Women: Do you believe it's true that you have to "train" a man?

1. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   Women: Do you believe it's true that you have to "train" a man?
   
   I've heard women on more than one occasion talking among themselves where one advises another: "You have to train a man." or "Teach a man how to treat you." Personally speaking I would think if you have to "teach" or "train" someone to respect you and be kind to you (he's not the guy for you!) Why waste time on a "project"? Wouldn't be easier to be with someone who (already is) the kind of guy you want to be with?Someone who (naturally) treats women the way you want be treated because that is who he is?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 76

   Krista Schneeposted 11 years ago

   First, I guess I should say that I have been married for almost 10 years, and we've been through just about everything.
   
   That being said, I don't believe that women should come from a viewpoint of "training" their husband; it seems like that comes from a view of the man as a child rather than a partner. There is a learning period where you decide how to live and work together, and there is often some negotiation and "picking your battles." However, training the other person doesn't come from a view of respect and so doesn't encourage mutual love.
   
   I do agree with deciding beforehand whether or not this person is the "right fit" for you. While many people can grow and mature when they receive love and support, others will not. There's no use going in to a relationship--especially a long term one--with the idea that you must change that person.

   replyreport
3. 37

   ChristinSposted 11 years ago

   I agree with you.  If you have to "make someone change" to suit your needs that seems selfish first of all.  I want someone to love me for who I am and not try to change me, so I would think that my partner should deserve the same. 
   
   "Training" someone is an irresponsible and immature view on relationships and likely a reason there is such a high divorce rate.  Many women buy into this theory, particularly in younger years.  If I can just love him enough, he'll change to suit me etc.  It's a sure sign of lack of emotional maturity and human understanding.
   
   I am with you - if someone can't respect you out of the gate then that's a sign you are with the wrong person. 
   
   That doesn't mean two people shouldn't compromise or be flexible to work well together - but that comes from a place of teamwork and respect, not someone "changing" the other etc.

   replyreport
4. 72

   lburmasterposted 11 years ago

   Actually, I had to "train" my husband. For three years, he didn't treat me the way I wanted, so I backed out. He woke up and has been better ever since. Sometimes they have to realize it can disappear in order to focus on keeping what they have. Instead of training, I call it adapting. You need to adapt to each person. Just like he has adapted me to doing the dishes after eating instead of just leaving them in the sink for three days. Training is a harsh word that involves punishments and reinforcements. Adapting consists of helping both parties to relieve stress.

   replyreport
5. 60

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   Well, l think we always teach people how to treat us by what we allow them to do to us.  But no, I do not think a man needs to be trained.  I married my husband for who he is and wouldn't want him to change.  That being said, there are always compromises in marriage, we learn how to get along and what we expect of each other....but no, not training. I wouldn't want a man I could walk on, or that would allow himself to be trained.

   replyreport
6. 0

   SandCastlesposted 11 years ago

   You can set boundaries with the man or anyone for that matter but with some people, it doesn't matter how many times you tell them something.
   
   People are stubborn and it can become exhausting to keep having the same talk with them over and over again. Often you can't train someone how to treat you; all you can do is walk away.
   
   In the movie, "Easy Money", with Rodney Dangerfield, Rodney's mother-in-law was determined to 'train' him because she didn't approve of his lifestyle (he gambled, smoked, etc..).  So the mother-in-law (who was rich) faked her own death and left everything to Rodney and his wife. The will stipulated that Rodney had to give up all his bad habits for one year in order to inherit the money. Rodney, with much effort and by the skin of his teeth, did manage to put an end to bad habits only to discover that his mother-in-law was alive. The mother-in-law, who felt triumphant, signed over her mansion to Rodney and his wife and lived with them to keep her eye on Rodney. In once scene, at dinner, the mother-in-law, grasped a napkin and crushing it in her hand (she sees the napkin as Rodney), said, "I did it; I now have him under control". But she was wrong. Rodney pretended to change. He still gambled and drank, but he did it stealthily in the basement of the mansion. Maybe in a way the mother-in-law did train Rodney but she simply trained him to be sneakier. She trained him to pretend to go along with her wishes.
   
   You cannot train someone to be a different person. You can set boundaries but the person has to have respect for you in the first place. You can't train a jerk to be kind to you.
   
   It can also be cruel to try to train a person. You can have a wild animal as a pet and try to train the animal to do your bidding but one day they could easily rip off your arm as they follow their natural instincts. I remember reading about a man who had a pet tiger and every once and awhile he said the tiger would look at him with a predatory stare and he'd have to threaten violence to keep the tiger in line. How pathetic is that? It is cruel to change a tiger into a pet cat. Just get a cat. Let the tiger be wild because that's his nature.
   
   Some people try to train out a person's creativity/personality.

   replyreport