Guy Code, Hugo Schwyzer writes, attempts to give men a free pass from being emotionally understanding in their relationships.
It was with a familiar sense of frustration that I read Lisa Hickey’s piece on straight men’s views of their wives: “Are Husbands Really Assholes?“ Hickey, who heard from a number of men and women in lasting marriages, paints a grim picture. The husbands report being married to wives who are relentlessly critical and nit-picky. Despite what they universally claim are their best efforts, these men (at least the ones who shared with Hickey) lament that their wives remain perennially dissatisfied. As one husband put it:
Men want to be good husbands but they honestly don’t know how. And the women they truly adore pound them as a result. Rather than talking it through, they ultimately get to the point where they give up on dialogue and just take the punishment as part of what they have to endure.
I don’t think that the anonymous married man who shared that was wrong about the two statements in his first sentence. Most men, as far as I can tell, do want to be good husbands. And most of them really don’t know what that entails. But that inability to figure out how to be the good husbands we dream of being is not our wives’ problem to solve. The source of our frustrated inability to connect with our spouses and long-term girlfriends isn’t their elevated expectations or some innate male biological trait that serves as an impediment to self-awareness. The problem is that most men are raised with what is often called the “Guy Code.”
The Guy Code, which boys learn from their male peers and older men, prizes action rather than words. It teaches boys, as the sociologists Deborah David and Robert Brannon pointed out decades ago, to be highly competitive “sturdy oaks” with little vocabulary for anything other than ambition or anger. The Guy Code teaches men how to pursue women, how to court, and how to charm; it teaches us nothing about how to be in an actual relationship with a woman once we’ve succeeded in catching her. (If you’re getting an image of a dog who looks bewildered and helpless when he’s finally managed to catch the cat he’s been chasing, you’re not far off the mark.)
Once in a relationship (much less a marriage) with a real-honest-to-goodness human being who didn’t grow up with the Guy Code (and thus wasn’t shamed out of her ability to articulate her feelings, as most of us were as boys), we’re often in awe of what seem like her “naturally” superior emotional abilities. Women seem to have this extraordinary capacity to describe their feelings with precision; they seem to be so much better at remembering the nuances of conversations we’ve long since forgotten.
Many young—and not-so-young—men feel overwhelmed by what seem to be the superior verbal and emotional skills of female romantic partners. When a man has grown up learning not to display feelings, or to talk about them, he may end up feeling as if he’s a first-year French student suddenly plunged into a conversation with fluent native speakers. He hasn’t got—or he feels he hasn’t got—the vocabulary with which to keep up. This isn’t because of testosterone, of course, or some inherent aspect of the human brain; it’s the hangover from growing up with the “guy code.” And the guy code, followed rigidly, leads to a kind of learned emotional helplessness.
♦◊♦
Make no mistake: I don’t think women are blameless. Women are acculturated to take charge of the emotional health of the marriage; women are taught to confuse being controlling with being nurturing. Women, as well as men, buy into the male myth, the one that says we are physiologically incapable of being as emotionally complex, intuitive, or articulate as our wives and girlfriends. Some women take a certain satisfaction in the mistaken belief that they “know their husbands better than they know themselves.” Women play at least a small part in the maintenance of the male myth.
But the majority of the men in Lisa Hickey’s piece don’t sound like men who are actively trying to resolve a problem with a partner whom they regard as an equal. They sound petulant and resentful; they sound defeated. Two guaranteed-to-fail tactics are all they have in their arsenals: “submarining” and pre-emptive self-deprecation.
Submarining is what it sounds like: diving deep to avoid a tempest that must eventually blow over. By viewing your wife’s rage as a temporary storm to be avoided, you will, like a sub, dive inward, remaining as impassive as possible, waiting patiently (or, more accurately, anxiously but with an outer veneer of tranquility) for the tempest to cease. This is passive-aggressive conflict avoidance; I did a lot of “submarining” in my first two marriages.
Other men will pull out the infamous pre-emptive apology strategy (I’m sorry, I’m sorry, whatever I did, I’m sorry. Please stop being mad.) Still others, of course, will retreat to self-deprecation, figuring that if they say truly awful things about themselves, they’ll force their lovers to cease the search for legitimate discussion and turn to the more traditionally feminine role of soothing male anxiety. (I’m such a piece of shit, I don’t know why you stay with me. Batterers use that line a lot in the remorse stage, following an episode of abuse.) It often works, particularly on a younger woman who fancies herself capable of showing a man a side of himself he has never seen. And so a lot of women, torn between exasperation and compassion, give in at this point and say, “Oh Theodore, you’re not a bad person. I really do love and admire you.” She temporarily breaks off the attempt to push through to him and to create change; the status quo is preserved.
