Shared Values and Criticism
The longer I think about it, the more it is obvious, that there can only be harmony for a committed couple, when they implicitly and explicitly agree 100% on their basic values, that guides, how they treat each other.
They need to have full consent, what behavior is a transgression. If a woman feels hurt by a behavior, that in her value system is a transgression, while the man considers this behavior as his innate right as a man, they are not suitable for each other. At least, such a man is not suitable for the woman, who suffers. They should never get involved, if they cannot agree on basic values, and if they got involved by mistake, it will not last.
The basic values are the firm ground of axioms, upon which decisions are considered as rationally and logically sound or defective. Shared basic values enable a couple to solve conflicts in a way, that is logically convincing for both.
If equality for a woman is a basic value, but for a man male dominance is a basic value, then they have no common ground. They cannot rationally convince each other. What is logical based on the equality axiom is not logical based upon the dominance axiom. They have no rational possibility to solve conflicts. He cannot convince her that dominance is correct and she cannot convince him that dominance is an outrage and a transgression. Conflicts can never be solved. If he succeeds in forcing his dominance upon her as his solution of a conflict, this makes it unbearable for the woman, until she frees herself.
Two persons, who share basic values, can give each other constructive criticism. That means, they compare each other's behavior with the behavior, that both of them agree as good, correct and desirable. When one gives feedback to the other, that a behavior was not as it should be, he knows that the other can agree and therefore appreciates the feedback as a support to learn to be, what the person strives to be, to become more himself according to how he wants to be. When one considers a behavior as a blunder or a transgression, he can be sure of the other's agreement.
When they do not share values, criticism makes no sense and is destructive. Criticizing someone for behavior, that is already in full sync and according with the value system of that person, means criticizing the other's value system itself, and that is rejecting that person for what is his identity.
Example 1: The dominating man considers it as his right to decide alone, when to come and go and where to be, just as a single man. The egalitarian woman considers it as her right, that a couple decides together, when they are together and where.
When he buys a ticket to leave without consulting her, in his value system, this is correct, in her value system it is a serious transgression and a betrayal.
He will never feel guilty, and she will never forgive him.
Example 2: When the dominating man criticizes the woman for not sacrificing her own needs in favor of his, according to his value system of being entitled to privileges he finds fault in her, while she resists his entitlement based on her own value system of having equal rights. He justifies his struggle to dominate her with his value system, and she justifies her resistance with her value system.
In both examples they are indirectly rejecting each other. She rejects him as dominating and he rejects her as refusing submission.
There is no solution, they cannot have a happy relationship with incompatible value systems. They cannot convince each other, they cannot solve their conflicts, they cannot limit criticizing to supporting each other, they cannot even really communicate.
They could not even compromise, as long as one of them considers the exact same behavior as his entitled right, while the other considers it a very hurting transgression.
They are aliens to each other.
The longer I think about it, the more it is obvious, that there can only be harmony for a committed couple, when they implicitly and explicitly agree 100% on their basic values, that guides, how they treat each other.
They need to have full consent, what behavior is a transgression. If a woman feels hurt by a behavior, that in her value system is a transgression, while the man considers this behavior as his innate right as a man, they are not suitable for each other. At least, such a man is not suitable for the woman, who suffers. They should never get involved, if they cannot agree on basic values, and if they got involved by mistake, it will not last.
The basic values are the firm ground of axioms, upon which decisions are considered as rationally and logically sound or defective. Shared basic values enable a couple to solve conflicts in a way, that is logically convincing for both.
If equality for a woman is a basic value, but for a man male dominance is a basic value, then they have no common ground. They cannot rationally convince each other. What is logical based on the equality axiom is not logical based upon the dominance axiom. They have no rational possibility to solve conflicts. He cannot convince her that dominance is correct and she cannot convince him that dominance is an outrage and a transgression. Conflicts can never be solved. If he succeeds in forcing his dominance upon her as his solution of a conflict, this makes it unbearable for the woman, until she frees herself.
Two persons, who share basic values, can give each other constructive criticism. That means, they compare each other's behavior with the behavior, that both of them agree as good, correct and desirable. When one gives feedback to the other, that a behavior was not as it should be, he knows that the other can agree and therefore appreciates the feedback as a support to learn to be, what the person strives to be, to become more himself according to how he wants to be. When one considers a behavior as a blunder or a transgression, he can be sure of the other's agreement.
When they do not share values, criticism makes no sense and is destructive. Criticizing someone for behavior, that is already in full sync and according with the value system of that person, means criticizing the other's value system itself, and that is rejecting that person for what is his identity.
Example 1: The dominating man considers it as his right to decide alone, when to come and go and where to be, just as a single man. The egalitarian woman considers it as her right, that a couple decides together, when they are together and where.
When he buys a ticket to leave without consulting her, in his value system, this is correct, in her value system it is a serious transgression and a betrayal.
He will never feel guilty, and she will never forgive him.
Example 2: When the dominating man criticizes the woman for not sacrificing her own needs in favor of his, according to his value system of being entitled to privileges he finds fault in her, while she resists his entitlement based on her own value system of having equal rights. He justifies his struggle to dominate her with his value system, and she justifies her resistance with her value system.
In both examples they are indirectly rejecting each other. She rejects him as dominating and he rejects her as refusing submission.
There is no solution, they cannot have a happy relationship with incompatible value systems. They cannot convince each other, they cannot solve their conflicts, they cannot limit criticizing to supporting each other, they cannot even really communicate.
They could not even compromise, as long as one of them considers the exact same behavior as his entitled right, while the other considers it a very hurting transgression.
They are aliens to each other.
