MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Key to marital happiness? Let the wife have her way

Filed under: General — Darryl Ward @ 10:21 pm Mon 9th July 2007

We all know what the reaction would be if there was ever a story published that suggested letting a husband have his way….


Key to marital happiness? Let the wife have her way

“YES DEAR: Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.”

Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.

A team of researchers from Iowa State University studied 72 couples and found that the wife’s view on how to solve problems within the marriage or the home took precedence over the husband’s opinion and he was happy to accept that.

“The women were communicating more powerful messages and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in,” Associate Professor of Psychology David Vogel, one of the leaders of the study, said in a statement.

The study was conducted by questioning the 72 couples who had on average been married for seven years with all the couples in the sample relatively happy in their marriages.

Each spouse was asked to independently complete a questionnaire on relationship satisfaction and an assessment of overall decision-making ability in the relationship.

Each spouse was also asked to identify a problem in their relationship then brought together to discuss the problem topics for 10 minutes with their discussions videotaped after the researchers left the room.

The researchers later reviewed and coded the videotapes of couples’ interactions using a rating system that calculates demand and withdraw behaviors – avoidance, discussion, blame, pressure for change, and withdraws.

Vogel said that wives didn’t just talk more than their husbands in discussions, but drew favorable responses from their husbands to what they said.

“The study at least suggests that the marriage is a place where women can exert some power,” said Vogel.

“Whether or not it’s because of changing societal roles, we don’t know. But they are, at least, taking responsibility and power in these relationships.”


  1. Men who are wearing skirts at home are only fooling themselves if they think that they can find marital bliss.
    Women do not respect men like these.

    Comment by Harry Stanton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 3:54 am

  2. Helen Clark wants all men to be homosexuals and women to control all aspects of society .This country is a cess pit of corruption and no accountability and it is little wonder normal men are getting out of this sewer so they can settle in a country that is a not a smelly sisterhood regime !!

    Comment by dad4justice — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 7:24 am

  3. Remember we are now living in a PC age. Man cannot speak for or about women, nor foster views with which disagree. Women, of course, can.

    This is part of the ongoing mass silencing of Man. Only yesterday we read Women’s officer gagged at meeting

    Why must men be gagged, indeed barred, from women’s support groups? Why do women need such groups when they make up the clear majority of university enrollments?

    Woman want equality in education (by forcing boys / men out); in the workplace (by positive discrimination into positions of leadership), and in the homes.

    Somewhere yesterday I read that if men help more with the housework, the wife is more likely to conceive! I wonder what the implication would be if men started denying congugal rights until such time women contribute equally to grounds and maintenance?

    Of course, I can’t say that!

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 8:26 am

  4. Comments above are Men screaming “Victim Victim”.
    Get over yourselves, hold your head high, don’t tale rubbish, and be accountable for YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS

    Comment by John Brett — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 8:47 am

  5. “The study at least suggests that the

    marriage is a place where women can exert some power,” said Vogel.

    “Whether or not it’s because of changing societal roles, we don’t know. But they are, at least, taking responsibility and power in these relationships.”

    Funny, they can only see relationships in terms of power and control.(sigh) The study is severely limited by the chosen population and the “staged” methodology – 10 minute problem topics with video-taping occurring. Thats a pretty real and normal situation. Its like reality TV and we all know how real that is! After the producers left the room the videotape rolls…..

    Social science in New Zealand is in a sad state.



    The best a researcher could say from this is that it needs more research. The question would be why bother?

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 10:44 am

  6. The femi-nazi industry rolls on: Letmesee, maybe $20MIllion to a Woman’s organisation for them to conduct the additional research?

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 10:50 am

  7. I think you are absolutely right John.

    Victim: Victim: Victim!

    Who says? I am not allowed to do something because I have been told I am not allowed to do it. I am not allowed to be right because everyone else tells me I am wrong. I do not know where my hands are because I am told they are in my pockets.

    The difficulty that men seem to have constantly these days is that we answer either from our emotions, which claims victimhood or from our physical superiority which is more natural. What about using each other? What about using our brains? What about getting together and providing a show of real strength? If you are in Auckland ask Julie if you can attend her seminar. Get involved. Make it happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 11:19 am

  8. hmmmm. Show our real strength, eh?

    Just reading that Women drawn to men with muscles

    Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 12:50 pm

  9. Yes. If you are right it can be proved. If it can be proved then it can be defended. If it can be defended then there is no need to either be a victim or a fool. The marginalised group has power.

