Messages By: wildwood

 There is lots more to the "history" of both of these people than we have been shown.  I agree that NEITHER this woman or her husband are coping well with the rejection or the hurt or punishments they are inflicting on each other, him using workalcoholism and affairs or her using shop alcoholism or affairs. or the counterproductive "acting out" the other is manifesting. However, I would suspect that the husbands workalcoholism  and cheating came way before the shopalcoholism or her cheating. He has as just as many or more  emotional maturity problems as his wife his just seem more "justified or legitimate" in our "make money" oriented society. He knows she will be judged more harshly for her "coping" behaviors than he, and he strikes me as a perpetrator vying for the victim status. Check out his "victimhood" stance and smiles and smirks and "poor me" stance.  He makes light of his problems with workalcholism and his affairs. Her over the top behavior is a very non serving way of  screaming for his attention, which he apparently ignored till he began to feel the pain rather than inflicting it on her. I can just see her saying through her shopping, "you prefer work to the exclusion of your wife and kids, lets see how much work you can bear". Sad, cruel, and counterproductive, yet he obviously condoned this and they became two monster feeding the monster in each other. I really think Dr. Phil was right on target with his "diagnosis" of them both. They are caught in a self-relationship defeating whirlwind or their own making and both share equal blame in the problem and the solution. She seems, by  surface appearance only to be a real selfish money grubbing bimbo. Both have their 'holisms out of control.  As an ER doctor he is taking HUGE chances with peoples lives and his own to volunteer to put in such hours, but look at the self punishment he would prefer to endure  in order to avoid his family obligations. This took years to get to the point it is. He is using his work to avoid a relationship with his  wife and family and doing his best to make it appear HER fault with him the victim, and I would bet in the beginning he really got off on his work and mistress, to the exclusion of his family.  I suspect he is incapable of thinking past his own self serving attitudes. Rejection is the most painful of all emotions to try and deal with. His wife didn't handle his cruel rejections too well, obviously. He is only complaining now, cause now he is having to live the consequences of his rejecting his family and has major  overloaded. I suspect as long as he was more than willing to hide out at work, rather than be a husband and father, he never complained about the spending. Now he is "tired" and wants it to stop and he has set her up to appear the perpetrator of all their problems. She bit the bait, as he knew she would most likely with his urging in the beginning or his "whatever" attitudes toward her and his daughters,  and she obliged and gave him all the justification he needed. She strikes me as lost and bewildered, like most addicts are.  If we were to take this ball of yarn mess and unravel it to the beginning, my guess  is that he set her up to have this problem to justify his own workalcoholism and lack of any real emotion or commitment to anything but himself. They are clearly co enabling the WORST parts of each other and those "worst parts" are destroying them both.  His "silence and affairs and absences" and "poor me" attitudes are just as gross to me as is her out of control spending. He is using work to hurt and reject and so she is using  spending the money to attempt to "talk" to him regarding what she is feeling. Both are equally guilty of self and relationship and family destroying activities. I lay my money on HIS  ego/rejecting/ emotional zero problems coming first, and hers being a very unhealthy reactive stance to this slap to her ego and love for him. I am very interested if Dr. Phil addresses his passive aggression and self serving need to be a victim of his own making. He is a clearly  manipulative man, saying all the right words while feeling superior to her weaknesses. Been there done that. I hope they can work it out, and stop the out of control hurting of themselves and each other.

How is gets started 

  Lets be real, most women look for certain qualities in a mate and a physical or emotional attraction is only one  or two of the things we consider. We also want a mate that is successfully employed or at the least able to support us and a family. I suspect all three factors were evident in Bridgete's choice of Micheal. I suspect she spent many long hours on the home front while he finished med school and his internship. He chose to have an affair to reward her support and she reacted in an "over the top" fashion suited to his "crimes".  

    The trouble with being married to a workalcoholic is that someone must maintain the homefront, doing all theemotional and physical  work, while the other is focusing on the work and nothing else. That is where the term  workalcoholism comes from ....work is the only thing that matters. 