♦◊♦
It’s tempting—oh, so tempting—to attribute our own comparative inarticulateness to our testosterone, or to our Y chromosome, to God’s plan for marriage, or anything that is sufficiently immutable so as to excuse us from having to engage with these heavily-armed wordsmiths as equals. Thanks to the Guy Code, we confuse what we weren’t given with what we can never learn. It’s an alluring mistake; if we buy into it, we can lapse into the grim satisfactions of martyrdom (I’m such a heroic knight, why can’t she appreciate me?) or we stray into emotional or physical affairs with women who seem so much more understanding (My secretary really gets me. She makes me feel like a man. Not like my shrew of a wife who cut my balls off and keeps them in her underwear drawer). And all the while, we submarine, self-deprecate, and endure.
When men are raised with little sense of how to “fight fair,” particularly with romantic partners, they often lack the discernment to determine a legitimate criticism that ought to be taken to heart from an unfair attack. Women aren’t the only ones who fall for the myth that wives, girlfriends, and sisters know the guys they love better than they know themselves; for different reasons, men and women alike are attached to that sexist conceit. This assumption that men are a mystery to themselves can function, for some men, to legitimize anything a woman says in anger. And sometimes in anger, we—men and women alike—say unfair things to our romantic partners. We speak from a place of pain, frustration, and rage, and we say what we know will wound. Women do this, men do this. The difference is that many men, thanks to their “learned obtuseness,” are particularly unlikely to be able to differentiate between the legitimate criticism uttered in a healthy fight and the unjust accusation blurted out in a moment of wrath.
It’s not news to report that wives are gonna say some things that are hurtful and unfair. But they’re also gonna say some things that are hurtful but fair—and the real problem is that most men still need to do the hard work of learning how to discern between the two. I won’t pretend that’s easy. And I also won’t buy the lie that it’s impossible.
♦◊♦
Are Husbands Really Assholes? Or Do Their Wives Just Think They Are? Lisa Hickey
Being the Man Does Not Automatically Make Everything Your Fault, Jackie Summers
♦◊♦
—Photo CarbonNYC/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
I am not surprised to see that the Up-and Down-Voting option has been removed.
After spending a few weeks here, I can see why.
When I came to this site I thought the tone of the site might be “men good, women bad”, but was hoping it would be “men good, women good”. Imagine my shock that the running narrative throughout this site is “men bad, women good”.
Why type of men’s site devotes the vast majority of its content portraying men in a negative light?
Correction -
The last line should read – What type of men’s…
Not all articles are as extreme as this one though. Some of us are trying to expose and combat that unfortunate pattern.
I feel really sad that a lot of the men who comment on this site feel as if they are being attacked, and that the message is ‘women are good, men are bad’, which is not at all what this site is trying to achieve. I assume that the men who read this blog are already great human beings or are looking for ideas in which they can improve themselves. This blog is an exchange of ideas and perspectives, articles are colored by the author’s experiences. Don’t take it as an attack on you or on all men. The authors don’t know you or everyone else in your gender. Their job isn’t to mesh with your views. Their job is to make you think and reflect on your views and to consider the point of view of others. Take things with a grain of salt. Take what you like but don’t dismiss what you dislike. Instead look at why it bothers you and write about it. This is your space and your views should be heard, at least if they’re constructive. Complaining accomplishes nothing.
If this site was about construtive dialouge Hugo Schwyzer and Amanda Marcotte would never be alowed to post or comment on anything here. These two persons have broken every moral principle they teach themselves, they have abused every position of power they have ever held. and they claim to listen to other people’s opinion but they only ever listen to the ones that tell them what they want to hear.
He’s not portraying men at a negative light. If you actually read the article without any preconceived bias, you’d realize he’s fairly explaining how unfair SOCIETY is. There IS no “men bad, women good” or vice versa. I don’t think he needs to stroke anyone’s ego here, he’s merely speaking the truth. I’m sure you’d be more than delighted if he put women down in the article, but of course since he said it how it was and didn’t necessarily boost men up and some superior gods, it was surprising. A man NOT trying to claim men are superior. Holy cow. All you did was prove that his claim on how society raises men is absolutely, 100% true. Now go toot your own horn because no one here is going to do it for you.