    Can the injustice of discrimination and bias against men be proved? Yes. s.74 HRA describes bias relative to childbirth. Bias is proved. Male assaults female in the Crimes Act 61 is discrimination. Discrimination is proved. Discrimination and bias occur in the Care of Children Bill 2003 allowing a single woman and a lesbian couple to have children without ensuring for the child there protected guarantee of an association with their biolgical and genetic parent their father: The system has been abused.

    Noone needs to get angry. No one needs to feel like they have been victimised. We just need to unite and make our stand. Not just one or two of us. All of us!

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 10th July 2007 @ 1:25 pm

  10. John
    You say men should get over their victimhood.
    As someone who’s been a long time victim of feminazzi nz I know that’s an easy platitude to bandy about.

    Whilst I’m all for men moving beyond victimhood I beleive what they need are useful practical suggestions as to how men can avoid getting shat on in the family court, in the health system, education system, in relationships with women in general and in the media.
    There are a number of strategies men can take from the small everyday things through to larger longer term projects.
    To me men avoiding western marriage in the first place seems an obvious place to start.
    Of course some men will decline such advice seeing as they think with thier balls and are kept in the dark by a largely feminist press.
    You say men need to unite to confront the common enemy of misandrists.
    I agree.
    I believe anger, as an emotion signalling being under threat is very healthy emotion and can be positively channelled to achieve wonders.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 14th July 2007 @ 5:09 pm

  11. One day I heard someone professional say to me. “If you wake up in the morning and feel like shite, just go with it. It is going to be one of those days so accept it and get through it.” Anyhow early on in my dealing with some of the things in my life, I woke up and it plainly was going to be a bad day and I was preparing to just get through it with sanity. Anyhow, this lady phoned me and ask me how I was doing. I told her it was going to be a bad day. Without any sympathy for me or my victim self she said, “Oh well, that’s optional.”

    I was stunned. She was right. It IS optional. Victimhood is optional. A bad day is optional. Allowing yourself to spend your whole life being damaged by being raped is also optional. Being beaten almost to death several times and getting up off the ground and getting on with your life is also optional. Every day you live, you have the option of how it will affect you. YOU have control of YOU and your mind. Best not to give that away for when you give your control to someone else they own you, they live rent free in your head. They don’t even know in many circumstances that they have power over you. They don’t know YOU gave it to THEM. You waste you power and your life while they keep theirs and get on with their life.

    Some men come back from war and get on with life funtioning as if they never went and some men drink themselves to death over their experience.

    You don’t have to be fooled by all this trash of I am a victim if you don’t want to. Those in the mental health profession will medicate you if you feel that helps and they will even lock you up if that makes you feel better. And sometimes that is neccessary for the short term. That sometimes is not optional but sensible to be safe. But it is optional to move on for the long term. Don’t you think males who lose their legs and or arms are more of a victim? What would they say to you right now? Careful that you don’t fall into a trap. Careful you don’t keep YOURSELF sick and incapable of a normal life.

    Comment by julie — Sat 14th July 2007 @ 9:48 pm

  12. Physical pain is easy to get over but the emotional frustration of a corrupt family court telling you are a scumbag dad not worthy of loving your daughters is gut wrenching heartache, and it feels like cancer !! I wish I could exact revenge on this sick system !!

    Comment by dad4justice — Sat 14th July 2007 @ 10:07 pm

  13. You can Peter:

    Yet your focus (and I can agree with you in confidence, experience for the comradery for such excrutiating pain) is effectively limited into the explanation that Stephen provides and Frank & Ernest subscribes in reading – that of our subjective demand. If we don’t have the rules or words to challenge an oppression it is the malke function to chalenge the bastions and walls of the oppressor.

    The Family Court has been overridden in a crusade of a different kind. It is the new bastion – allegedly legal – to the provisions in presumptive law. This is the same fiction that allowed the new crusade access into Iraq. Same laws – same manipulation.

    Yet something is different here in NZ. The laws of presumptive justification have now been broken down as unjust. It is just taking a while for those in power to come to terms with how deep and serious the breach on their securities are. The point is – and I ask you as that loving father to remember – (as I think you do) that the reply of recognising it is wrong and does not warrant a violent response in the end will Capitalise our victory.

    We have grown to accept that it is OK to be violent on the threat of violence, confusing aggression as a direct justification for remedial action. As soon as this presumption is applied then the primary cause’ (you in this example) is set to defeat – being disempowered if to reply in the traditional sense – and as you are distinctly male, deeply disaffected for the theft of your daughters on allegation alone you are ripe for the picking – and picked you have been!

    What Julie says in my opinion is absolute in accuracy if the objective principles are accessible. In the case of war or in this case the Family Court and its various interventions the objective principles are more difficult to see; deeply cushioned in the subjective and this makes it more difficult to retract from victimhood no matter how one could react.