   This is a very common problem in marriage. This couple may have been picked cause they are the extreme example of how things can get out of control, when MONEY is the focus of a marriage. In this case he is focused only on making it and she only on spending it. Everything else gradually has faded into the background or is non existant.  

  This couple is so "trapped" by money oriented thinking, and are commmunicating ONLY through the money that there are no victims or perpetrators, unless you want to name money issues. Being the one, the only one, holding down the homefront and the long lonely hours and the stress is like being a single parent. If the only "perk" to being married is the ability to spend money  far too often desperate women, in an attempt to cope and fill the lonely, rejected, stressfilled hours will often turn to shopping.  It is a safe alternative to other counterproductive activities available to a woman wanting to honor her marriage vows.  

    Show me a woman that shops too much and I will show you a man that works or is away from home too much. Men drink and have affairs and a large number of  other wise intelligent and capable women shop. The stores are to capacity on weekends with lonely women, trying to find the "magic key" to get and keep their husbands attention.  

     This goes to the core of our primal instinces as men (goal chasers) and women (hunters/gathers) in addition to societies current  attitudes towards worship of the almighty dollar.  The more you make, the more you spend. This couple is an over the top example of how this kind of thinking can get totally out of control. Both are guilty of excess, and both have interpersonal issues at the core of the problem and how  and why it has gotten totally out of hand. 

   This couple is not as unique, as it seems due to the large amounts earned and spent. Lower the amounts and Bridgette and Micheal   have lots of company. Far too many men egotistically put work ahead of everything and use making money to justify the grossest sins on their families  who are trying to survive emotionally without Dad.  

  He is as guilty as she for the excesses/indiscreations  that are destroying this family. Lay off her for falling into the obvious trap his attitudes set. I suspect he worshipped money, made it the god in their family and she and her children are now guilty of following his "religion".  

   I believe that the man is entrusted with the leadership in the family as God would dictate, but this man chose to make MONEY his God, and they are all paying the price for this immature, poor judgement on the part of THEIR leader.  

  Nothing was said about anyone being subordinate, in order to conduct a marriage or to  raise a family by biblical principals. I am not a holy roller, but I do see that a workable plan of PARTNERSHIP was laid out according to that which is in the bible. Please don't put your own words into what wasn't said. One cannot assume that a man assumming "leadership" means that he is ABOVE the woman or exeempt to his part of the partnership (on the home front or anywhere)  or that his doing so makes her a subordinate.  You and your husband may have an ideal partnership that works for you and him. Many do not, and  quite a few married people falsely think making money is the ONLY objective or equalizer of marriage. Many men use this as the power over the woman or to discount her input, choices or role in the marriage as the stay at home mom supporting his goals or children.  This doesn't make the woman  less of the partnership or inferior.  

   I see many  posters making the  assumptions/judgements  that she is somehow inferior in the marriage based on the fact that she has no income of her own.  I suspect  that is why Dr. Phil did not want her getting a job at this point, that only encourages the "wrong" idea that money is what gives "partners"  equal power in the relationship.  

   Where was Micheal's end of the childrearing partnership?  What kind of partner, uses his working all the time excuses neglect everything else or  to cover/justify  his cheating? His providing funds for his family isn't his only responsibility of the "partnership", the marriage or the parenting.  He who makes the money doesn't rule, and I feel sorry that so many women have felt that they MUST earn an income to be "equal" when all they have done is become as money/self oriented as some men.  

    We are born "equal" or a marriage makes us "equal" by the partnership.  That doesnt mean that both must bring in an income to be and to treat each other as equals. It is not intended to be a parent child thing based on who makes the money. True she is now acting childish and irresponsible.......but isn't he hiding behind his earnings to be just as childish and irresponsible to the marriage/family? 

    I am talking about "interpetations", and choices here.  You have an imbalance in his earning power to hers, perhaps he became an MD due to her support on the homefront? Maybe she took on all the OTHER tasks of the marriage and family while he studied, interned, and then worked long hours to support HIS goals for them, and she was repayed by his infidelities and ego trip workalcoholism? One he arrived he "forgot" the partnership entirely. This is only spectulation, but highly predicitible and possible. Guess we will need to see more to unravel how it got where it is now.  

