration.  Now those questions above become statements: 

(PERMISSION-SEEKING)“Honey, is it OK if I …(fill in the blank)?” morphs in to: 

(CONSIDERATION) “Honey, I want/would like/have begun planning (fill in the blank) and, want to know how that works for you.  Any thoughts or feelings about that?”

Example #2,  (PERMIMSSION-SEEKING) “It’s OK if I go to the movies tonight and leave the kids with you, right?” (CONSIDERATION) “ I really want to go to the movies with (friend’s name) and I know it’s last minute, and I also realize that means you would have to watch the kids.  I really need a break.  How would you feel about that?
The previous are examples of consideration; they are ADULT to ADULT (collaborative) vs PARENT to CHILD (hierarchal) interactions.  They consider how, and/or what, your partner feels and thinks about what it is you want, as well as day-to-day logistics. Equally important it gives you a voice as well, i.e., you are free to say what you want without fear.  Couples who tend to approach each other ADULT to ADULT (collaboratively) generally find they are able to hear objections or conflicts generated by their stated desire.  Furthermore, they area able to negotiate effectively.

The converse is more likely in the hierarchical or PARENT to CHILD interaction—there’s no room to negotiate.  It’s a binary “yes’ or “no,” often followed by a fight, or go-along-to-get-along silence, which we know from the research produces warmth equal to, or less than, that of  the granite counter-top  in your kitchen.
Give consideration a try the next time you catch yourself about to seek permission, and see for yourself.   Here’s a cool twist:  While it’s true that differentiated couples tend to operate from a position of consideration, a couple can become more differentiated by taking the risk to use consideration in place of permission seeking.  It may seem like a small issue, but it can have big rewards.

Your conflicts sometimes lead to painful or bitter fights.  When all is said and done after your difference du jour, you both feel frustrated, hurt, dejected and misunderstood.  You both know you will repeat your familiar but painful scenario in the near future; it’s a matter of when, not if.  You feel helpless and confused, and have no idea how to break the pattern you faithfully, but regrettably, repeat.   In the end, the refrain is the same: “You just don’t understand!  This article is about how to change that.

We all want to be heard and understood, and when we’re not, all too often we blame our partner for it.  However, the responsibility for being understood begins on your own side of the street, not your partner’s.  Unwittingly, you undercut being understood when under stress.

Ironically, you probably ‘know’ what constitutes effective and ineffective behavior when hashing out an issue. And yet, ineffective stuff easily surfaces.  For example, calling your partner a derogatory name seldom leads to your partner feeling safe, but you do it anyway, with predictable consequences.

This happens, in part, because emotional states tend to trump clear thinking. Keeping emotional reactivity low can be a challenge.  Humans run from pain much faster than doing the crucial work that leads them toward pleasure.  Why?  Our brains are wired to run from danger and pain.  It’s a survival reflex. 

Ineffective behavior in the service of decreasing your pain reduces emotional safety.  In short, a relationship is only as emotionally safe as the partner who feels the least safe.

Winning, and setting the record (facts) straight in an argument also inhibits being understood.  When couples decide to join their lives together, they believe their union is a team.  Introduce conflict in to your day-to-day lives, and voila, it may feel like you’re on opposing teams!  Amazing, isn’t it?  How often have you said to yourself, your partner or a friend, “when we fight, I can never win,”?  Or, “I knew I married Mr./Ms. Right, I just didn’t know his/her first name was ‘always’!” 

Being right during a conflict goes hand in hand with winning.  Ultimately, the result is the same.  The ‘right’ one feels good, and the ‘wrong’ one feels bad.  The net effect:  distance, and a failure to produce emotional safety and relationship closeness.

So, here’s what to do instead of pounding a nail in to your shoe.  What if you did some things completely different, such as the following:  1). gave up being right and winning; 2). spoke with honesty;  3). talked about yourself.  Those elements keep connection during conflict, lead to being understood and promote emotional safety.  OK, now, suspend disbelief, take a deep breath, give it a shot, try any or all,  and see what happens.

Here are an examples of each: 

1).  GIVING UP BEING RIGHT AND WINNING

Your partner says something like this (I know you wouldn’t, right?):  “You NEVER do what I ask, even the smallest, simplest thing!  You ALWAYS ignore me!”  (Here’s a hint for you that will take the “u” out of clueless--NEVER and ALWAYS are not meant to be taken literally.  NEVER and ALWAYS  point out the intensity of the emotions or feelings accompanying the complaint--NEVER  and ALWAYS are qualitative, not quantitative. DO NOT take “never” and “always” literally.  Got it?  Excellent!)

HERE’S YOUR OLD, TIME TESTED AND HONORED, DEEPLY GROOVED PATTERN RESPONSE, BASED ON YOUR DESIRE TO BE RIGHT, SO YOU CAN WIN, SO THAT  YOUR SEX LIFE REMAINS DORMANT, IF NOT DEAD:

 “Yes I do.  In fact on January 4, 2001 when you asked me to take the garbage out, I did it, and I didn’t even sulk.  And right now, I am, in fact, listening to you, or I would not have been able to remember when I took the garbage out.  So, I don’t know what your problem is.  By the way, why do you always say “always” and “never” when you know they’re never true?  I don’t get it”

No, YOU don’t get it, but that’s OK, because you’re only human, too. try the following alternative response.  Take a risk, stretch, give it a shot, see what happens.

HERE’S YOUR NEW, NOT TIME TESTED, NOT PART OF A DEEPLY GROOVED PATTERN, BUT BASED ON YOUR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND AND CONNECT WITH YOUR PARTNER, SO THAT HE/SHE WILL BE MORE COMPASSIONATE WHEN PICKING OUT YOUR NURSING HOME, NEW RESPONSE: 

“Wow, it sounds like you’re telling me maybe I’m not as reliable as I like to think I am, and, when you try to tell me about it, I really don’t want to hear it, so I shut you down with an air-tight counter-argument.  And now, you sound really irritated and hurt.” 

That is what giving up being right and winning looks like when morphed into understanding looks like.  



2). HONESTY

Honesty is the best policy. Well, at least that’s what we’re told.  Notice I didn’t say that’s what we’re taught.  That’s because, by and large, in this culture, we are not taught how to be honest, we’re simply told to be honest.   In fact, we are told to be honest, but are taught/shown how to be dishonest, an implicit double message.

Bullwash, you say.  Well, maybe, but here’s a test:  What was NOT talked about in your family of origin?  Did your parents/step-parents/caregivers talk openly about sensitive issues like sex, eroticism and love, and the connection between them?  Were emotions talked about?  Was it acceptable and safe to express your thoughts & feelings? 

Was it safe to honestly tell family members what you thought and felt--in other words, was the price of honesty low enough to reinforce honest, effective communication when you were a kid, especially when there were differences? 

Did mom and dad display their ability to listen and understand each other respectfully?

If you were the bearer of ‘bad news,’ such as a less than stellar report card, or you lobbed a baseball through a window, or you got a ticket, was it safe to come clean, even if a bit reluctantly?  Could you question parental authority (appropriately) without repercussion simply because you questioned?

That is a short list.  There are countless family of origin situations that either promote or discourage honesty.  If your answers lean more toward “no” than “yes,”  lies of omission may pepper your current relationship more than you are aware.  If so, there’s a good chance  your partner will not understand you.  Why? Because information withheld or omitted prevents understanding.

Here’s an example of a dishonest exchange, i.e., replete with omissions, followed by its honest counter-part:

DISHONEST EXCHANGE--(here’s the scenario)--You really want to confront your partner.  He/she was drunk at a party the night before.  This is a recurring event.  You were embarrassed and humiliated, and today you feel hurt and angry, and now you’re worried that he/she may, indeed, be an alcoholic.  Bringing up a thorny topic has always been difficult for you--a part of you is afraid of conflict.  There was alcoholism in your family of origin.  Conflict was seldom managed effectively.

A (dishonest) exchange looks like this:

YOU: “Did you have fun at the party last night--you seemed to have a good time?”

PARTNER: “I had a great time!  Did you?”

YOU:  “It was OK, not great.  Sometimes being around all that drinking gets kind of old.”

PARTNER:  “Hey, what’s the big deal, it’s a party, right? That’s what parties are about.”

YOU:  “I know, but still, it would be nice if it were different, that’s all I’m saying.”

             (Nice and safe, didn’t scratch the surface, no understanding achieved.).

HONEST EXCHANGE-- looks like this:

YOU:  “Honey, I want to talk with you about the party last night.  It was not fun for me.  In fact,
              there were several times I felt terribly embarrassed and humiliated.  When I think back     
              on it today, I am very hurt, angry and scared.  I am afraid that there is alcoholism in our
              house, just like when I was a kid. I don’t want to ignore it in our marriage like my
              parents ignored it in theirs.  Please, can we talk about this and do something about it?
     
              (Safe, non-reactive, but direct, clear, honest expression of feeling and experience).

PARTNER:  “Wow, this is really hard stuff to hear.  Part of me feels really defensive right now.
                       But another part of me knows there’s some truth in what you’re saying.  I really
                       don’t want to see myself as a drunk, but I know I really lose it sometimes.  I’m
                       sorry I did those things last night--I can see how you’d feel.  Do you honestly
                       think our marriage is like your parents’?

YOU:         “I don’t know, that’s the problem.  All I know is, I won’t live like they did. I told myself

                  it would never happen to me, but I’m so scared that it’s happening anyway!”

PARTNER:  “I feel really weird saying this to you, but the truth is, I’ve secretly been worried
                       about my drinking for a while now.  I didn’t want to tell you that because I thought 
                       you might kick me out.  I’ve been worried about that, too!” 