    While sleeping on the streets of Wellington in 2005 on my protest, it was cold one morning around 4am. I went up to the Railway Station both to walk and use their toilets. A Maori fellow was there who in our long conversation gave me some advise that I can neither forget for the lores of this country or nor for its profound change as to how I looked at being a victim. I have temprorarily dropped from my conscious his name, but for any who would or could identify him he assisted or marshalled a walk once over the bridge between Te Tii Marae and up to Waitangi past the police who had their position establisghed and set in law – (or at least how they believed they are and were to respond to that law). He said that the way of the Maori in the challenging dialogue we were talking about was to taunt your opponent until your opponent eventually broke down and struck you extracting and using violence as the means to over power a situation that was otherwise thereby uncontrolable. Once this was achieved – then he said “the victim” was the victor. The ‘victim’ had the mana of the perpertrater of the violence.

    Think about it, I did – and it swung me around from some of the depression I was suffering given a hiding I had taken challenging an individual who was walking over me – confusing what I was trying to say with what I believed and knew to be true.

    We dopn’t need to get revenge Pete. ONce what we are saying is proved then it will be they who have hurt us and not us who have lost. And while it takes this injustice to be righted then it is the strength of our conection to faith and hope that keep us together until such a time that the truth will be exposed. And that truth will be exposed – you can be sure of that.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 15th July 2007 @ 11:59 am

  14. I understand Ben, no room for revenge yet , but the damage to kids is cancerous and how dare strangers break a loving and meaningful parental/child bond . The media is gutless wimps controlled by feminazi authorities and this makes me sad as we need full exposure then we can destroy the de family court , clossure at long last . Oh I dream that the corruption will come to an end . What will it take for the system to acknowledge the problem . In solidarity my friend as I feel your heartbreak pain also.

    Comment by dad4justice — Sun 15th July 2007 @ 1:22 pm

  15. Good on you Peter – hardly an expletive attached!

    And this is exactly how you do it. Your writing when you explain what you are going through is of the greatest value to the menz movement! Yet your history is one of absolute anger: rage: demand: hatred and viciosuness without remorse. That’s what the reader sees and reads. Yet who you are and where you speak from in strength is alien to what you say, when people look at its power. How could anyone with such anger (they will think) be given my confidence when I can see exactly what they would do with it. It is that simple and that cutthroat. And the exploiters as many as there are carreer around in your indignation galavanting in their outright stupidity not to recognise that what you identify is as real as their ability to make money from its dysfunction.

    The thing that calms you down as it calms me and others who are intent not on control but the remedy, is that what is inside your head – not what you say – is what You believe is judged. This creates the morality of an individual, not so much how they present to others but for what they stand to be judged if ever such a condition should fall upon them – you or me.

    If you think about the need for revenge as against getting it; your challenge (like mine) becomes easier to compare against the principles of exploitation that have been out and out wounding you. Once calm you separate yourself from the allegations against you and reflect the harm and why it has been done.

    The escape clause presently from within the administrations is that they have been doing a societal best in order to protect your children – all the while operating against the principles of paramountcy – as set to protect our sons and daughters. They are invulnerable while the concentration (they/or any might allege camp) is on feminazism – (if such could be considered a word). As the same where I challenge homosexuality for railroading to demise masculinity to function in the realm of “natural” parenting. Julie as any and all recognise this whenm standing on their public political platform knowing full well that the primary challenge HAS to be centred on the rise of homosexuality over dominating males in order to effectively liquidate paramount justification of any other reasonable existance.

    I haven’t discriminated against homosexuality yet, and nor am I likely to except I fully comprehend that its crusade in New Zealand is the direct cause to have disaffected the objective support from my son and my daughter as much as from me. That deciding to condition not to deiscriminate against homosexuality doesn’t alleviate my anger toward their abuse of law. Once I stick to the law, as I am suggesting you stick to focusing on the point that you are a wonderful father and to mitigate in association and relationship you have with your children is as deeply disaffecting of the children as it might be if your anger (which it isn’t) was ever directed toward them.

    And that is how you will get your revenge: You are right and they are wrong.

    My task is a bit different, because I have challenged them [all] be they all whomsoever they may be; in the law. They [all] whomsoever they may be are living in fairy land, thinking that what is nice is nice and what is bad isn’t what they [all] whomsoever they may be think is nice.

    While I appreciate to any reader this may seem like just another diatribe, responding to another wounded father, as wounded by the adminstration of family law for the appropriation of legislation that is constructed functionally as discriminatory and in bias it isn’t. It’s fact.

    Keep your head up Peter – we’ll get there.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 3:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar