Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    	Yeah, I'll share: The "disease" is not exclusive to women, men
    can also "love too much". They get fried (for doing so) as well.
    
    	Addictions can be dealt with in the following manner:
    
    			To Be Free
    	  	1. Explore the suffering
    			Tune in to your body. Describe the physical
    			sensations. Describe the feelings. Exactly what
    			emotions are you experiencing? Name them.
    
    		2. Pinpoint the addiction
    			At the time of incident, how did you want
    			things to be? What programmed attitudes or models
    			did you have of how you should be, of how others
    			should be, etc. Ask youself, "what am I addictively
    			demanding?"
    
    		3. Reprogram the addiction
    			Can you see the repeated pattern of suffering
    			that this addiction has created for you? Have
    			you had enough? Are you willing to let go of
    			the demand? To counteract a demand to not make
    			mistakes, for example, you could keep telling
    			yourself "I dont have to reject myself when
    			I make a mistake"
    
    		4. The suffering stops
    			Yes
    
    	Joe
    
    
    

    From .0  >> " For women who keep wishing and hoping he'll change."
    
    God, do I cringe when I hear or feel those words or variations of 
    them. Its my opinion that what drives most of this desire to want
    a person to change is for our SO to match the perfect person immage
    we all have sitting in our heads. This is an extremely important 
    issue with me, that I tried to get across to most of the women 
    that I've cared about, and have been in my life. Intrestingly enough
    I entered note 162 about this very subject back in Jan of this year.
    I could be wrong but I believe that our culture has done a much heavier
    ingraining job of what immage a man is suppose to be like, to women than,
    a woman to men.

    I can't help but get queasy when I start getting measured and compared
    to this perfect person thats an image in a womans mind. I never
    fit, I don't know of anyone that does. That image is comprised of 
    the good points of my predecessors, her father, her teachers, people
    in books and magazines and a hundred other inputs. In a strange way 
    there is nothing and everything wrong with this imaginary person. 
    The right is that that person is right for her. He represents the 
    completion of her and fofills her needs and desires. The question
    here is how does that "immage" translate in to the reality of a
    real person.

    The wrong happens when the real man is a goodly portion of all these 
    things and can't match up with the balance. It is on account of this
    delta that the problems start. This is where the doubts begin to raise
    their ugly head.  At this point a serious relation has developed and
    both people have a vested interest in the feelings they have for each
    other. Once this point is reached, one must choose which of the options
    are left to follow.

    Depending on how large the difference is, is one thing. The question of
    can I contend with the differences or not become a consiteration.
    Does she break the relationship off, in order to find a man more 
    closely matched to the image. Or does she hang in there "wishing 
    and hoping" he'll change. Or the bottom line, the requests / demands 
    that he change. In too many instances, that I know of, the rational 
    of letting those differences go,and accecpting what you have is good
    doesn't happen and the enivabitle break up does, with both partys 
    hurt on account of it.
     
   This book is a one of a number of very good eye openers to the fact that
   we've all become too Damn "image" conscience, and have forgotten lifes 
   basics. I say basics here since it makes sense. Its my opinion that people 
   need to get back to basics when first getting together and developing a 
   relationship. I equate the basics with like being a child again. When you
   were a kid, you chose your friends on the basis that they were "neat", fun 
   and they felt good to be with. You didn't mentally measure them against this
   image noise in your head because it didn't exist.

   To do this is not an easy task, yet if your to ever have some peace of
   mind, it will become a necessity. We all need to destroy that perfect
   person image in our heads, for in reality, no one is ever going to match
   it. And the longer you hold on to it, the more disappointments you'll find.
   If you want to be happy, then revert your people value system back to
   being a kid and evaluate people on who and what the person is, not what   
   your mind says there suppose to be. Try it, you might be pleasantly 
   surprised.

                                       Bob B
    

    

    RE: .2
    
    Bob, I can understand how, for example, I should not get totally 
    hung up over the fact that the hypothetical woman I've just met 
    doesn't meet all my ideals: e.g., she has brown hair versus red,
    has green eyes rather than blue, etc. These attributes *are*
    superficial, and I shouldn't be rejecting the possibility of
    entering into a relationship with this person, soley because of these
    physical variations from my "ideal".
    
    However, if after I've begun to know her - and really like her -
    I then discover that she's a pathological liar, is not dependable,
    isn't very open about her feelings, I would have to give up on the
    idea of having a relationship with her. My "ideal" woman must be
    truthful, open, and dependable; these are ideals which I'm *not*
    willing to compromise on, no matter what other redeeming qualities
    she might possess. 
    
    Shouldn't we all, male and female, have certain expectations about 
    the other person in our life, that are not subject to review?
    
      Alan

    I think so Alan.  I wouldn't consider a relationship with a violent
    man, or one who exhibited hostile behavior towards my boys.
    Mary

    Bob, I read the book and I don't see that it has anything to do
    with images.
    
    The subject matter revolves around psychological battering mainly
    on an unconscious level.   Why do people who marry or become involved
    in relationships because they love each other and care for each
    other, end up hurting.  Whether they're inflicting hurt or the
    recipient of the hurt, it is an unhealthy union.
    
    When you talk about basics, some people don't know what a healthy
    relationship is and as a result of that, they go thru a lifetime
    of dysfunctional behavior.
    
    Read the book, you might learn something.
    
    Jane

    
    	RE:  .3
    
    	Alan, I agree with you completely.  There are some characteristics
    	about potential love-interests that are the things we dream
    	about when we are thinking_about/looking for a relationship
    	(but these things are quite easily sacrificed when we meet
    	a real person and start to fall in love.)
    