   Think taxes, child care, the long hours he had to put into his job,  and other things and it might not have been wise (in the early years or in the beginning of this marriage,  for her to work, and her working or not  shouldn't be a criteria for her "equality") . Believe me raising children and keep up a home without the benefit of a husbands help 24/7  is work.  Ask any military wife or police wife or someone who has a husband that travels etc. There are many women out there that "do it all" except working outside the home and they highly resent being treated as "inferior" immature or childish based solely on whether of not they get a paycheck for their contributions to the partnership. 

 Isn't that rather sexist?  

      A woman can only be equal if she earns money equal to her husband? Does the power in the marriage come from money only? Is who makes the most money the "equalizer"?  I find this VERY sad and clearly sexists.  

     I am well aware that a woman can be goal oriented and capable of working and making money. COUGH, COUGH. I totally disagree with making money being the only criteria for power/control equality in a marriage. In reality MONEY should have nothing to do with  who is equal to whom. She has taken his "power over her money stick" and whopped him with it. It may have been the only way to get through to him, I don't think the money is all she wants out of her marriage, no matter how it looks NOW.  

      I think we will see it is " money is the equalizer in marriage"  faulty thinking that is at the ROOT of this couples problems. She feels rejected and powerless because he makes that the rules they live by. He makes money and all else is "excused" in his pursuit of the POWER in the relationship he thinks the money was going to give him. She takes some of the POWER away from him by foolishly spending. Clearly both have dysfunctional thinking, brought on by money becoming the GOD in the marriage and the only driving force.  

     Maybe some would never fall in the common and obvious trap of the power struggle using money as leverage, but many do, and this is a COMMON problem in many marriages. The amounts spent seem unbelievable to many of us, but some marriage have similiar money/power struggles, just with less money involved.  

   Would you have married a man that said I am going to earn the money PERIOD!!!!! Where is the partnership in that? Where was his partnership with his wife in the day to day teaching  of their children, companionship with his wife (not his mistress cause he felt sorry for himself and needed an ego feed) , and sharing of their lives and children?  Where is the partnership in spending their money together? Where is he giving any TIME to the partnership? It is a chicken/egg first problem that I have faith that Dr. Phil will unravel. 

   Remember we are seeing what it has become, not what occurred in what order  for it to get there. I don't think he is any more mature than her, and if  "having a degree and a job" makes someone mature it's news to me. REAL maturity is not putting your own needs or ego first. Real maturity is not using your work to avoid OTHER responsibilities. Real maturity isn't cheating or overworking or over spending instead of talking and fixing problems. 

      Perhaps DUE to his long hours she had no options but to stay with their children, at least when they were small. Was her end of the deal to become as callous as he, and dump her kids and become a workalcoholic like him? Should she let her children be alone, so that she can have a job? To each his own. Some women feel their end of the partnership differently. I don't see a partnership at work if strangers are raising children, while both parents go off to "succeede"  or feed their own needs and egos at their jobs in the pursuit of money. If necessary for survival it's one thing  and some chose this or have no choices here, others do not have to work for survival and it is always a mistake to make money the GOD or the  the ruling or controlling "equalizer" in a marriage.  

most women look for certain qualities in a mate and a physical or emotional attraction is only one  or two of the things we consider.We also want a mate that is successfully employed or at the least able to support us and a family.   

   

**cough** speak for yourself!  I can chase goals and I am not an anomaly.  I and many other women are capable of supporting ourselves just fine.  I chose my husband because I loved him and he shared my values and principles.  

   

 Apparently I am confused, I assummed by your use of the termology "supporting ourselves" you were referring to your or any womens ability to make MONEY and somehow suggesting I wasn't aware that such is possible in this day and age. I really am getting curious about the defensive tone of your posts. I really did not intend to insult anyone or put down  women that make "other choices'. Please lets not make this about working women vs non working, nor about religious theology.  