I think there is something to the idea of a “Guy Code” about keeping your feelings to yourself. It’s overstating it to say that it’s some kind of universal male legal system, but I think it’s pretty valid to say that in American society it’s generally more socially acceptable for women to cry in public than men, for example. Just as a general phenomenon.
What I think Hugo’s article overlooks is the fact that, if there is a code against men expressing their feelings, women often play a role in reinforcing that code, not just men. I’m guessing most women at one point in their lives have dismissed a man’s emotional state as “fragile male ego,” a phrase that women use much more often than men do. Many women have told a man to “stop being such a baby.” Many women have at one point told a man expressing his true inner feelings, “that’s not the right answer. What you should say is ____.” These are hardly words of encouragement for expressing emotional vulnerability.
I’m not letting men off the hook for failing to express their feelings. I just think communicating is a two-way street, and it’s not always entirely the men’s fault for being cautious about expressing a fuller range of emotions. When your feelings are often dismissed or seldom recognized by the people who are supposed to listen to you, then you stop talking about them so much. Often it’s a simple as that.
I hope Hugo is not assuming that all women in relationships are simply waiting patiently, encouraging a free and honest emotional dialogue, respectfully listening to everything that a man might say about how he is feeling, ready to validate his experience, etc. I had the great fortune in my twenties of being in a few long-term relationships with women who were convinced that they were good listeners just because they were women. If I felt reluctant to share my feelings with them, of course it could only mean that I was defective, not that I was reluctant to share feeling with people who failed to validate my feelings. Unfortunately, I was immature enough to assume that they were right and it must have been all my fault for being closed off.
As a tangential note. Am I the only one waiting for Hugo to deliver on his promise (made on his own website) to help the men that can’t get dates? He obviously has time to write articles such as the above, so it is not the case that he is to buried in work to actually deliver.
Hugo is just blaming and shaming the victims here. Verbal and emotional abuse directed at your partner or child is considered domestic violence these days – at least when it emanates from men. This is not to say that in all cases the disapproval and denigration by the wife goes as far as to be domestic violence, but in many cases it does. Just because women may feel powerless doesn’t mean they are powerless and just because men may appear to be in a position of power doesn’t mean they are willing or capable of exercising it.
We live in a world that tells female victims of domestic violence that it is never her fault. Now we have Professor Hugo, expert on gender relations, telling male victims of domestic violence that it is probably their fault and they do deserve it.
I don’t know about Hugo’s “Guy Code” – I was brought up by feminist women, but two themes most men I know try to adhere to are; never hit a woman and make you wife happy. It is the man’s desire to make his woman happy that makes her disapproval such a potent weapon.
This is an appalling article. In contrast, Lisa Hickey’s article is very good and Jackie Summers article is excellent.
This isn’t about abusive relationships at all. Also, having been on the woman’s side of this situation, the woman does NOT have control in these situations. The guy might really want to just make her happy, but if he keeps “submarining” – ignoring her when she’s upset – or just apologizing without listening to her just to stop the fight he never, ever will make her happy. Eventually, after having the same fight again and again with your boyfriend/husband because he won’t listen to what you say, you begin to believe that he doesn’t actually care at all about what you want or what will make you happy. And that’s when women start thinking of their male partners as assholes. It’s not to control them, it’s because that’s how they seem to us. Advice that says just stop thinking of him as an asshole don’t help. No one wants to date an asshole, so trust me, those women have tried convincing themselves that he’s not. But in these situations there’s something wrong with the relationship that can’t just be ignored, but needs to be talked out. Submarining or over-apologizing shut down that conversation and prevent things from actually being fixed. That’s what Hugo’s talking about here. He’s not talking about abusive relationships.
Of course the woman has control in these situations. She controls the goal posts. Having been the man in this arrangement, the submarining/over apologizing is a last ditch effort to find something, anything, that will work. You try to talk things out eight different ways, change behaviors according to the results of those talks, all of which lead back to the same place of your actions being inadequate in some way, and eventually you come to the conclusion that you are powerless to affect the cycle. There is something that drives the woman in your life to put you down, nit pick your every move, and generally judge you inadequate, and there’s not a damn thing in this world you can do about it.