    	When I'm falling in love with someone, the process of finding
    	out what the person is like is a source of great delight to
    	me.  My most interesting relationship (in my life so far)
    	involves someone who is so much like me in some ways, and so
    	different in other ways that I find him utterly fascinating
    	and a joy in _all_ ways.
    
    	Had I decided ahead of time what he would have to be like
    	(in great detail), I could *never* have dreamed up a more interesting
    	individual than he is already.
    
    	Also agree with you that I could never compromise on things
    	like honesty, dependability and openness.  Like someone else
    	mentioned, I would also never *consider* a relationship
    	with a man who would be violent against me.  
    
    	Aside from the non-negotiable items mentioned above, everything
    	else is just part of the *variety* (the differences between
    	individuals) that is the spice in any relationship, new or old.
    
     	I wouldn't want it any other way.
    
    							Suzanne...

    RE: .3
     
>    However, if after I've begun to know her - and really like her -
>    I then discover that she's a pathological liar, is not dependable,
>    isn't very open about her feelings, I would have to give up on the
>    idea of having a relationship with her. My "ideal" woman must be
>    truthful, open, and dependable; these are ideals which I'm *not*
>    willing to compromise on, no matter what other redeeming qualities
>    she might possess. 
 
    100 % true, and I understand where your coming from. But this is a 
    portion of the basics that people overlook that I'am talking about.
    So many times we get so involved in the "beyond basics" things that
    we have a tendency to overlook these "basic nature traits" until 
    we have no choice but face them. In essence you've put them aside 
    in the quest for the expectations of that person and now when they
    haven't gone away, your disappointed. Too many times this realization 
    doesn't happen after we're very involved with the person.
   
>    Shouldn't we all, male and female, have certain expectations about 
>    the other person in our life, that are not subject to review?
    
     I don't believe so, for the reasons I've stated above. People with
     expectations, start looking for them in another person, and in doing 
     so, overlook the basic nature traits of that person. When that happens
     you set yourself for the possibility of two failures instead of one.
     first would be the failure of the person to match your expectations 
     of them. Second would be the discovery of a basic nature trait, which
     was overlooked and is now unaccecptable. 

RE .5

>    Bob, I read the book and I don't see that it has anything to do
>    with images.
    
    The author may not use the same verbiage or examples as I, but I
    beleave we're  both talking about the same subject.
    
>    The subject matter revolves around psychological battering mainly
>    on an unconscious level.   Why do people who marry or become involved
>    in relationships because they love each other and care for each
>    other, end up hurting.  Whether they're inflicting hurt or the
>    recipient of the hurt, it is an unhealthy union.
   
     Because they have expectations about each other (read my term "Image")
     that when they aren't fofilled problems arise. It happens every day, 
     two people meet, fall in love and then go about destorying the
     relation by expecting the other to be or act the way they think 
     the other should be. They have overlooked the basic nature (the real
     who and what the person is) and make a judgment that this is the 
     person who can make me happy. So they ask the other out, or find a 
     way for them to get together, and in the process the other person winds
     up liking this person and they form a relationship.  

     After the being on your best behavior of being in a new relationship
     settles into being yourself, the traits of the real you begin to
     consistently show. This is when the things that were overlooked, or 
     the un do able expectations start to come. When the person begins to
     place their expectations of change on you, and when they can't be met,
     the doubts of the relationship happen. Now peoples feelings begin to
     get hurt from the disappointment. And now the break up happens with both
     people still loving the person they thought you should be, but aren't 
     and can't be.  

     This is where the mental anguish comes in. For now, this person is not, 
     what you had made up your mind that they were going to be. Hence the
     reference to the part of the title "waiting and hoping he'll change",
     and it doesn't happen.

>    When you talk about basics, some people don't know what a healthy
>    relationship is and as a result of that, they go thru a lifetime
>    of dysfunctional behavior.

     100 % true, some people have such expectations of what their mate 
     is suppose to be, that they consistently set up one failed relationship
     after another.
    
>    Read the book, you might learn something.
    
     What makes you think that I haven't, and this is my interpatation 
     and explanation of its meaning ? Aside from that, I've been there
     and know exactly what the author is talking about. It took me a 
     long time to shed the preset (image) expectations of the woman
     in my life, and a lot of pain of broken relationships on account 
     of them. Also if the book wasn't about expectations and images,
     then why the statement of "Waiting and hoping he'll change." ? 

                                         Bob B

    Bob,
    
    Even though you are saying many things that are true, these are
    not what this book is talking about, however much you would like
    to think that it is.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    
    Bob,
    
    You are saying some very valid things but I agree with .8, it is
    not what the book talks about.  In her book, Robin Norwood talks about
    a 'disease' that many women have which is loving too much.  It is
    an actual addiction to men and to pain; it is just like being addicted
    to a substance - people use it to escape from the reality of their
    lives.  Because of some very emotional and/or physical pain
    suffered in childhood, women learn to love by "fixing" men and it
    becomes the most important thing in their lives, and when "fixing"
    them doesnt seem to work, their self-esteem is lowers more because
    they dont feel that they are good enough or lovable enough to do it.
    
    There is SO much more to it.  I have posted this note in
    TERZA::PSYCHOLOGY per suggestion of a fellow noter. There has been
    some conversation about it there too, and I have learned through
    that file that men are subject to this disease also. You might get a 
    better understanding of this in that file, also, read the book.  That 
    is the BEST way to fully understand what this is all about.
                
    Take care,
    
    Diane
    
    

    re .7, Bob:
    
>>    Read the book, you might learn something.
    
>     What makes you think that I haven't, and this is my interpatation 
>     and explanation of its meaning ?

    Well, have you read the book or not, Bob?  *Please*, don't keep
    us in suspense.  But, please, don't play this game with us, to make us
    think you know what the book says when you haven't read it.
    
