...where the pain of family meets a change of heart...and compassion...

As a psychotherapist who earned my MA in Psychology from The California Institute of Integral Studies, in San Francisco, I see beauty and importance in all religions and faiths--Christianity, Taoism, Ile Ife, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Native American teachings, Yoruban Cosmology, Voudon, etc.

The religious texts and teachings of each make significant contributions towards the spiritual development and evolution of individuals and humanity.

I subscribe to Carl Jung's axiom that religions as intricate psychological systems the humans used to meet the daily task of coping with life's uncertainty and travails. Like Deepak Chopra advises, I encourage each individual to choose what religion best fits her or his personality.

In this vein I view the institution of marriage, whatever the culture of socio-economic strata, spiritual/religious belief or the lack thereof, as raising the issue of human vulnerability.

As humans we are social beings.

We need human connection.

Recent developments and incarnations of social websites on the Internet evidence this most profoundly.

Juxtaposed to this American culture and values teaches and admonishes the benefits, if not qualities of one's ability to so to speak, "...go it alone..."

At the time I married, nearly 30 years ago, nothing in comparison to the Fishers, many people of my generation, late Baby Boomers--I am 49--touted the word, co-dependent.

More specifically, many of my, and my husband's generation abhorred co-dependence.

Correctly speaking, co-dependence refers to a relationship held by the partner of a substance abuser to the abuser's addiction.

In many cases, the partner of the abuser has come to depend upon the abuser's addiction as a core piece of what binds the relationship.

In the face of possible recovery, the non-addicted partner fears what might happen to the relationship should the abuser kick her or his habit. In short the non-addicted partner has come to depend on the other's addiction holding together the relationship.

We all know people like this or who are in some variation of this type of relationship; people who need and want only to be in relationship with only the wounded and injured. Absent a physical need in the other, they fear abandon.

The vast majority of people do not posses this trait. They want to be in relationship with strong and intelligent individuals from whom they can learn and with whom they can enjoy and face life.

And yet during the years of my 20's many saw the need to be in committed relationship as a weakness.

Many of my peers, those in the media, and even many of the world of psychology reframed our inherent need for human connection and belonging into a sickness--dependence or as they state, co-dependence. Many of us who married you, I at 21 upon graduating college, were labeled co-dependent.

In my choice of marriage as opposed to pursuing a career or graduate school, we were seen as weak.

To be certain, I was accused of having abandoned the women's movement for equality.

Why marry, when you can go to grad school?

Are you concerned about your career?

What if he leaves you?

Where will you be then?

I took these questions seriously.

And for quite some time after marrying, I worried about the latter of the three.

More specifically, what I might do should my husband died.

My father died when I was 15 leaving my mother a widow.

Had she not had her career things could have gone for the worse.

I respected what furthering my education beyond undergrad could do for me financially.

And yet the best laid plans can and often do go awry.

Vulnerability.

This is a fact of life, whether one is single or married.

And yet it seems that marriage and committed relationship, particularly in American, has become a casualty of an age-old fear, better yet problem that humans have faced since the beginning of humankind.

Uncertainty.

Death.

Looking back at the picture of the Fishers, I see in the faces of Zelmyra and Herbert Fisher that of the Buddha.

Life is suffering, or perhaps simply put, sheer hard work, the one constant in life being that of change.

The Fishers said little of the suffering and challenges they faced.

Despite having been married to the same man for less than half the Fisher's time together, I know they saw their share.

Raising 5 children into adulthood, and who then went on to earn college degrees while working at a Coca Cola bottling plant proves no small feat.
I am certain Herbert must have scratched his head more than once or twice.

And feel confident, that Zelmyra patted his hand or offered some form of comfort that while assisting him also conveyed her continuing love and confidence in his ability to see them through--at least sometime if not most.

Against our growing need for immediacy and certainty, Zelmyra and Herbert Fisher and the longevity of their union encompassing the body of work displayed in their children, and their children's children, one of whom researched and submitted the years of their marriage to the Guinness Records, stand as lamp posts reiterating that while expediency has its place, great gifts await those who endure and develop patience.

The words "...After 85 years, husband and wife say..." caught my attention, and immediately I was reading of Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, wed for nearly 8.5 decades.

Many people do not live that long, never mind businesses. That a union of two people could endure nearly 9 decades of connection and commitment is amazing. That it is a marriage and one in America proves nothing short of miraculous.