Under those circumstances, why would you continue to expose yourself for nothing but abuse and ever-moving targets?
But I’ve whined too much. Time to man up I suppose…
@ Eric M September 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm
I have never seen ANY article written by Hugo, which was clearly on the side of a good man, who was badly cheated by malicious women and by the legal system in Western countries. Never.
If anybody knows about such an article, let me know.
It is true, not all articles are extreme like this one on the GoodMenProject.
However this is a website, which is pro-feminist orientated, created by feminists. There is not much space left over here to talk about Men’s Rights.
@ Rhyth7
The article’s picture is a guy with a doofus look on his face with a sign on his head saying “does not work.” That is the article that sums up his opinion of men and tells you what to expect in the article. The article delivers that message lout and clear.
You don’t even have to read the article to see that this it pure, unadulterated man-bashing. Just look at the picture. If you do read the article and can’t see that this article states, in essence, “women are good, men are bad”, there is nothing I can do or say to help you.
@ Yohan,
You are correct. Hugo’s articles are pure unadulterated male-bashing/misandry. Just look at the picture associated with this article, as just one example.
On the other hand, Jackie Summers wrote a rebuttal to this one. I would love to hear Hugo’s response to it. Jackie’s comments are so rational, reasonable, balanced, factual, and don’
t reflect hatred of women or men that I doubt Hugo would even try to comment on it. It would expose him even further.
Jackie Summers wrote a straw man rebuttal. Hugo never said that being a man automatically made things your fault, also Hugo wasn’t talking about abusive relationships. Jackie wrote a good article about his experience, but it had nothing to do with what Hugo wrote about.
What would Hugo or the feminists over at Ms. Magazine say about an article that stated that women’s brains don’t work? They would call it misogyny, because that’s what it would be.
Now, look at the picture Hugo selected to represent men. According to him, men’s brains don’t work. That shows that his message here, as always is fueled by misandry.
His articles are all the predictable and always say the same thing.
1) Whatever the problem is, it’s always a man’s fault; and
2) The only good men are (essentially) women.
The article is not the same as the picture. I don’t like the picture, and I don’t know what hugo or whoever chose the pic (authors don’t always chose the titles or artwork for their work) was thinking when they chose it. Complain about the picture, but don’t pretend you read the article when you just looked at the picture.
The purpose of an articles picture and caption is to represent the thoughts expressed in the article, which I did read. The picture was obviously chosen intentionally to represent the writer’s opinion of men, that men’s brains “don’t work.”
This is wholly consistent with this article’s contents and consistent with all of his other articles that I have read. That is: men (in general, not “some” men) are bad human beings, clueless (e.g. “brain doesn’t work”), refuse to be understanding, won’t communicate, and won’t do their part to maintain a relationship (read the caption to the picture).
This article and picture are just more of the usual misandry/man-bashing we are used to from him and his supporters/defenders.
Hugo actually argues AGAINST the idea that ‘men’s brains don’t work’ and they just can’t handle the emotional work of dealing with the problems their wives (rightly or wrongly) bring up. He thinks that it is hard work for men to learn how to navigate emotional problems in relationships because the ‘guy code’ tells them they just aren’t built for that kind of thing, but he thinks they certainly can do it! He is encouraging men here, not putting them down. I’d give more credit to your claim that you read the article if you didn’t attribute to Hugo the opposite of what he argues.
Thank you! Someone who gets it!
Hugo is like the “bad guy/girl” on reality tv shows: he boosts the ratings with his incendia.
I think the editors at TGMP need to understand that there are other measures of the merit of an article besides the number of posts and views it attracts.
Look at what happened to Sally Jessy Rapheal and Don Imus when they sought ratings to the exclusions of everything else.
The fact that an article based in supremacy and gender bigotry condemning men for lack of emotional range as progressive is a huge take-down to the quality of the good men project.
This is just as harmful and bigoted as the 1950′s view that “women are too emotional to be good __________” fill in the blank.
At that time many scientists politicians, and even women themselves thought women would not make good judges, politicians, pilots, soldiers, firefighters, researchers, astronauts, etc.. etc.. because they were too emotional.