  

This couple is having problems that really have nothing to do with money or who makes it , what they do with it or or why, unless you want to consider  their current  mode of faulty thinking that money is an equalizer in marriage. Intelligent people can reason that one out.  I do however, see that Micheal, in my opinion, is HIDING his "sins" on his marriage and family  behind his ability to earn lots of money, as if that exempts him from his other responsibilities and he has this "faulty thinking in common with lots of men. And his wife, is as guilty as he, or is following his lead and hiding her sins on the marriage,  with her now totally irresponsible use of this SAME money to "talk" to Micheal,  and she has lots of female company with falling into that "trap" and that neither one wants to admit that  "  behind the money tree "is where they are both hiding their irresponsibility and sins on the marriage and family unit. 

  

Clearly Micheal and Bridgette DO NOT at this point share the same values and principals, or if they do it has gotten lost in the pursuit of, power of and in the spending of  MONEY.  

  

I am stating my opinions about my  personal beliefs and interpretation of the bibilical plan for marriage. I assume that is what message boards are there for.   

  

The passage in the bible that spells out what I consider a "workable" plan for the marriage partnership has been debated for centuries, and each generation has put their spin on it according to the "times".  I do personally think, that the "wives submit to husbands" part has been taken out of its context, much to the determent of  ALL women, in a way that leaves it open to much  negative debate.  I am still not totally at ease with the sins that has led many men and  women who do not read any futher than that one sentenence to perpetrate on women kind.  

  

You simply cannot focus on that part, and "get it". Unfortunatly   individuals, and many churches and their teachings have done just that, and caused many "abused" women to suffer even more, while men get totally off the hook as to what they were "commanded" by God to do to EARN the submission of their wives. It simply DOES NOT say that women must submit irregardless of the false, ungodlike or fautly leadership on the part of their husbands.  

  

If a woman is being treated according to the principals laid out in this passage, she would WANT to submit to the GODLY leadership of her husband.  This plan for "teamwork"  would be good marriage advice, irregardless of anyone's religion. To each his own however and I totally respect that many women, including myself, chose to see  this as laying out a plan of a partnership of equality, cooperation and loving spirits ie "two people acting as one". Far too often, MONEY, enters the picture and all that "cooperation, mutuality, and equality is cast aside. Perhaps that is where the "money is the root of all evil" quotes come into being.  

  

This biblical passage, if interpeted correctly, DEMANDS cooperation and respect, mutual equality as as "one"  or as one would like or needs to be treated and it encourages loving treatment of each other. Far too many do not read, study, or understand the ENTIRE passage.  This is where the problems come from. I have gotten that a man leads his wife in a loving, respectful, equal, and fair way, as God should his people. His leadership, is contingent on his compliance with GODS way, and his deciding  "vote" only in the extremly rare cases (if the plan is followed) where he and his wife cannot  achieve mutuality, as a "tie breaker". Too many people do not see this is subject to his leadership as HE is instructed by God. This does not give him power over the women but power WITH the woman.   

  

Whether you know it or not, I would suspect you and your husband are following the principals laid out, correctly, and that is why you make such a good "team". Lucky you!  Many couples are not, and therefore problems develop where resistance of "power over", and superiority of  take precedence over TEAMWORK and JOINT mutual, and considerate problem solving.  

  

I want to add to my post that much of this is my personal speculation, as to the problems, cause, and so on. None of us KNOW what lurks in the hearts of this couple, in reality, once you get past the symptoms. I only hope they can work it out, and get back on the "same page" of loving respect and mutuality that so many of us have a hard time finding. 

  

  

 Judyblue, I guess I will agree to disagree and that you will keep finding "offensive" statement s where there were none intended (note the word some women) , there was no intent to offend Bridgette, or any woman in my posts. Again, you took the words that said one thing and changed them into "meal ticket" or chose to see offensive generalizations, not commonalities.   

  

That is the bad connotations assessments that sounds like the "gripes" I have heard from men on a one way pity party, mind you they are saying this while they sit in a bar regularly ,  are known to be cheating on their wives, or using work to avoid their families, or are on a  resentment toot towards their wives, and are refusing to look at their own behavior, cause it is much easier to lable the wife at home a "meal ticket" hunting  money grubbing/hunting b word.   No matter their wife  is doing it all, many including earning an income, to their husbands  "poor me" attitudes.  

