Thursday, October 24, 2013

Can Women Train Their Husbands?

There is a nagging question that many women often ask themselves. How do they train their husbands?  In a world where the rate of divorce is equal to the rate of marriages, any fresh ideas or techniques that can salvage marriages becomes enticing.

Two books—one new and the other old—deal with this issue of training husbands. Angela Christian Pope’s How To Train Your Husband (September 5, 2013) is short, concise and to the point. She offers practical recommendations to help women cope with their husbands and illicit from them the positive responses that will make their marriages better. Amy Sutherland’s book, What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love and Marriage (2007), is unique because the author uses animal training techniques to train what she calls “that stubborn but lovable species, the American husband.”

Pope acknowledges that not all husbands and wives are the same of course, but many do share common traits. She then makes a bold statement, one that sums up the needs of that complex male creature we call a husband: “Other than love, which everyone needs, the two biggest things most men need in life are respect and sex.” If only women would understand that simple fact, their lives would be a lot easier. Simply put, according to Pope, men are biologically and inherently “wired for” for these needs. While many men would find this characterization of them very simplistic (alas, whatever happened to men’s obsession with male comradeship, sports, and power?), Pope interjects her expertise to bolster her claim. Other than her educational credentials, which include degrees in psychology and education, she has also counseled many couples. Still, her biggest accomplishment is the fact that she was once in a volatile marriage that lasted for 16 years and then later experienced and survived a bitter divorce. She has since been happily married again. In other words, she has seen it all—what works in marriage and what does not.
Training husbands is no easy task because men bring into their marriages some long entrenched behaviors. Interestingly, Pope also delivers a cautionary note for women: You can’t train your husbands unless you are willing to train yourself. In fact, the author makes it clear that what men do is generally react to what women do. She gives some general pointers to women as part of her husband-training:

1.      Avoid criticizing your husband in public and especially in front of the children. Such scathing criticism will “tear a man like nothing.”

2.      If you have to fight, do so fairly. That means no name-calling. There are certain words one has to avoid like “never” and “always.” Accusing your husband by saying he ‘never’ cleans or is ‘always’ late will make him defensive and unwilling to change.

3.      Don’t act like you are fine when in fact you are angry with him. Tell him why you are upset with him, but in a calm way.

4.      In terms of intimacy, avoid always having a headache. Men are not dumb and they know when they are being rejected with untenable excuses.

5.      Don’t play games with your husband because being honest is the best policy.

6.      Compliment him as much as you can. These acts of appreciation, indeed, will strengthen your relationship. In other words, don’t ever take him for granted.

7.      Keep your private life private. While it is a good idea to have a special friend whom you can confide in, it is always better not to divulge your marital secrets to others. Keeping your husband’s secrets is also paramount because it is a matter of trust.

Pope adds other recommendations as well such as making all important decisions together, praising him, showing your love instead of simply saying ‘I love you’ and never using sex as a weapon because if you do that, he will see you as “the enemy” instead of the object of his affection.” And finally, men need their personal space, so let him have guy time.
While Pope’s advice might seem paradoxically geared to making men happy, she in fact deals with the subject of training husbands as a kind of team work that can occur between couples. Tellingly, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When the author tells women to respect their husbands, she also makes it clear that wives must also be respected in return; respect is never a-one-way-street.

Amy Sutherland’s book is a bit controversial because her techniques will raise some eyebrows. Sutherland was already an accomplished writer and the author of a bestseller, Kicked, Bitten, and Scratched: Life and Lessons at the World’s Premier School for Exotic Animal Trainers (2006) when she wrote an interesting article (the most viewed and e-mailed piece in the New York Times in the year 2006), called “What Shamu taught me about life, love and marriage.” Her book bears the same title.
According to Sutherland, “the key to marital bliss is to ignore negative habits and reward positive ones, the same approach animal trainers use to get killer whales to leap from their tanks, and elephants to stand on their heads.” Animal trainers use a method called the Least Reinforcing Scenario (LRS) which is: You reward the behavior you like and ignore the one you disapprove of. When a trainer notices a dolphin has done something wrong, he stands still for a few seconds without looking at the animal in the eye, and then he returns to the work. The idea is that any response from the trainer, either positive or negative, “fuels a behavior” but if an unacceptable behavior does not provoke any response that behavior simply dies out.

While Sutherland admits that her animal training technique is neither original nor a quick fix, she is adamant that the approach works for both genders.  
Sutherland was leading what seemed to be a happy life. Her loving husband, Scott, had many good traits but she was annoyed by his habits of constantly losing his keys and then bugging her about their whereabouts, leaving his dirty laundry on the floor, putting empty milk cartons back in the refrigerator, coming late to dinner appointments as she waited for him in restaurants, and crowding her in the kitchen as she cooked. Her concern was; how to deal with Scott’s annoying habits and free her marriage from these irritants. While researching her first book, she thought of adopting the techniques animal trainers use. Sutherland began to ignore Scott’s nagging questions about finding his keys; she started giving him snacks to munch in the living room while she prepared for dinner, and rewarded him by complimenting him every time he placed his dirty clothes in the hamper.