    BTW, I haven't read the book.  I don't know what the author says, and
    therefore, I have no valid opinion to offer about this book.

    	-Ellen    

    RE 8 -10    For openers, yes I've read the book. I've also read
                a couple of other books and articles on and about the
                same "subject". The authors have been both men and women.
                I've done this in an attempt to better understand and
                deal with the problem. 
    
                Now I may have overlapped one book on to another, but
                I don't believe so. The key word here is "Expectations".
                In each case, expectations is the foundation for the problem.
                It is these expectations, that the person has, which leads
                them to be the way they are. Now I forget if the author
                of this book also uses the word "image" but I do.
    
                Now maybe I haven't been clear about this, so Ill try.
                The pattern goes this way. The person , through multiple
                inputs if influence ( actual people, IE parents teachers,
                and media IE TV, movies ect) derives multiple "trait
                characteristics of who and what a man or a woman is
                suppose to be.
    
                From these characteristics, expectations are formed. From
                those expectations an overall "Image" of "completeness"
                is derived. The results of what happens when this image
                does not happen, falls into multiple situations. Now in 
                this particular book, that has been the subject of
                discussion, it goes on to describe the problems that
                women experience when the expectations aren't met.
    
                But it still is my contention that expectations is
                the foundation to the problem. You and the author 
                may not call these things expectation or images,
                but thats what they are. My discussion has been that
                these expectations are the root of the problem and I
                did'nt go on to talk to the results of the failures.
                sorry if I've created some confusion.
    
                                      Bob B       

RE: WwLTM

What I've heard of the book seems to match .0 closer then -.1

Jim.

I'll preface my comments by stating that I haven't read  the  book,  
but  I'm  familar with the general thesis.  This discussion has  made  
me  think  about  the  general  subject  of addiction, and why women 
are overwhelmingly victims of love addiction.

If you think about it, what are some of the basic properties of 
addiction?  The addict has a sense of incompleteness about 
her/himself, and looks to fill that void with an external substance.  
The craving itself ends up depriving the addict of self-esteem and 
self-worth, creating an even greater need, and s/he becomes part of a 
vicious cycle of craving, satisfaction at any cost, and self-contempt.

These properties are characteristic of many women's relationships with 
men, much more so than the reverse.  I believe that any very 
significantly observable social pattern has motivating forces, and 
does not occur at random.  I think it is also clear that addiction, in 
general, serves the best interests of the dominant culture.

Most addicts are persons who, if their dissatisfaction was directed 
outward, would be a threat to the society.  I do not think it an 
accident that many of the disenfranchised residents of our major urban 
areas are sucked into the pursuit of controlled substances -- 
supporting their habits via petty theft, prostitution, and propagating 
the habit to others.  Their dependencies are a more effective means of 
social control than any more obvious police-state tactics.

Addiction reduces the world to one person: the addict and her/his 
needs.  An addict cannot think, "There is something wrong with a 
social system that reduces me to this."  An addict can only think, "I 
need a fix." This kind of self-absorption neutralizes what could be a 
powerful threat to the stability of the prevailing social system.

Women become enmeshed in the same kind of self-absorption with their 
relationships to men, and because they are so tied up in the emotional 
gratification/deprivation syndrome, can't look beyond it to see how 
it fits into a larger social pattern.  They are neutralized as a 
threat to patriarchy, because their personal love life obsesses them.

The healthiest woman will recognize traces of this pattern in 
herself, I think.  Our society endlessly drives home the point that a 
women without a man is incomplete and unfulfilled.  The weight of 
religion and law has been used to drill this point so deeply into the 
shared consciousness, and individual women have internalized it so 
thoroughly, few can even see it as an external value propagated in the 
best interests of the patriarchy.

The masochistic and self-destructive behavior of "women who love too 
much" would have been considered exemplary in the last century.  
Throughout the Christian era, women have been told that the only way 
to rise above the curse of their femaleness was to suffer for it, in 
perfect subjection to the man that God has placed above them.  

Only in this century, are we able to consider that this is unhealthy, 
but still, rather than look at the pattern this behavior makes in the 
society (and why, perhaps, it serves society to create and continue 
this pattern), we still treat it as a strictly "personal" problem, 
which these individual women need to fix in themselves.

I am not suggesting that the problem is not real, that it is not 
personal, or that each woman does not need to solve it for herself.  I 
suggest that the pattern will continue, with new individuals filling 
it in, unless a challenge is made to the fundamental structure of the 
patriarchy -- a system that needs women in order to survive and 
prosper, but in order to maintain itself must keep those same women in 
a position of subjection.

The subjection is not necessarily one of law or violence (although 
those methods have certainly been used).  When the nomadic invaders 
came into settled, goddess-worshipping lands, raping and enslaving the 
women and creating families by force, life went on.  After the 
violence passed, religion and laws were created to institutionalize 
it, and then those women's daughters were raised to view themselves 
as intrinsically the property of men.  They believed their subjection to
be a natural quality of womanhood, as inescapable as growing breasts. 
Once this value is internalized, relatively little external force is
needed. 

Almost every woman has a need for connection to others; this is 
the glue that probably created society in the first place.  This 
connectedness, which if realized as a political force could overthrow 
the patriarchy, is deprived of its power (but not its social 
usefulness), by channelling it along the lines of a slave relationship 
with a master male and a nurturing relationship with one's dependant 
children.  Connectedness between women is limited to the home, with 
other wives, female relatives, and servants.  Even there, competition 
is encouraged to divide the women from each other.  Public life is 
almost completely cut off, so their is no hope for women discovering 
the power in their connectedness as a large social force.

