The Phaserl


Successful marriage depends on husband’s attitude

by Ethan A. Huff, Natural News:

Does the man make or break a marriage? Recent research suggests it may be so.

A team of researchers from the University of Chicago claims that the health and personality of the husband may be the key to avoiding conflict and maintaining a happy marriage.

Published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, the research surveyed older adults who participated in the National Social Life Health and Aging Project. It compared and contrasted the characteristics of husbands and wives whose marriages had lasted an average of 39 years.

The results: When the husband showed a higher level of positivity, the wife in a couple reported less marital conflict. Moreover, positivity levels had no effect on the husbands’ reports of conflict.

The nature of conflicts examined centered around whether a spouse is perceived as making too many demands, perpetually criticizing, or getting on the other’s nerves.

This particular study examined individual marriages, as opposed to married couples in general. This allowed researchers to obtain reports on individual traits as well as the quality of the marriage from each participant.

Is there a worthwhile point to this study?

It may be helpful to understand how important a man’s attitude and level of positivity is. In fact, I can safely say that after 25 years of counseling and coaching, in my experience women are much more likely to be positive and connected in relationships than men are. Also, when a healthy, positive man is in the mix, it is rare that there are serious marital difficulties. That’s because the majority of women reciprocate the positive attitude.

I can’t say the opposite is true, however. It is common for a healthy, positive woman to be stuck with a negative, emotionally unavailable man who isn’t interested in making any self-improvements.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

10 comments to Successful marriage depends on husband’s attitude

  • Craig Escaped Detroit

    I agree that the husband’s attitude is important, and the BEST way to give a man a HAPPY attitude are the 4 “F’s”.

    Foxy wife.
    Feed me.
    F–k me.
    Flatter me.

    Also helpful, is:
    “Don’t F–K around on me”.
    “Don’t spend all the F–KING money.”
    “Try to STFU sometimes.”

  • David

    The husband is certainly called upon to maintain Love in the family. But I dare to say that the limiting factor today is women’s submission. For those who cringed and think I voiced a dirty word by saying WOMEN’S SUBMISSION, your reaction proves my point. Girls are removed from the family authority structure at age 5 or sooner and put in a collectivist state school. They grow up being lusted after and learn to function in an unhealthy social structure, and no authority structure other than the state. Then some unfortunate guy chooses to marry her and she has no concept of submitting to him, they have 1.6 children, then divorce.

    • Craig Escaped Detroit

      How about them good old days, of Bible-based marriage? Back when King Solomon and King David had up to 1000 wives (and concubines-non-marriage-sex slaves). And they all had to be available for the husband (and owner of those concubines) when ever he wanted sex. Any time of day, any woman in the group. (and we know that God approves of this because he never complained about any of it at any time.)

      And you know that God in the bible says: “I am the the Lord thy God, I do not change, I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.”
      (so this “one man, one woman marriage” obviously is not from the bible.)

      Of course, it does say that divorce is not allowed. But hey, that’s easy to handle when you can just put the crummy wife on the “do not touch” list at the bottom of the group, and you just spend more play time with the other 999 females in the bible-approved harem. Just don’t ever divorce any of them.

      And since the bible based system never allows for women to much of any legal status, and rarely if ever allows a woman to divorce her husband (as it is only the man’s right to divorce or not), then it all works out ok.

      And I like the part about being able to legally “stone to death” unruly, disrespectful children & teenagers. Just bring it up with the village elders, and everybody gets together and joins the fun. I wonder if everybody is supposed to bring a dish for the congregation to have a nice buffet after the killing?

      That’s a very Godly method of keeping the kids in line, eh? Do as you’re told, or we pulverize you with stones and you end up as part of the REDI-MIX for the driveway slab… just like happened to your older brother last year. Remember him?

      • David

        I’m not looking for an argument brother, but I will mention that God gives a rebuke in scripture about “multiplying wives”. God also makes it clear that some marriage allowances were “because of the hardness of men’s hearts”. Indicating that not all of what man has done is in accord with God’s intentions for the family.

        • Craig Escaped Detroit

          The bible is kind of a strange/funny book. Plenty of great advice and good “sayings” of wisdom, along with some real “stinkers” of crackpot nuggets. People taking it as 100% is likely the cause of so many wars, killings, etc.

          As for women not being able to start a divorce? Yes, there are some countries like that, and I think they have a higher number of men who accidentally die of mysterious causes (antifreeze in their Mountain Dew?) Wake up in a burning bed, or a Mafia hitman at the door.

          In too many countries, divorce (for women) has become a type of LOTTERY jackpot. That’s wrong.

          You’re right, that women choose who they will marry, and then… BAM!!

