this to him in an apartment that he rents after a divorce. She can cook dinner for him, bake pies and send the children with a "transmission". Such demarches extremely anger men and are regarded by them as a mockery. “Why does she remind me that I am a helpless, weak child who still needs her?”, “I don’t need her handouts. Why do I need gifts from a woman who did not want to live with me?”, “Very clever: first destroy the family, take away my property, and then send pies for dinner.”

The woman would like to maintain a good relationship with her husband, she is sincerely ready to help her ex-husband and continue to take care of him. The man sees that she simply wants to maintain her influence over him in order to force him to do whatever she pleases.

A man is not interested in the question of the psychology of relationships, but the question of physical territory. Even if he gives an apartment to his ex, he still solves the issue of his territory and sees in square meters the real source of both his influence and his strength.

If we apply the economic criterion and keep in mind that the standard of living of a man is related to the scale of the territory on which he can influence (that is, rule), then it is easy to conclude that divorce after a marriage with experience is becoming an increasingly less profitable enterprise: in 6–10 years, a married couple manages to acquire housing that needs to be shared. But if a woman expects to solve her housing problem in her next marriage, then a man begins to think about how to secure his property so that he never shares it again. He bitterly experiences the loss of the space subject to him. A man may not feel and not guess with what pain and stress children are given to women, but remember with all his guts, how difficult it was for him every ruble invested in real estate.

At меня есть подозрение, что представление о физическом пространстве, подвластном мужчине, входит в его глубинную идентичность. AND потери, которые он несет, посягательства на его территорию мужчина воспринимает как посягательства на его глубинное Я, как ущерб, нанесенный его личности.

ANDзвестно, у каждого человека есть ощущение собственных границ, демаркационной линии своей личности.

At некоторых людей размеры Я чрезвычайно раздуты. Onпример, у Onполеона (как и у Гитлера) было патологически увеличено ядро личности. Moreover, it never saturated, but tended to increase even more. As one of my clients said, every person strives for maximum expansion until the last breath. “The meaning of life is to capture as many spaces as possible!” Another client said something like this: “The meaning of a man's life is in competition! All the time you have to fight for your place under the sun! It sounds passionate, but it makes no sense from the point of view of peaceful female psychology. Most likely, my clients were convinced egocentrics who believed that the whole world, including men and women, thinks and thinks the same way - the way they do.

If a man is preoccupied with his physical or symbolic expansion, that is, expansion, then a woman is ready to spend her whole life deepening and coloring the same relationships. The wisdom of a woman is that, possessing one man, she possesses the whole world.

AND даже если это мир только одного человека, ей достаточно всего богатства именно этого человека, чтобы не смотреть по сторонам и не искать другого избранника.

In this situation, the relationship between a man and a woman looks almost perfect: he, as a classic extrovert, masters and holds external territories, she, as a classic introvert, strengthens and uses this resource for the common good. But not everyone realizes and accepts such a formula of relations. The traditional model of the family absolutely corresponded to just such a distribution of forces in relations between a man and a woman. But we all know that today traditional prescriptions are being modernized and violated all the time, gender stereotypes are being challenged, and wives and husbands live in a state of heated argument or covert confrontation even when none of them is ready either for divorce, or for separate living and raising children.

A woman is interested in relationships between all family members, and of all family "acquisitions" - children. It's so traditional that we might even forget to discuss this important issue. A man does not see the value of relationships with children. While they are small, he is sure that they will not get away from him. Or rather, it even upsets him that he will not get away from them. Children irritate a man as a factor in his dependence. Men tend to act directly and independently. In their youth, they have such an opportunity - to ignore any attachments and obligations. But now that years have been spent testing his "family scenario," the man finds himself bound by a bunch of obligations that will have to be taken into account every time there is a sharp maneuver.

If a man is interested in a woman, then the birth of a child, pregnancy is considered by him as a trap for the chosen one. Having given birth to a son or daughter to him, a woman will forever be attached to him through children and through maternal instinct. But when she nevertheless leaves him or he switches to another, more attractive person, the children are already considered by the man as a trap for himself.

The logic of a man is simple: “If I don’t live with her, then why should I pay for all her quirks?”, “It was she who wanted children, she gave birth to them, let her bring them up”, “It is not yet known whether these are my children or someone else's uncle", "You can expect anything from such a bitch." When we marry for love, we are absolutely sure that we have drawn a lucky ticket and, unlike most, we will be happy. When we get divorced or just quarrel, disappointed in the exclusivity of our marriage, we very easily slip into the abyss of everyday consciousness, we switch to the language of simple and rude concepts: all men are goats, all women are bitches, “Children never listened to me. So why the hell am I going to listen to them now? Now they will learn how to live without a father”, “The ex-wife will turn them against me anyway. It is useless to give gifts, pay alimony. No one will say thank you”, “Children should listen and respect their father, no matter what happens. I am stronger than them psychologically and physically. AND смогу заставить уважать себя», "She сама прибежит и будет попросить помочь в воспитании детей. Adolescence will come, they will begin to conflict. She won't know what to do with them. Especially with boys: drinking, parties, early sex, drugs. I myself was like that. She will not stand it and will crawl to me on her knees.

Psychologically, obligations to children are very difficult to accept. Dependence on underage children humiliates a man. He feels that he is no longer in control of the situation. Even if he had not done anything before, lying on the sofa and spitting at the ceiling, not bothering to find out where the apartment bills were paid, he was still in his cart, in his wagon. "No one can kick me off my couch!" - this is the credo of the kind of men who spend their best years competing with sofa bugs. AND вдруг – переворот! Now he is no longer on his couch. Now he is no longer in his wagon. AND эта чужая повозка тащит его как попало и куда попало.

As a rule, dissatisfaction with marriage at the beginning of a divorce is so high that no one has either the strength or the desire to calmly discuss the history of their family, unjustified expectations and prospects for relations between spouses, which, perhaps, are now forever linked by common concerns about children.

In a divorce, all parties suffer psychologically. Suffering as a punishment for deviating from taboos is embedded in the very model of the traditional family. ANDдеальная (в некотором смысле) традиционная модель отношений, рассчитанная на вечный брак и семью навсегда, не выдерживает развода. Divorce, in principle, is not incorporated into the model of a traditional family.

The traditional model contains prescriptions that are contrary to the divorce procedure.

● The wife must obey her husband, obey his will.

● The wife must take care of the children. Its main purpose is home, children, kitchen, that is, the internal structure of the family, expenses.

● The husband is the breadwinner and protector. Its main purpose is to provide external family contacts, status, income.

● The husband must make major decisions regarding family life - where the family will live, where the children will go to school, how relations with relatives and acquaintances will develop.

That is why divorce is so painful for both a man and a woman, and for children. We are talking about the Christian model of the family in the Orthodox or Catholic version.

All subsequent modernization of the family is aimed at weakening the mutual dependence of husband and wife, making relations less rigid, unequivocal, as well as the normalization of the divorce procedure. Atже протестантская модель семьи предполагает взаимозаменяемость мужчины и женщины. Her principle: "What one spouse can do is allowed to another." Onибольшее количество разводов дает именно эта «американская модель семьи».

AND процедура заключения брака, и процедура развода, да и отношения в семье уже достаточно категоризированы и формализованы, кроме того, семейный институт