Under these conditions, women are bound to be dissatisfied.  In the 
past, the religious, legal, and social answer to this dissatisfaction 
has been to focus women even more around their children (motherhood is 
the only true fulfillment for a woman, the hand that rocks the cradle 
rules the world, etc.).  A woman had no options about the male master
she was connected to -- the best she could do was hope for a benevolent
one, and suffer a tyrannical one patiently, as the God-given curse of
her sex. 

Now that rampant reproduction is not a necessary to an industrial 
society, the motherhood emphasis has been scaled down a bit.  Since 
the nuclear family is no longer the chief means of production, the 
requirement that a woman remain in a stable relationship with the same 
man is also not necessary.  The nineteenth century introduced the 
notion of romance -- so the idea of the perfect benevolent master can 
just as easily take the place of an actual one.  Women are still 
incomplete without him, and that they serve one, then another, doesn't 
affect the final outcome.

When a woman fails to find fulfillment in a man, she isn't likely to 
look at "what's wrong with this picture".  She just looks for a 
different man, and ends up believing that the problem is just with 
her: she "loves too much".  Women's love is one of the most enriching 
and powerful forces in the world, and it has been the one thing that 
has been most effectively turned against them by the patriarchy.  
Because women love so much, they give up their own dreams of 
self-fulfillment for those of their children, and they find the 
goodness and humanness in their oppressors.  Our society would totally 
collapse without women's love.

I am not at all opposed to love -- I consider women's capacity for it 
to be one of the things that most encourages me about humankind.  I do 
think that women need to think more about how they love.  In the 
patriarchy, love has been defined for women in such a way that it 
deprives them of their power.  There need to be alternatives, and 
being the resilient, creative, and loving people they are, women must 
find them.

    re .13 <sniff>

    
    
    re. 13
    
    Thank you soooooooo much.
    
    _peggy
    		(-|-)
    		  |
    		  |		The love of a woman is
    				the love of the Goddess
    

    
    brilliant and fascinating!
    

    I'm going to try this.  In the spectrum of ways of relating,
    with Healthy Relating at one end, Unhealthy/Pathological at
    the other end, and a large grey area in between (reply .2 
    would fit in this grey area), WOMEN WHO LOVE TOO MUCH looks
    at the Unhealthy end of the spectrum.  
    
    One example given in the book of typical Unhealthy behavior
    is that of a woman who has grown up in a home where the father
    is remote, unavailable, cold, critical.  If the girl child
    grows up believing she is responsible for her father's lack of
    love, she will spend her adult years trying to "fix" the problem.
    As an adult she may find herself in a series of relationships 
    with men who are emotionally (or otherwise) unavailable to her.
    Each time, she tries to fix the relationship, behave in ways
    she thinks will make him love her (unresolved issue with father),
    she most likely will be obsessed with her current love, to the
    point of neglecting her own needs.  There is more pain than
    pleasure in it for her, and she doesn't know when to say "enough"!
    One key symptom that this relationship is Unhealthy is her
    perception that somehow she can change him and make him love her;
    that he NEEDS changing and that she is the one to do it.  
    
    Her sense of self worth is based on whether she succeeds or 
    fails to make him love her.  Each time she fails miserably.  
    
    Hey, everyone.  We're not talking about you need to be more 
    like Robert Redford, or you need to be smarter, or you need
    to make $1M/year, be more sensitive, more ________.  This
    woman is not shopping (excuse the expression) for a healthy,
    ideal (for her) mate.  She is gravitating toward (and 
    attracting) someone who has a specific type of personality
    problem.  Over and over.  And it may take her years to
    notice a pattern, and she may or may not ever seek help.  
    
    Another example of a "woman who loves too much" is the one
    who always finds herself entangled with an alcoholic.  
    Another woman may always find herself involved with an
    abusive/violent man.  
    
    The author of WOMAN WHO LOVE TOO MUCH is trying to help such
    women see their own personal patterns.  REALLY SEE what is
    going on with themselves so they can begin to make changes
    in their own lives.  A "woman who loves to much" is afraid
    to simply BE, she does not believe that she deserves to be
    loved simply for who she is, and she probably doesn't KNOW
    who she is.  
    
    I have read the book once, and it has helped me a great deal.
    It has helped me to notice and monitor my own behavior around
    relating to and loving men.  At one time, I was run by (or at
    the effect of) my own unhealthy patterns of relating.  Now I
    have my own little voice that tells me when I'm "doing it again"
    and I've begun to make conscious choices about what I want and
    don't want in a relationship.  
    
    This has all been written with very little editing, and with
    many MANY interruptions.  Hope it hasn't been too rambly.
    
    Karen
    

    re.17
    i can relate to that
    
    to this day(i am 26) when i speak of my parents divorce the first
    words out of my mouth are :when my father left me.
    
    i know he didnt leave me,he left my mother...

    Re: 13 Thank you for your insight.
    
    CQ
    
    

    This note came at the right time for me.  I am going to get the
    book and read it, but I feel the responses hear have cleared up
    a lot of things in my mind about my own behavior.
    
    I read one of the replys right after I had finished talking to a
    man on the phone.  I have been pursueing this friendship because
    I feel I would be 'good' for him.
    
    I am not sure what kind of relationship would be good for me but
    I do know my past relationships have all been supportive of men
    who drank to much and or were unhappy for one reason or another.
    
    Does the book give any answers?

    Maybe men get addicted to alcohol because they dare not get addicted
    to love ? Maybe you sense a need similar to yours, which the men
    are attempting to satisfy in a different manner ? I know I drink
    more when there isn't a special woman in my life. Maybe a subtle
    "sober me up and make me happy" ploy ? Not sure. Hmmmm.
    
    (gawd I hate it when you make me think :-)/2 )
    
    Dana

RE: .13

"why women are overwhelmingly victims of love addiction."