Her technique did work, and her marriage, in her own words, became “far smoother, her husband much easier to love.” She realized that her habit of taking his negative traits personally had been counter-productive. As the animal trainers’ motto says, “It is never the animal’s fault.”  She added, “The more positive I was with my husband, or more importantly, the less critical I was, the faster his husbandly defensiveness faded away.” When Sutherland asked her husband to do something, he responded positively. “He seemed at ease,” she noted, “maybe in a way he hadn’t before, he begun to trust me.”
Humans have the habit of not noticing good deeds and instead focusing on only the negative habits. For instance, parents do not notice the times when their children are riding in the car peacefully, but when one makes a mistake, there is an urgent need to dwell on that negative behavior. Husbands are also not noticed for all the good things they do for their family, argues Sutherland, but when one does not take out the garbage, all hell breaks loose.

When Sutherland says the technique works for both genders, she is right. One day, she went to the dentist and had crown work. For a week, she was in excruciating pain and kept complaining to Scott about her physical condition. Then, she noticed that her husband was quiet and kept listening to her as she whined without uttering a word. Suddenly, she realized what was going on. “Are you giving me an L.R.S? [i.e ignoring my constant whining] You are, aren’t you,” she asked. Scott smiled. It became evident to her that he was training her, the American wife. The phrase “Did you just shamu me?” became her husband’s typical response when he felt subjected to Sutherland ’tactics.  
 Sutherland implies that we are all animals but men are different animals than women animals. While humans are more complicated than other animals, there are universal “rules of behavior” that indeed “cut across all species.”

Husband training conjures up the notion that women have all the answers for making their marriages work better. Why is it that only women have to work harder than their husbands to make their marriages successful? Why do men need to be trained? As a rule, a trainer has the knowledge and the information a trainee lacks, but the two cited authors here see husband training as more of an effort to educate women about the simplicity of men’s needs and the predictability of male behavior. In reality, men are neither dogs nor dolphins who simply respond to certain stimuli. The trainer method of reinforcing the positive and ignoring the negative, however, is very effective in learning. But men are more complex specis than animals because animals don’t react to power the same way that humans often do. Animals see their trainers as their masters; humans don’t see others that way. Moreover, men are of course capable of training their trainer.
(Written by Hassan M. Abukar and reprinted with permission from Sahan Journal, 10/24/2013) 

Friday, October 4, 2013

Two Myths about Al-Shabaab You Probably Didn't Know

During the last few months, al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-affiliated Somali group, has shattered some of the misconceptions many have about the critical underpinnings of the group’s activities.  Indeed, some writers, including myself, have made assumptions about the militant group that are simply wrong. Two myths stand out.

1. Al-Shabaab is divided into two factions: Global jihadists and local nationalists

The recent discord among al-Shabaab leadership, especially evident in the bloody incident in Barawe in June 2013, resulted in two founders of the group being killed, Ibrahim al-Afghani and Moalim Burhan, while Hassan Dahir Aweys fell into the hands of the Somali government.

Al-Afghani, was an internationalist jihadi. Other leaders like Aweys, Mukhtar Robow, and Moalim Burhan, were considered to be more local leaders than global jihadists. In addition, two foreign jihadists — Osama al-Britani, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, and the American-born Omar Hammami, also known as Abu Mansoor al-Amriki — were killed in September 2013  by loyalists of Ahmed Godane, the supreme leader of al-Shabaab.

The two foreigners, al-Britani and al-Amriki, had impeccable credentials as global warriors. The nagging question is: Why would Godane, a man who is known for his commitment to global jihad, eliminate a group of fighters comprising global and national jihadists?

The answer is simple: The conflict among al-Shabaab leaders is not about whether to wage global jihad. It is mostly about personal rule — namely Godane’s unbridled pursuit of total hegemony over the radical group.  In the end, the larger question about al-Shabaab boils down to not only about global jihad or ideology, but rather is a simple issue of command and control.

2. Al-Shabaab is more lethal and effective now more than ever

We are told that al-Shabaab is ever cohesive and united, as demonstrated by the terror group’s recent bombings in Mogadishu, and the attack on the Westgate mall in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.

Yes, al-Shabaab was effective and daring in these bombings, but one has to ask what enabled all these operations to take place in the first place?

In Somalia, the radical group has gotten a rare opportunity in the government of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, whose security apparatus is weak and corrupt.

A year ago, Mogadishu was a lot safer than it is today. According to a recent UN Monitoring Group report, al-Shabaab has infiltrated Mohamud’s administration especially the security and intelligence sectors.

A good illustration is the escape of al-Shabaab member Abdirahman Ali Abukar on September 10 from Mogadishu’s central prison. The fugitive was arrested last year for plotting to kill the country’s deputy head of the national army.  The Somali government has since arrested the prison warden and four correction officers for possibly being bribed by the militant.

This means that as long as the Somali government is corrupt and ineffective, there will be room for al-Shabaab to operate at will. This also means that al-Shabaab is not becoming more cohesive; rather it is a reflection of the government’s inadequacy. Any security lapse in the government is a boon for al-Shabaab.

The attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi was unique because of the preponderance of foreign jihadists in the operation.

If some of the reports are right, the language of communication among the attackers was English, which means that Godane has finally employed a division of labor tactic for his fighters: using foreigners and foreign-born jihadists for operations outside Somalia, and Somali-born fighters for operations within the country.

This division of labor appeases foreign jihadists who have been clamoring for some action for a while.

In short, al-Shabaab’s recent attacks can best be described as opportunities in security lapses and a strong commitment to remain relevant.

These bombings are cries from the militant group to be noticed once again, to distract its fighters from the horrific killings of some of its own leaders and foreign jihadists, and take the limelight away from Somali President Mohamud’s recent diplomatic successes.

By Hassan M. Abukar. The article is reprinted with permission from Sahan Journal.