This is a huge step backwards for equality. If you substituted the word “women” or “black” into any of Hugo’s articles and tried to publish them, even a pullitzer prize winning author would be suddenly black-listed.
It’s time to start wondering why we still accept bigoted statements about men that wouldn’t be accepted against any other group.
This is just so sad and pathetic an attempt by the TGMP editor’s to chase ratings.
The article that Hugo’s replying to is actually worse to women than this article is to men. The article that said that husbands aren’t assholes paints women as irrational and unpleaseable, and the solution is just for women to shut up and stop having needs in a relationship. Hugo takes that article and points out two things the men are doing and explains why that doesn’t help. He makes a point to say where women aren’t perfect, but it’s clear that this article is aimed to men so it focuses on things that men can do. Being that it’s on a site called “the good men project”, that’s appropriate. If you’ve in a relationship like this article describes, just try his advice. It’s gotta be better than maintaining the status quo and having your wife continue to think you’re an asshole.
A) I don’t know where you get the concept that Lisa Hickey’s comment was a smear on women.
B) You offer as a defense of Hugo’s bigotry, a different author’s bigotry? REally?
I’ve known since 8y/o that two wrongs don’t make a right.
However, three rights will get you back on the freeway.
Excerpt of the first few paragraphs:
There is a conversation that started with some guys in The Good Men Project—in person, by phone, via email—where men were asked to talk deeply and honestly about their marriage. What came out was startling: there is despair in the voices of married men. The refrain heard over and over is some variation of “I want to have a good marriage. I love my wife. But sometimes, all I feel is resentment—from my wife, toward my wife, toward the marriage. I believe my wife thinks I am an asshole, and she treats me as such.”
My first thought was: If an alien came to earth and read this, it would think marriages are a form of torture chambers. My second thought? Wives should know about this. I don’t think they do.
==========================
If you can point to me where you see the anti-woman smear I’d appreciate it.
If your point is that any article which collects the personal stories of men who have complaints about their wives as anti-woman, then you must mean their complaints are hollow and all women must be perfect.
I am sure that is not what you are stating ?
Perhaps one of the problems here is that we don’t know the back story and context to this story
However, the picture and caption at the top speak very clearly. What also speaks volumes is that a man said it strikes him as emotional abuse. Instead of asking why that popped into his mind, what his experiences have been, why a man might choose to shut down many of the women here essentially told him to shut up. I’m still waiting for the ” what about the menz?”. We aren’t even listening so there’s no discussion about why they shut down or why nagging occurs. We’ve been defensive and derailing (how many times has mysogynist been said?) Instead of listening respectfully on a MENs site for men. If you want to vent or read about feminist thought with people who agree with you I suggest you go to the feminist sites for women.
Come read “The Good Men Project.” Where, according to us, men are never good and women are always right regardless of the circumstances. Seriously, is this a website for men or rabid, man-hating feminists? It’s rare to see so much misandry in men’s magazines, after all.
It’s really just Hugo. The rest of the articles are more balanced
Yeah, Hugo does like to write the “It’s always the man’s fault” articles, which can start to get sexist after a while.
But to answer the question of article: the problem is that society teaches men “Don’t argue with your wives, they’ll always win.” Men should be able to speak up for themselves. Both partner’s opinions need to expressed, not just the wife’s. His view deserves to be heard as well.
Man, I wish i had a man that tried. Mine just beats the shit out of me instead. There is only one code. His. And all on his terms… else its discipline for the wifey. And silence is treated just the same.
Some woman, dont have things quite so great. Unfortunetly, society consists of a large amount of arseholes.
Be thankful, you at least have pyshical strength, that cant be matched in the end.
You all need to read Allen Johnson book titles The Gender Knot; Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. In it he explains our male centered, male dominated and male oriented society. Instead of getting offended or defensive, men should realize how the idea of men emotional helplessness serves male privilege by not holding them accountable and therefore allowing them to be out of touch with human capabilities such as intimacy and communication. In the end it benefits men because the women who are always in service to men (I.E. second class and reinforcing male centeredness) end up resorting to comforting them and reinforcing the status quo. This accomplishes nothing and allows to keep living the same sad patterns under the guise of “natural” and therefore normal. As for misandry- sure on the surface to the uneducated individual its seems true but in actuality is a false parallel (see below). Way to Hugo- You hit on the head!