  

While, I would agree, Bridgettes spending is way out of hand for most peoples thinking based on THEIR incomes or available spending money, many of these men doing the "one way gripe" fest  have NO idea, nor do they care to inform themselves, how much it takes nowdays to run a house and to raise children. They are just looking to "justify" their own bad choices. Mind you I am talking generally or commonly or some men in society, it happens lots if not in YOUR marriage. Many of these men are the very ones that would "stare at a decked out woman"  walking down the street but  would chastize, or gripe if their own wife has her hair done. There is lots more to this than the awfuls we are seeing in Micheal and Bridgette.  

  

  However if, following your  personal assessments about Bridgette  that she was only chosing a spouse for his "meal ticket" potential , then going with that "assumption" what was Micheal looking for in his spouse? A brood mare to give him children to ignore, free housecleaning, free household management? Someone to hold down the fort, while he went out to "play" around with other women and do drugs. Someone to give him a nicely furnished hotel to flop in?  Sex, when no one else was available?  A mommy to his manchild? Someone to encourage bad habits in, in order  to justify his own emotional voids and marriage busting bad attitudes and habits HE won't own himself? Someone he could BLAME for his deficiencies and indescretions? Some one to "allow" him the victimhood status?  Someone to torture with his emotional unavailability?  A convient scapegoat for his own ego needs? Some sap of a woman, to support his ego and his belly while he got through med school?  Obviously he wasn't looking for a partner in life, as clearly he left his wife and family in the dust and dirt of his bad choices and habits. (obviously he likes being a "shift whore" cause he has done nothing till Dr. Phil to change this) Guess that makes them both guilty? HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.  

  

I still contend that this took a long time to get to where it is, both parties share some guilt, but to "fix" it you have to unravel whom started what, so they can own it, change it and put it behind them. That is if there is any hope for this marriage, and these two people who have let it get totally out of hand.  

  

Call me a romantic, but I really think deep down at one point they did love each other, or hoped to and their worst "insecurities" and bad habits unintentionally came to haunt them, and jeapordize their finances and love for each other. I think in that they have lots of company in society. I am pretty sure the "normality" of their problems is why they were chosen for this show.  

  

And by the way, I have held many jobs, both before and after my marriage. I have also been a stay at home to four children with no support system while my husband served his community and his country abroad. There were times when his work made it next to impossible for me to be working, that is if someone was going to be there for our children, or to avoid being pushed into a higher tax bracket. While I agree, SOME women do look for a meal ticket only, MOST do not marry solely to have a meal ticket earned for them. I agree if you love someone it doesn't matter "how much money" they make, at least in theory, however NO woman wants a total bum with no potential for a husband. Few want a workalcoholic, drug addict and cheat either.  

Give her a break, regarding the poster who suggested the returned items go towards Katrina victims, I really think there was good intent here.  Frankly if I lost everthing, a diamond braclet I could sell or pawn would be a godsend.  Just because you may scoff, someone with nothing, might be VERY appreciative. I sent makeup and perfume, along with many baby things, clothing, food, water, and other household goods. Women still like to look and smell presentable, which is why so many places asked for soap and personal items. I believe I also sent some VERY personal items that many women need monthly. There are many ways I could see this "uneeded merchandise" that Bridgette purchased going to a good cause, even if she were to hold a sale in her local town or sell it on ebay and give the proceedes to charity. Whats up with the "neg" attitudes towards someone making a sensible suggestion with charity in mind.

I am quoting your original post because there is a disconnect in what you are saying now and the post that I responded to.  I never commented on you or your marriage.  I just disagreed with your sexist statements.  

   * There is no disconnect. Perhaps you are not reading the entire posts nor getting the "gist" of my comments or are  focusing only on  what you personally find offensive, or  that which is not "in sync with the choices you and you husband have made" regarding you marriage.  

  

 Lets be real, most women look for certain qualities in a mate and a physical or emotional attraction is only one  or two of the things we consider. We also want a mate that is successfully employed or at the least able to support us and a family.   

I did not choose my lifepartner based on his status as a meal ticket and I find the comment that most women do offensive.  