Each day individuals in our society of Facebook accounts, instant messaging and Tweets of 140 chars (short for characters or letters) exit relationships of all kinds by penning their signature, or with the click of a button remove and/or block a previous association or connection on a social network, or by simply forwarding an e-mail or text message.

Dispensability and disposability has gone global, electronic, and immediate.

And yet we find the Fishers sitting on what seems their porch, and holding hands, she resplendent in pink, and dashing in his bluish-gray suit.

What an image? What a story their faces hold and reflect?

That they insist there is no secret to the endurance of their union makes the facts of the longevity of their marriage even more intriguing.

A few things come to mind when I consider their feat.
What is it like to have lived with a person for over 8 decades?
What does it mean to have known and lived with, had the other's presence in your life longer than either of you lived with your siblings or had your parents present?

When you look into their eyes now, after so many years of union, what do you see that you did not when first meeting them, or perhaps right after marrying them?

In that Zelmyra admits she, "...she didn't know she'd be married this long..." perhaps had no idea they would live to be together this long-- what do make of it that you have? "Zelmyra adamantly opposes the idea of divorce and re-marriage."

What have you learned about friendship in these last 8 decades?

What have you learned about people?

What has surprised you most about each other?

What did you always know about the other, something discovered or intuited moments after you met or when getting to know the other?

Born in a different era, Zelmyra, 101 years old and Herbert, 104, have surely witnessed much.

President Obama has awarded the Fishers a commendation and a formal invitation to the White House in celebration of their marital accomplishment.

But as the parents of 5, grandparents of 10, great-grandparents of 9, and great-great-grand parents of 4, the Fishers have done so much more.

Not to suggest that most marriages should or can endure in this fashion and for this length--death and illness take their tolls--but I must admit that I would like to know why more American couples don't pursue this type of long union?

I share many commonalities with the Fishers. Though we did not meet until college, both my husband and I entered the world and grew up in North Carolina. While my husband was raised African Methodist Episcopal Zion, like Zelmyra, my mother was a staunch Baptist, like Herbert.

And similar to the Fishers, both my parents held membership at different churches in the community where I grew up. I am from a small farming community located in Southeastern North Carolina where as my husband came from a bedroom community of Charlotte.

Another similarity we share with the Fishers is that our communities and families held adamant beliefs against divorce and remarriage.

Similar to Catholicism, the church I attended and eventually joined, my father's faith, warned congregants of partaking in the sacrament if they had divorced and remarried.

My mother, the Baptist, who was very involved in my father's church, a Pentecostal community, believed that people who had divorced, re-married, and died before the partner they had divorced, were doomed.

I don't know what beliefs Zelmyra Fisher holds on divorce, and re-marriage to this extent, nor Herbert, but despite having gone through many incarnations of my own beliefs on marriage, divorce and re-marriage, reading their story caused me to reflect upon my road of marriage.

And in so doing I could not avoid thinking of all I had been taught on marriage and the various segues of subjects shooting off from it.

Presently I am a practicing Muslim. Unlike Christianity, Islam permits divorce.

And yet it has been the clear statements of the frailty of human life and living, remonstrations of how utterly vulnerable we are as human beings that has drawn me to the faith.

Honesty with ourselves--that long lasting relationships provide an inherent part of healthy and successful life--sits at the center of successfully negotiating life. This truthfulness sustains us in not simply making vows, but seeing how connection with others provides our best hope of survival and endurance and ultimately maintaining these vows.

In the end, the words to a song made famous by Barbara Streisand speak what none of us can desire.
"People who need people are the luckiest people in the word."

Paraphrased it goes like this, "People who know they need people, and live their lives accordingly, are truly the wisest and the most successful."

An award-winning, nationally-syndicated personal finance columnist, Liz Pulliam Weston writes:

* The median net worth of married-couple households in the latest Census Bureau wealth study, conducted in 2002, was $101,975. For single men, median wealth was $23,700. For single women, $20,217.

* A 15-year study of 9,000 people found that during that time, people who married and stayed married built up nearly twice the net worth of people who stayed single. ...when...other factors are held constant...income and education...the fact that they were married contributed to a 4% annual rise in these couples' wealth.

* Wealth declines typically started four years before a divorce was final...the breakup ultimately reduced the typical person's net worth by 77% of that of the average single person.

According to Nielsen//NetRatings, Liz Pulliam is the most-read personal finance columnist on the Internet.

Most of us grew up in a home controlled by adults. The attitudes about money that those adults hold, whether we like or disagree with them, shape our lives. Inevitably they shape how we see ourselves, and ultimately how we perceive our place in the world.