I would hazard a guess that more women are sensitive enough to realize that
'substance' addiction is a losing game, yet they still have the addictive need,
hence the addictive behavior...  I would say that I would prefer love addiction
to drinking or drugs. 

"These properties are characteristic of many women's relationships with men,
much more so than the reverse." 

Many???  More then men, certainly, but I believe that is for the better, as I
said above.

"I think it is also clear that addiction, in general, serves the best interests
of the dominant culture."

I have to disagree with that.

"Most addicts are persons who, if their dissatisfaction was directed outward,
would be a threat to the society."

True, but satisfied people are a more of a benefit to society then addicts.

"They are neutralized as a threat to patriarchy, because their personal love
life obsesses them."

And what kind of a threat do you think that they would be???  And just who is
this 'patriarchy' that might be threatened?  Me?  the guy next door?  All Men?
Who planned this 'neutralization'?  All Men?  Society?

Maybe it is a threat to a given social structure, but don't make it sound like
'we all' planned some vast conspiracy.

"The healthiest woman will recognize traces of this pattern in herself, I
think."

The healthiest woman wouldn't have it.  Or are you saying that women can't
possibly be free of this problem?

"Our society endlessly drives home the point that a women without a man is
incomplete and unfulfilled."

I think that our society corrals women as well as men into couples;  I believe
that women are more sesceptable to this, however.  Ask a man how he feels when
he doesn't have a (particular?) woman. There are certainly enough songs about
such. 

"The weight of religion and law has been used to drill this point so deeply into
the shared consciousness, and individual women have internalized it so
thoroughly, few can even see it as an external value propagated in the best
interests of the patriarchy."

How do law and religion do this??  I must have missed it.  Oh, I see, I must
have internalized it... :-}  ('tsk, tsk, a very bad sign')

"The masochistic and self-destructive behavior of "women who love too much"
would have been considered exemplary in the last century."

In what way?

"Throughout the Christian era, women have been told that the only way to rise
above the curse of their femaleness was to suffer for it, in perfect subjection
to the man that God has placed above them."

I have no doubt that various people have been told that, but that is not
"Christian" as defined by the Bible.

It certainly is a pattern, as are many behavoirs.  We learn them from our Role
Models, and give them our children.  One person probably teaches the behavior to
a dozen others before discarding it, perhapd four people are stuck with the
behavior.

"unless a challenge is made to the fundamental structure of the patriarchy"

So What's the Challenge?

"but in order to maintain itself (patriarchy) must keep those same women in a
position of subjection." 

Again, who is this Patriarchy?  Do *I* need to keep women subjected to survive?
No, I don't.  Does this Patriarchy have a mind or it's own to plan to maintain
itself??? Sheeash!

"When the nomadic invaders came into settled, goddess-worshipping lands,"

What about nomadic invaders invading god-worshipping lands?  Don't you think
that happened?  Don't you think that there were ever goddess-worshipping nomadic
invaders? 

"After the violence passed, religion and laws were created to institutionalize
it, (patriarchy)"

created by who?  By the patriarchical mind, again?  I doubt it.  It was most
likely each person looking out for themselves; something which I don't think men
have cornered the market on.

"Almost every woman has a need for connection to others; this is the glue that
probably created society in the first place."

And men don't???  Again, one sex doesn't have the market cornered...

"This connectedness, which if realized as a political force could overthrow the
patriarchy,"

This connectedness amoung men is probably one of the strongest *impersonal*
force holding the patriarchy together. 

"is deprived of its power by channelling it along the lines of a slave
relationship"

How??  What is it's power that is unique to women??? (none!)

"Connectedness between women is limited to the home, with other wives, female
relatives, and servants."

How is this any less connectedness then amoung men?  Men often have less of this
kind of connectiveness, even if they have a wider scope.  It's a trade off.

"Under these conditions, women are bound to be dissatisfied."

Oh really?  You mean *all* the women in the past centuries have been
dissatified? More then the men? 

"In the past, the religious, legal, and social answer to this dissatisfaction
has been to focus women even more around their children (motherhood is the only
true fulfillment for a woman, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,
etc.)."

Ah... So there was a way of satisfaction in life!  I can't see anything wrong
with being satisfaction in motherhood.  There are many things in life which can
bring satisfaction.

"A woman had no options about the male master she was connected to"

Patently False.  *No* options???

"Now that rampant reproduction is not a necessary to an industrial society,"

I didn't know that it ever *was* a necessicity of an industrial society. I
thought rampant reproduction was necessary because of infant mortality,
childhood mortality, etc; so that when you reached old age, you could be sure
that there was going to be someone left to care for you. 

"Since the nuclear family is no longer the chief means of production,"

Hasn't been for the last century or so, excepting rural families.  Families,
especially recently, have become overconsumers, instead of producers. 

"The nineteenth century introduced the notion of romance"

Try more like the Sixteenth Century...

"When a woman fails to find fulfillment in a man, she isn't likely to look at
"what's wrong with this picture".  She just looks for a different man,"

Gee, I know plenty of men that do that too... myself included...

"and ends up believing that the problem is just with her: she "loves too much"."

I've never liked the idea "loves (others) too much", I think the problem is more
'loves (self) too little'.

"Women's love is one of the most enriching and powerful forces in the world,"

And What is Men's love?  Chopped Liver?  Honestly, tell me what is wrong with
men's love, specifically (in general :-)).

"and it has been the one thing that has been most effectively turned against
them by the patriarchy."

Oh, yes, there's that Patriarchy agian.  'The Patriarchy dun it!'

"Because women love so much, they give up their own dreams of self-fulfillment
for those of their children, and they find the goodness and humanness in their
oppressors."