          I prefer to keep faith, but not base it upon the bible (with all those contradictions, such as God losing the battle against the valley people with the iron chariots-Judges 1:19).

          It’s pretty much the same with any “sheep/goat herder or shaman era that says they have the ultimate truth from God”… it falls apart with too much scrutiny.

          I see the same glaring contradictions in all of them, such as the “Quran”, where “Allah” says during RAMADAN, nobody can eat or drink anything until it’s too dark to distinguish between a black & white thread.

          The trouble is… is that the “All knowing Allah” forgot about the north & south poles where it remains daylight for 6 months.

          That would mean that large portions of the planet are forbidden to Islam, which goes against their holy book’s statements that Islam will be in every corner of the world.

          So if I put my faith in the words in a book, then I have to accept all the shortcomings too. I think my idea of a real God, is better than some iron chariot valley people, etc.

          • PTS

            Where did God lose a battle in Judges 1:19? I’m pretty sure it was the Israelites losing the battle…kind of the entire point of the Book of Judges: if an individual or nation forsakes the Lord, he will forsake them. CONTEXT!

            Check out the Battle of Ai, same deal.

            • Craig Escaped Detroit

              I guess you may have missed, skipped or glossed over the part that mentions “and God was WITH Judah”.

              That kind of implies that the Israelites were not alone in that battle. Nor does it say “God abandoned the Jews, nor does it say the Jews did something wrong (at that particular moment) to deserve a loss.

              In fact, it states that they took the mountain territory, (with God), but when it came to the valley, they could not take that land away from the natives because the natives had the iron chariots. No where does it say that God was absent after just having stated that God was WITH Judah.

              Now, if we could read the ancient BOOK of the “Valley People’s Bible”, it would probably say that the greedy invading Jewish forces, tried to take away our homeland and steal all of our homes, farms, livestock, virgins and territories, but we prevailed against them and against their God. Home sweet home.

              The bible is only one side of history, and it is always fun to imagine what the “other side” has to say about events. The losers never write the stories that are passed down, so we never know much about those who were vanquished by the brutal winners.

              • PTS

                I didn’t miss anything, except for your linguistic insight that in the original Hebrew the word “WITH” is in all caps.

                Again, a simple look at the Context, both immediate and wider, makes this not a problem. In the immediate context, the entire book of Judges is about apostasy and the Lord’s rejection of such.

                In the wider context, Scripture often cites examples of the Lord helping or forsaking his people based on their positive relationship with him and his commands. Take the fall of Jericho, where the Lord was WITH Israel, and the city was taken easily, but then Ai was not able to be taken because of Achan’s disobedience even though the Lord had just been WITH Israel.

                On the flip side, look at what was accomplished in battle when God’s people stood WITH him instead of against him, Gideon (Judges 7-8), Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20), and Hezekiah (II Kings 19).

                I’m a more than a little worried about you, if you plan to stand before your Maker one day trying to escape Judgment by claiming that Judges 1:19 was a bit too confusing for you.

                • Craig Escaped Detroit

                  There is another “context” about Judges 1;19, and that is the context of all those men who died in the lost battle thinking that Jehovah was all powerful, all knowing and would win the battle.

                  Thousands of widows and orphans faced the instant context of lost husbands, fathers, brothers who will not be coming home, just so that Jehovah could come back later and ask for a “do over”?
                  That means nothing to those families who faced starvation without the breadwinner anymore.

                  In my own faith, which stands apart and above the bible, I would not believe in a God that can ever lose, even for a single hour or minute.

                  Yet, the bible God, bans pork sausages but not slavery? It’s ok for slavery to exist, with all the sexual rapes, perversions, beatings, torture and killings, but as long as people are saved from the horrors of bacon, it’s all ok? No in “my” version of faith in a higher being.

                  My “higher/supreme being” would outlaw slavery long before he/it/she banned sausages. It just makes good sense, justice, peace and love to our fellow man by banning slavery. Sit down together and enjoy some bacon and sausages and celebrate the elimination of slavery.

                  I would question any God that allows slavery yet banning bacon as the greater evil.

                  An all powerful, all knowing God, would have foreseen the loss in the valley to the iron chariots, and would have avoided the loss of all those faithful warriors. So how come the all knowing thing didn’t work at that particular time?

                  What happened to the all powerful unbeatable? Those are fair questions. It is permissible to question God and to wrestle with angels.

                  We have been given a brain and mind to think, yet we are expected to remain silent in the face of things that don’t add up?

      • David

        Actually, it would be a great improvement of the stability of families in the present day if women were not given the legal status nor ability to initiate a divorce. You chose the guy and vowed lifelong marriage and had children with him, you have to live with your choice. How careful couples would be about marriage when she can’t just leave with the new boyfriend and collect child support to finance her new life with the new boyfriend.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>