YOU:  “I am SO relieved to hear to hear you say that!  I don’t want to kick you out, although,  
           there have been times when I’ve thought about it --maybe we ca find a way to kick the alcohol out.

The differences between the two scenarios above are numerous and hopefully, obvious.  It isn’t necessarily easy or comfortable having open, honest exchanges similar to the one above. But they work!  Developing the ability to have them is crucial to a long and happy relationship.  Remember, all the external communication tools and skills are ineffective unless you have the internal ability to risk being honest.   Sometimes that requires professional counseling.




3).TALK ABOUT YOURSELF
  
Being understood also requires you talk about yourself.  I am not referring to an egocentric or unhealthy narcissism.  Talking about yourself means not talking about your partner.  Quite simply, if you want to be understood,  talking about someone else makes no sense.  It’s impossible to be understood if you’re talking about your partner. 

If you and your sibling each broke a leg in a car crash, which leg would you talk about if you wanted your experience to be understood?  Yours, of course.  It is virtually the same with you and your partner.  When you want your partner to understand you, chances are the more you talk about your partner the less you will be understood.  Here’s the deal:  TALK ABOUT YOURSELF.

Easier said than done, you’re right, and here is why:  Chances are, the model of conflict management you grew up with included watching and/or listening to parents talk about the other, rather than themselves.  Accusations, blaming, name-calling, making the other ‘wrong,’ are but a few of the ways partners/parents talk about the other. 

If either parent was conflict averse, and could not be honest (a la the example above) there’s a good chance neither felt understood.  You may have carried a similar pattern into adulthood.

What does talking about yourself look like?  Let’s use the example above (HONESTY) for reference:


NOT TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF EXCHANGE-- looks like this:

YOU:     “Did you have fun at the party last night--you seemed to have a good time?”
                    (Instead of telling your partner about yourself, you focus on your partner).

PARTNER: “I had a great time!  Did you?”
                      (Doesn’t really understand what you are actually trying to say because you
                        are not saying it).

YOU:       “It was OK, not great.  Sometimes being around all that drinking gets kind of old.”
               (This is vague and indirect, and does not convey your true experience).

PARTNER:  “Hey, what’s the big deal, it’s a party, right? That’s what parties are about.”
                       (Doesn’t tell you anything about his inner thoughts about his/her drinking).

YOU:          “I know, but still, it would be nice if it were different, that’s all I’m saying.”
                        (Omits any feelings or thoughts that reflect inner experience that would
                          facilitate being understood).

TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF EXCHANGE--looks like this:

YOU:      “Honey, I want to talk with you about the party last night.  It was not fun for me.  In fact,
              there were several times I felt terribly embarrassed and humiliated.  When I  think back on it today, I am very hurt, angry and scared.  I am afraid that                            there is alcoholism in our house, just like when I was a kid. I don’t want to ignore it in our marriage like my parents ignored it in theirs.  Please, can we talk about this and do something about it?
             
                    (There is no blaming, accusing, name-calling, or talking about the partner.  Everything that was said is clear, direct, honest, and about the person                       speaking).

PARTNER:  “Wow, this is really hard stuff to hear.  Part of me feels really defensive right now.
                       But another part of me knows I should be concerned too.  I really don’t want to see
                       myself as a drunk, but I know I really lose it sometimes.  I’m sorry I did those
                       things last night--I get how you’d feel.  Do you honestly think our marriage
                       is like your parents’?
                      
                       (No defensiveness; clear, direct, honest expression and ownership of his/her own 
                         thoughts, feelings and behavior.  These responses clearly tell the other partner
it is safe to have a talk about a difficult topic--definitely talking about
                         about self).
                   
YOU:           “I don’t know, that’s the problem.  All I know is, I won’t live like they did.  I told myself it would never happen to me, but I’m so scared that                         

                   it’s happening anyway!”
             
                       (Again, talking only about self).

PARTNER:  “I feel really weird saying this to you, but the truth is, I’ve secretly been worried about my drinking for a while now.  I didn’t want to tell you that                                    because I thought you might kick me out.  I’ve been worried about that,  too!”
                      
                       (Again, talking only about self).

YOU:          “I am SO relieved to hear to hear you say that!  I don’t want to kick you                         

out, although, there have been times when I’ve thought about it--maybe we can find a way to kick the drinking out.
            
              (Again, talking only about self).

Give these a shot, ask each other for support in attempting different ways of being honest.
Let go of being right and winning for a day--try it on.
Take a risk, if even for one short conversation, to be deeply honest (not to be confused with hostile, brutal honesty).

Talk about yourself, your own feelings and experiences, absent blaming, accusing and name-calling.

Being understood is your responsibility, not your partner’s. The more patience, effort and repetition you put toward giving up being right/winning, honesty and talking about yourself, the greater likelihood for healthy connection. Chances are, your next conflict may not end with the words “you just don’t understand.”