Such a love is good, as long as it is satisfying, and not self distructive.
I don't see anything wrong with this...

"Our society would totally collapse without women's love."

The same could be said for men's love.  What's the distinction?

"I do think that women need to think more about how they love."

Yes.

"There need to be alternatives, and being the resilient, creative, and loving
people they are, women must find them."

From the sound of that, it seems to me that you feel that women are the only
ones capable of loving, and that "resilient, creative, and loving" men do not
exist.

RE: .14

"Pretty [propagandistic] Note" in my opinion.  A lot of sataements are made
without facts or explainations. 

RE: .17

Sounds like a good summary to me!

Jim.





 

    
    re .20
    
    
    I'm really glad that you've decided to read the book.  You are not
    going to believe how much you can relate to it.  I felt that way
    throughout the book.  It seemed as if they were writing it for me.
    I wouldnt call what the book gives as "answers" but it gives tremendous
    support and understanding.  In the last chapter or two, Robin describes
    the steps to recovery. She describes what each step is, why it is
    necessary and how it affects your life once you have taken it.
    Its hard work and it requires total commitment to yourself and to
    recovering, but of course, in the end, it is worth it. 
    
    .17 hit it on the nose.  I couldnt have said it better myself.
    
    Diane
    

    re .13
    
    Thanks for a great note.  It helps me understand better why I don't
    enjoy being in such a relationship.
    
    Rich

    I have been asked to enter the following note anonymously.
    
    	                                 Holly
    					 (new co-moderator)
                                      
    ===================================================================
    
    After reading this entire note a couple times through, I have several
    comments that I wish to make.  First, I would like to say that this is
    a very sensitive subject for me.  As I read the base note and its
    replies, I began to feel some of my hot buttons being pushed and my
    defenses start to rise. 

    I have read the book, I do fall into the category of "Women Who Love
    Too Much", and am married to an Alcoholic, Cocaine/Heroin Addict, and
    an Adult Child of Alcoholics (ACOA). 

re: 13

    >Addiction reduces the world to one person: the addict and her/his
    >needs.  An addict cannot think, "There is something wrong with a
    >social system that reduces me to this."  An addict can only think, "I
    >need a fix." 

    This is true when speaking of alcohol/drug abusers.  But, what of the
    other types of addicts?  Compulsive Eaters, Smokers, Compulsive
    Gamblers. Could you say the same for the Compulsive Eater that you
    would my husband? 

    The social system does not reduce an addict to being an addict.
    Something inside that addict has told him he is a failure, he lacks
    self-respect and self-esteem.  When discussing the alcoholic/drug
    addict, the drug of choice makes the addict feel good when he thinks he
    needs it most.  But, the decision to use that drug was made by an
    individual, not the social system. The choice to continue using that
    drug is still made by the individual, not the social system.  Then, one
    day, you have my husband - addicted to heroin, cocaine, and alcohol -
    with a 24 gram cocaine/high habit, shooting speedballs and killing
    himself. 


    >When a woman fails to find fulfillment in a man, she isn't likely to
    >look at "what's wrong with this picture".  She just looks for a
    >different man, and ends up believing that the problem is just with
    >her: she "loves too much". 

    I find this an insult to my intelligence!  It has been my experience
    that a man will not take the time to "look at the picture" before
    moving on if his needs/wants haven't been fulfilled much quicker than a
    woman will. 

    Other comments that I found that I would like to respond to were:

    - I recall reading a reply or two that suggested a woman who loves too
    much typically has unresolved issues with her father.  Maybe in some
    cases, but I think this could probably apply to another man, as well,
    say an uncle. I know in my own it does not apply.  My father & I have
    always had a very close, loving, and honest relationship. 

    - These women who love too much are women who don't know when to say
    "enough". 

    I disagree.  Knowing to say it, and being able (having the heart) to
    are two VERY different things. 

    - Another statement relating to self-worth really caught my attention.
    It said that the self-worth of a woman who loves too much is based on
    whether or not she failed to make him love her. 

    Again, this is a generalization.  First of all, I love too much.
    Secondly, my self-worth has nothing to do with whether or not my
    husband loves me. He fell in love with me, first.  My sense of
    self-worth is a totally separate issue from my marriage and our love
    for each other. 

    - The last comment I have to respond to said something about a woman
    who loves too much is "simply afraid to be". 

    Well, again, I would place this as a generalization.  I am not afraid
    to "be", but when your life becomes so entangled trying to support your
    family because your husband can't, help your spouse get help with his
    drug addictions, and attend therapy to learn how best to deal with all
    the turmoil, as well as be a good mom to your 14 mos. old son, you kind
    of lose sight of who you, the individual, really are. 
                                                         
    

    In response to anonymous:  I guess I don't understand what
    you mean by "too much" when you say you love too much.  
    
    The cases cited in the book were of women who repeatedly
    found themselves attracted to men with similar problems, 
    who found themselves wondering how it could happen over
    and over again.  
    
    Please take this as a gentle and sincere question, but if
    you think you love too much, then why do you stay?  If it's
    because you love the man, then why do you say you love too 
    much?  It seems contradictory to me.  
    
    No criticism intended here, I'm really trying to see your
    point of view.
    
    Karen
    
    

< Note 555.25 by SUPER::HENDRICKS "The only way out is through" >
re: .25

re: 13

    >>Addiction reduces the world to one person: the addict and her/his
    >>needs.  An addict cannot think, "There is something wrong with a
    >>social system that reduces me to this."  An addict can only think, "I
    >>need a fix." 