  

* Note I wrote "physical and emotional attraction is only one or two of the things we consider", (the use of we or most is not intended to be inclusive of all women,  as I would NEVER presume to be so bold, but rather those WOMEN that DO consider financial stability in a spouse or potential spouse to be of some importance)  

  

 I do think there are MANY women who DO  pick a life partner or spouse  in part , or with some consideration on his ability to be responsible towards his wife and family, and that includes financialy and EMOTIONALLy  responsible IN addition to personally responsible. I do NOT think Micheal is being responsible. Being an emotionally void,  or cheating spouse,  becomming a workalcoholic, absent spouse and father is NOT being responsible to Bridgette or his children, irregardless of HOW much money he makes or how else HE justifies this. He holds responsibility with Bridigette for their problems, why they continue, and the solution.  

  

I am sorry if you see something offensive here, and you are entitled to your opinions, but  please do not base them on  your faulty interpretation my POSTS, or quote things I am posting out of CONTEXT. . or with a spin you put on it.  

  

Perhaps you assume  I was referring to finanical support only. When I think of support, I think of BOTH  financial support and emotional support. Many women chose not to  or cannot WORK during  their ENTIRE pregnancy,  or unexpected illnesses, and  some chose NOT to for the benefit of their children during early childhood raising years, and some feel children still need DAILY support in their teen years. NOT everyone gets paid maternity leave,  many have husbands whose jobs and the demands on them negate the woman working or chose to have a DIFFERENT kind of partnership  than YOURS, and many women DO wish to extend that time not working, FOR their childrens sake.  

  

Many women,  simply do not see a beneficial  partnership based on the idea that the WAGE earner is the only spouse with equality or power in the relationship. I  and many women find it JUST as offensive to be seen as  of "no value" , not equal, or stupid and worthless if we CHOSE not to work based on our personal values and needs or look to our spouses to provide emotional AND financial support at times we cannot, or chose not to for our FAMILIES sake. Many women do rely on their spouse to "lead" the family in the RIGHT direction and be responsible for his family and its VALUES. This simply does not mean the woman has "no value or role" if her husband does this.  

  

It does not make one less in the partner ship, nor a "non contributor" simply because they do not get a paycheck for their contributions TO the partnership. I have fully explained my views on this and if you continue to misconstrue and see offense where none was intended towards any woman or man  that is your choice and right. However I feel VERY strongly you have not read these POSTS entirely and and  personally feel so strongly negative about a PORTION of my statements that you cannot muster any understanding or compassion for this couple.   

  

This goes to the core of our primal instinces as men (goal chasers) and women (hunters/gathers) in addition to societies current  attitudes towards worship of the almighty dollar.   

I found your characterizations based solely on gender offensive. Also you are wrong.  The theory is that prehistoric men were hunters and the women were gatherers. Both were pursuing a goal (feeding themselves and their family).  

  

*  Whether or not I am  WRONG on this is simply a matter of opinion, and many highly educated people suscribe to this theory of our "primal" instincts, or "programming" of male and female tendencies. I believe that the man is entrusted with the leadership in the family as God would dictate  

Although, I do understand the submissive/subordinate role is what some women prefer, it is not universal.  I don't think it works well because choosing one leader when there are two that can function as a team, nor do I agree with a choice of leader based soley on gender.  

  

* I find it offensive that you see submissive and subordinate -lack of  importance and equality  for the woman  the ONLY  possible outcome if a man leads his family according to fair and just biblical theology. IN no way does a man assumming his role of leadership of his family dictate the inequality of the woman in the partnership. AGAIN I find it equally offensive that MONEY is  seen by some as the ONLY equalizer in a marriage.  If you feel "equal to your husband" but only if you too have a paycheck, and that that paycheck entitles you to "equality" I find that a very sad modern day distortion of the idea of  the  maritial partnership.  

  Again, I personally believe He leads WITH the woman, this does not disconnect the biblical plan from this outcome, anymore than if a general failed to lead his troops and the outcome was the troop was wiped out. By that I mean if a man fails in his responsibility to take some responsibility in the direction he LEADS his family he has broken the partnership HIMSELf and is equally guilty in the outcomes.  I have stated this in many posts.  