From The Gender Knot (page 107):
“The accusation of man hating and male bashing also shifts attention away from women and onto men in a sympathetic way that reinforces patriarchal male centeredness while putting women on the defensive for criticizing it ( in this case a man). In the process, it portrays men as victims of a gender prejudice that on the surface seems comparable to the sexism directed at women. Like many such false parallels, this ignores the fact that anti-female and anti-male prejudices have different social bases and produce very different consequences. Resentment and and hatred of women are grounded in a misogynist CULTURE that devalues femaleness itself as part of male privilege and female oppression. FOR WOMEN, HOWEVER, MAINSTREAM PATRIARCHAL CULTURE OFFERS NO COMPARABLE ANTIMALE IDEOLOGY, AND SO THEIR RESENTMENT IS BASED ON EXPERIENCE AS A SUBORDINATE GROUP AND MEN’S PART IN IT.” There is probably no more effective weapon against feminism than to accuse them of hating men and to characterize feminist criticism of patriarchy and male privilege as “male bashing”. So congratulations to those of you who said this- Are you invested in protecting a society that is harmful and downright dangerous? you must be… Where did you lean such value for hate and ignorance? The patriarchal culture you’re so willing to protect I imagine.
TM, this site is about men, not feminism. This site is not built around FEMINISM and other bogus ideologies. So please take your vomit to another place.
BAM! Someone, and I don’t need to know the commenter’s gender, gets it. Why we even believe that feminism, or gender-bashing from either side, is useful at this stage I don’t know. If we just honestly looked at our cultural history, and how little things have really changed under the surface, we would know that there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding on both sides that keeps us from breaking new ground. The old ground has served well to sustain a sense of power for some. I don’t understand the insistence on referring to women’s rights and men’s rights. Can we not consider human rights, and do our best to bridge the communication gaps that prevent us from evolving, without assuming “rights” and placing blame on one side or the other? Approaching relationships with an empty cup is not easy, but seems a worthy goal if we are to nurture and grow a new appreciation and ways of behaving.
Hugo’s been around long enough to know what the guy code is, but he never fails to misrepresent it.
The guy code is; as long as something needs to be done, control your grief, fear, annoyance, pain, fatigue, etc. Get whatever it is done. When it’s done, then knock yourself out with whatever reaction you like. Problem is, if the post-event self-knockingout isn’t done precisely as women do it, you’re wrong.
What this has to do with marital relationships is unclear.
Remember, this guy tried to light himself and his girlfriend on fire during a drunken drug binge. He’s also slept with several of his students. Take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Alright, going along with Hugo’s views here: But if women are brought up with the idea (imposed by society, of course…) that she has natural superior emotional and communicational abilities. How are we ever going to get to the point were we actually listen to EACH OTHER?? If both parties all the time have this underlying notion that whatever they disagrre about, she has the power of the veto…
Isn’t it funny that when people complain about marriage, whether they’re male or female, the complaints sound remarkably similar? He/She always has to be right. He/She just doesn’t get how much I do for her/him! I just want to be appreciated!
It’s almost like it’s not a gender issue at all, but a human one… hmmmm… naw, couldn’t be.
Anyway, I found this article refreshing. In my marriage, I did a lot submarining, and always assumed that if my wife criticized me, that she must be right. I listened, but I did it the wrong way, by not speaking for myself. I aided and abetted that instead of risking some wounds to get down to the heart of the problem. And unfortunately, I rolled over, played martyr and resented.
For me, it was because I was afraid that I really *was* an asshole husband, and overcompensated. I put the health of my marriage on the back-burner to avoid feeling like a jerk, even when I knew I wasn’t. It was not a worthwhile bargain and cost us dearly.
For some reason, we guys get to thinking that setting boundaries and asserting ourselves in relationships makes us entitled assholes. We think that if we tell them “no,” we’ll somehow transform into a beer-gutted misogynist. So we let ourselves get walked on. Then, we get all pissy and passive-aggressive about it. After all, if women are our equals, and if setting boundaries makes US entitled assholes, isn’t our wives’ boundary-setting and criticism the same thing? Is *SHE* the asshole? The subconscious fills our minds with this garbage, and thus begins the illusion of martyrdom and the onset of resentment.
It really should go without saying though, that women do the exact same thing in their marriages too.
This is the best comment I’ve seen on this article. After all, isn’t a real relationship where both people are respected and valued what we’re after?