    >The social system does not reduce an addict to being an addict.
    >Something inside that addict has told him he is a failure, he lacks
    >self-respect and self-esteem.  When discussing the alcoholic/drug
    >addict, the drug of choice makes the addict feel good when he thinks he
    >needs it most.  But, the decision to use that drug was made by an
    >individual, not the social system. The choice to continue using that
    >drug is still made by the individual, not the social system.  Then, one
    >day, you have my husband - addicted to heroin, cocaine, and alcohol -
    >with a 24 gram cocaine/high habit, shooting speedballs and killing
    >himself. 

I don't mean to suggest that individuals are not ultimately responsible 
for themselves.  I only mean to say that when there is a statistically 
significant number of people from a particular social group engaging in 
a similar addictive pattern, then there are probably social forces 
acting on that social group to help create and enforce that pattern.
Since there are so many women whose patterns of loving appear to be
addictive in nature, I suggest that there are powerful social forces 
that help to create the need, then channel into "love" as the addiction 
of choice.

    >>When a woman fails to find fulfillment in a man, she isn't likely to
    >>look at "what's wrong with this picture".  She just looks for a
    >>different man, and ends up believing that the problem is just with
    >>her: she "loves too much". 

    >I find this an insult to my intelligence!  It has been my experience
    >that a man will not take the time to "look at the picture" before
    >moving on if his needs/wants haven't been fulfilled much quicker than a
    >woman will. 

I didn't intend to insult anyone's intelligence.  Men will move on more 
quickly than women when they aren't satisfied -- women tend to stay and 
work, work, work to try to save even a hopeless situation.  The "larger 
picture" I was talking about is the one created by all these women doing 
that: sacrificing themselves endlessly for unsatisfying relationships,
as if the relationship is a thing they must have even if it is
destroying them -- just as cocaine is a thing your husband must have,
even though it is destroying him. 

Although each relationship and each woman's suffering is unique in its
own way, I feel that to address the issue as if each woman exists in a
vacuum with her "personal" problem is to miss a deep structural bone of
our society.  "The personal is political", as the old women's movement
saying goes, and each woman's personal life added together creates, for
me, the inescapable conclusion that women are systematically set up to
be love addicts.  I think it is worth pondering why that might be.

I think that women should be a bit gentle with themselves about it. 
Although I believe in the value of self-analysis, I think there's a
point at which the constant emphasis on self-improvement, on finding and
correcting all her feminine defects that deluges a woman in our society,
can end up feeding into a message that says "if you suffer, it's all 
your fault anyway -- you are dependant, afraid of life, addictive,
clinging, weak, love too much, have fat thighs -- get assertive, go on a
diet, learn to make love to a man, understand your personality type, and
so on and so on...".  Women aren't encourage to think that if they
suffer, maybe it ain't all their fault -- maybe there's something bigger
wrong with a world in which so many women have the same the problem.
Although accepting full responsibility for oneself is a necessary step
to self-empowerment, there's a certain balance that needs to be struck. 

    > ....  I am not afraid
    >to "be", but when your life becomes so entangled trying to support your
    >family because your husband can't, help your spouse get help with his
    >drug addictions, and attend therapy to learn how best to deal with all
    >the turmoil, as well as be a good mom to your 14 mos. old son, you kind
    >of lose sight of who you, the individual, really are. 

I am sure that you are a brave, strong, and courageous woman who is 
carrying the weight for a lot of people.  You probably deserve more than
you are currently getting in return for that.  I'm sorry if anything I
said made you feel put down or blamed for the struggle that you have --
that was the last thing I wanted to do. You, as an individual, are just
as entitled to love, care and support as the ones you love, and I hope
that you get it. 

    I have been asked to post this by the author of .25.
    
                                                     Holly

        ===============================================================
    
    re: .26

    Karen, I love too much because I've always been attracted to men who
    needed "fixing".  This is my second marriage; my first found his way to
    back to drugs, and upon our breaking up became a cocaine dealer. 

    >    Please take this as a gentle and sincere question, but if 
    >    you think you love too much, then why do you stay?  If it's 
    >    because you love the man, then why do you say you love too 
    >    much?  It seems contradictory to me. 
    
    I stay for many reasons.  If I gave up without exhausting every
    possible resource, I'd always wonder if the one resource I left
    unturned could have been "the" one to make the difference.  I have to
    try. 

    I stay because I love my husband.  So, why do I say I love too much? My
    husband has been through treatment centers four times, the fifth begins
    next month.  Throughout this crazy ordeal, I gave up all my needs to
    care for his.  I become so involved in his treat- ment that I neglected
    my own needs.  This is loving too much. 

Catherine,

    I did not feel blame for my struggle when I read your note.  What I
    felt was anger and defensiveness because when most people speak about
    addicts, they speak of them as if they were some "social outcast".
    Being married to an addict, who is by no means a "social outcast", I
    tend to rise to the defensive. 

    These are very sick individuals.  As I said before, no one made that
    addict pick up; nor will anyone be able to make them put down their
    drugs.  This is true.  They have to want to.  BUT, by treating these
    people as social outcasts it reinforces their habit.  How?  Simple.
    Addicts are full of self-hatred.  Treat them any less than you would
    another human being and they have another excuse to pick up.  It's
    makes them forget for awhile and feel good about themselves. 

    There is also an element of addiction on my part.  Someone said that
    women who love too much are addicted to "men".  I'd have to disagree
    with that - at least in the plural.  My addiction is to my husband -
    not "men" in general.  Providing help/support for his problems, needs,
    etc., have consumed the better part of my life for the last 2+ yrs.
    (all total = off & on for 7 yrs). 

    Recovery isn't easy.  It hurts like heck.  When he asks for help and
    you have to say "find it yourself"; when he's living in the street and
    asking to come home and you have to say "no"; when he has no money, and
    you still have to say "no", it hurts.  It's called Tough Love. 