Since this is a biblical theory  that MANY women do chose to interpret correctly and , (and in no way does the biblical submission refer to TODAYS connotations of submission in a NEGATIVE way as you have assummed) it matters not if you personally chose NOT to follow this "guideline" for a successful and equal parntership and relationship between men and women.  

  

What it is saying is if the man does da and da and da as charged with this responsibility by God, the the woman would WANT to submit to the man and his choices of leadership. If he leads as GOD as directed clearly he will be leading in the RIGHT direction and she will want to join him. This does NOT make her submissive to the man. This does not require her to submit or follow a man going in the WRONG direction . Again I have explained MY interpretations of this passage many times and only referred to it to illustrate that contrary to "appearences" only Micheal is NOT leading this family down the right path if it is ALL about money and HIS personal acts and attitudes are not responsible and in that Bridgette is NOT entirely responsible for the negative impact this has had on the marriage.  

Many women find the concept that a mans earning EXEMPT him from any other responsibilites towards the marriage OFFENSIVE. 

   

Finally, if you watched the show, Bridget stated that she didn't love Micheal and only married him because her mother encouraged her to marry "a rich doctor".  And they BOTH admitted to having an affair.  

  

* Perhaps Bridget statements NOW have lots to do with her disappointments in Micheal, and  herself, and she is questionning how this got where it is, including her and her mothers attitudes  and influence "in the beginning". Perhaps she is in HEALTHY examination of her feelings, actions, and it is dawninng on her that SHE is an adult and  is responsible  for her choices, and that Micheals actions make it impossible to find love or obtain love at present. I think it is ALSO very COMMON that marriages in stress or crisis often makes people feel as if there was "never any real love" or they question if they did or can love their spouse.  

  

Thanks for your vote of support Niki pvn 

  

I really didn't mean to get into the religion thing, just spoke from MY firm belief that Micheal is not being a good leader or team player and has his own guilt in this deal.  

  

The poster who was finding offense is even more curious as in an earlier post of hers it was stated that she is part of a lawyer/phychologist marriage team or so I recall, and surely in those capacities BOTH would know this is a very common financial and psychological problem that creates a difficult cycle to end.  Maybe they do not specialize in these fields. Also in another post, she details how they too had some pretty severe financial problems and managed to come out of it.  

  

I totally respect her opinions, if not her offense or taking out of context certain statements of my posts. I just wish she would do the same, and then we wouldn't be he said she said to the point of monopolizing the boards.  

  

I used to feel very strongly about this  "I will earn my way in my marriage" or something akin to that philosophy " when I was very young (like in high school) as I saw many women lose all respect and power in their marriages due to "wage earner power over trips" on the part of the men. Said I would NEVER be there. Well life has a way of slapping you to your senses, or changing "nevers".  I  matured to realize, you don't have to be earning money to be earning your way in a marriage, especially one with small or underaged children involved. I think one of the reasons many children of wealthy families get into all sorts of trouble is the lack of "supervision" at home. This problem is not unique to the wealthy "unsupervised" children only just that the kids of the "rich" have more spending money with which to buy drugs, fast cars etc.  

  

I still maintain money should never be the equalizer or the indicator of who gets the  "power" or to rule in a marriage. Nor does this make the wage earner (be it man or woman) the "boss" and the non wage earner a non contributor, or a goldigger,. Thanks for your support 

Judyblue22- regarding your last post -----DITTO

  I tried many times to get registered for this board as I truly enjoy Dr. Phil's shows for the most part. I think he is providing a great service for men and women everywhere.  Thought it might be fun to have "intelligent" exchanges with other viewers about the "psychology" involved.  What with my slow computer, and my uncanny nack for picking a password that is hard to registar, it took a while.  

  

I have two questions, "Are people here allowed to be so rude to each other here, and do they enjoy that and "nickpicking" other posters more than having "discussions" about the SHOW ?",  and Aren't there some guidelines for this board or something prohibiting "personal" attacks on posters? 

  

And , is this a recipe swap board or a board to "talk about the show?" 

  

Just wondering