    In my recovery I've learned detachment. I can still love an addict, but
    no longer can I or will I assume responsibility for him or his
    addictions.  It's time he paid his own piper. 

    Thanks for responding, 
                           

RE: .28

"Someone said that women who love too much are addicted to "men".  I'd have to
disagree with that - at least in the plural.  My addiction is to my husband -
not "men" in general."

I think that that is an important point... Does this point make it any less
an addiction?

Jim.

    I have been asked to post this by the author of .25 and .28. 
    
                                              Holly
    ======================================================================
re: .29

>"Someone said that women who love too much are addicted to "men".  I'd have to
>disagree with that - at least in the plural.  My addiction is to my husband -
>not "men" in general."

>I think that that is an important point... Does this point make it any less
>an addiction?

>Jim.

Addiction is addiction no matter how you look at it.  What I wanted to stress
was the difference between "men" and "man".

When someone says women who love too much are addicted to "men", it tends to
be heard as something much larger than when speaking in the singular.  For
example, if someone were to say she was addicted to "men" (plural), human
nature would instantly translate that this woman can't live without having
alot of different men.

In my case, I am addicted to my husband (singular); my husband being *one*
man, not many.

I'm sure there are women who are addicted to men (plural).  We both have an
addiction, but I believe recovery from an addiction to one man is a much
simpler road to recovery than someone addicted to "men" in general.

    Addiction to man...hmmm
    
    I have had 4 serial monogamous live-in relationships over the past
    6 years  (which pretty much wound up being one-after-the other,
    although I never intended it to be that way...).  Perhaps I didn't
    notice the pattern because I didn't want to - but if I wasn't
    "attached to a man", I felt my life had little meaning, and I hadn't
    a strong enough sense of self to be alone.  Well, since the
    disengagement from my most recent SO, we have still been living
    together (as friends)...but this weekend he is moving out, and he
    is getting a job in Cambridge, and he is probably going to UMass
    Amherst next year (certainly too far away to live with me).  This
    is the first time in 6 years I have been unattached and was not
    living with a man.   I'm scared, but excited.  I imagine the
    possibilities.  I know this is what is right for me now.  I will
    miss what I had, but I have a lot to look forward to (imagine unfolding
    a self I have never felt the desire to know - like origami in reverse!)
    
    I know it will be difficult, but I have friends and hobbies and
    a renewed sense of purpose.  I look forward with newly-opened eyes.
     I will read - listen to music - spend leisurely days alone...
    
    alone was a word I always used to fear, because for some strange
    reason, I always felt that I was never good enough company.  But
    I am learning otherwise...slowly...I am keeping a journal, I plan
    to write a story (book?) bassed on an idea I had recently...
    
    there will be nights when I am cold, and there will be days I will
    wish for the security I once had...but I will be developing a new
    security, a surety of self, a sense of who I am, where I've been,
    where I'm going...
    
    wish me luck
    
    (I close my eyes - hold my breath...and jump in with both feet!)
    
    -Jody
    

    RE.31  Prediction : Once you're on your own, a lot of men you
    only know slightly will be asking you out. 
    
    "I was interested in you but you were living with/seeing/(whatever)
    Mr. X. Now...."
    
    Some men are turned off by the fact that woman is allready "in a
    relationship". Even when she *says* its not serious. (What *is*
    it then - a convenience ? Another turnoff.)
    
    Anyway, Jody, good luck. (And what are you doing Saturday
    night >;-) )
    
    Dana

    Jody, you're not losing a lover, you're gaining storage space!
    ;-)  Best wishes,
    						Ann B.

    > RE.31  Prediction : Once you're on your own, a lot of men you
    > only know slightly will be asking you out. 
    
    Being one of those single men who know's Jody only slightly, and
    works in the same group, I'd have to say...
    
    You're absolutely right!  On the other hand, I have seen the confusion
    of people who don't know who they are outside of the context of a
    relationship.  I have a lot of respect for someone who can go it alone
    long enough to find out who they are.  I find myself more attracted to
    women that have that sense of independence.  So my main reaction is
    "More power to you. It will be hard, but it will be worth it." 
    
    On the other hand, I've also been on the losing side of the waiting
    game before.  Typically, some other man, who does not know or care that
    the woman needs to take a time out, snaps her up before she signaled
    that she was ready for a new relationship.  The only chance I have in
    that case is to move before anyone else finds out.  I ask my self "How
    many other men around here read WOMANNOTES?"  It this point I may be
    the only single man in the group who knows.  Is a choosing to stand
    back and wait the same as giving up my only chance at a relationship
    with a nice person?
    
    My own shyness is enough to be the tie breaker.  That alone would
    be enough to keep me from asking Jody out.  It saddens me to think
    about the implications.  The man who is sensitive to Jody's needs
    will stand back and give her some room to grow on her own.  The
    man who is sensitive to only his own needs will ignore Jody's needs
    and place demands on her to fill his needs.  Which kind of man is
    Jody most likely going to end up with?
    
    I think it depends on you, Jody.  Take the time to learn what you
    need and don't trade that away to serve the needs of someone else
    who is only good at demanding that others serve their needs.
    
    				More power to you,
    
    						MJC O->

    
                                                 

    :.32
    
    You sure about that???...  Is this to only happen to Jody, or does
    it happen all the time?...
    
    Gale

    All the time. And maybe we need a new topic ? 

    re: .34
    
    sanctuary much.
    
    re: waiting...
    
    I feel kind of like I've just been through the blender.  This is the
    first time I've ever parted with someone before it was really and truly
    unsalvageable.  We were still pretty close.  So I'm still stinging, and
    need to stabilize before I even consider dating again - let alone
    another relationship.  And on top of this, I have a draft of my
    book here due the 26th (gaaah! :-) - so there goes my free time...
    
    -Jody