Individuals who grow up in a home where one or both parents donate a lot of time to their job, career or profession and making money, whether out of necessity or because they love their work, will view money quite differently than those who come from a home where money is viewed as simply important for acquiring the things one needs to live healthily and joyfully.

Two spouses of a marriage who come from the same economic strata could hold quite different views on this matter.

One spouse may view living joyfully and healthily to include spending money frugally, and contributing time to less expensive ventures.

For another, whose parents liked to evidence their wealth, purchasing nice furniture and a new car every five years or so, may be what this particular spouse considers living joyfully and healthily.

These definitions are fine as long as each can understand the meaning attached to these desired purchases, and that the financials of the marriage allow them to afford the desired purchases.

Trouble arises when what one spouse, or perhaps a couple, considers a necessity for healthy and joyful living transcends what their income can cover.

The current economic recession has asked many of us to re-examine what we want versus what we need to live.

It has also reflected that while we can certainly live on less, a great many of us have been spending more money to maintain a job than the job actually paid in salary, i.e. the jobs that were to deliver us an income were actually taking money from us.

And then there is the time factor.

While money can be earned, lost and earned once more, we can never regain time lost or spent.

Thus we are back at the to the issue of freedom as it relates to money and how, if in any way, the relationship between the two affects why so few couples remain married, in light of the fact that those who remain married amass a nest egg almost five times that of single men and women.
We also know that financial squabbles rate high on the list of factors that can destroy or weaken a marriage.

Clearly it is important for a marriage's survival to be able to discuss money, establish a financial plan and revisit and adjust that plan on a regular basis.

Do couples that break up lack the ability to create a financial plan, and/or follow through?

Is their inability to do so rooted in an even weaker capacity to sit down and discuss money?

Money touches on emotions in a deep and moving way. Certain money topics can leave the most accomplished person feeling weak, disempowered and ashamed.

Money and emotions are heavily intertwined.

Stock market analysts and financiers know this all too well.

One of my graduate professors while earning my MA in Psychology stated that Freud said, (and I paraphrase) "Show me where you put your money and your wallet, and I'll show you what you love."

The professor went on to say that, "What ever a person is unwilling to invest her or his money, is that for which the person holds no feeling or affection."

While we must establish and maintain our marriage in a business format, love is just a crucial factor in holding that matter together. That love may come over time or it may be present at the outset.

For certain the question of money, love, freedom and commitment, that of not simply remaining faithful to our spouse, but also the dreams each holds would seem to form a foundation upon which to start a marriage.

Maintaining that marriage requires that we continually revisit those goals, both financial and of freedom and dreams.

The ability to do that asks of us both honesty and responsibility. Perhaps it is the latter that presents the greater challenge to so many.

An award-winning, nationally-syndicated personal finance columnist, Liz Pulliam Weston writes:

"* The median net worth of married-couple households in the latest Census Bureau wealth study, conducted in 2002, was $101,975. For single men, median wealth was $23,700. For single women, $20,217.

* A 15-year study of 9,000 people found that during that time, people who married and stayed married built up nearly twice the net worth of people who stayed single. ...when...other factors are held constant...income and education...the fact that they were married contributed to a 4% annual rise in these couples' wealth.

* Wealth declines typically started four years before a divorce was final...the breakup ultimately reduced the typical person's net worth by 77% of that of the average single person."

According to Nielsen//NetRatings, Liz Pulliam is the most-read personal finance columnist on the Internet.

So what is it about people who stay married that allows them to amass more wealth than single women or single men?

I must admit I was shocked to find that single men had less wealth than married couples, only $3700 more than single women.

For a nation so tightly focused on money, it would seem, according to these numbers that everyone would be clambering to either get married, and certainly remain so.

One factor this article did not address is the emotional side of money.

While it stressed the need to consistently discuss finances, every 3 months or so, and establish and revise financial plans and goals, very little was said about what prevents married partners from doing just that.

As a psychotherapist, and wife of 28 years, I know all too well the sensitive topic the discussion of money is, and the underlying issues talking about money can stir.

Astrology tells us that what lies beneath our material possessions is always the question of our self-worth.

Likewise, an article I read years ago in Reader's Digest Magazine on the various secrets wives and husbands keep from each other, listed purchases one of the most tightly held of secrets.

In the study conducted by the authors, two psychologists and married to each, secrets about how spouses spent their money was top on both the lists of women and men who participated in the study.

On further examination the psychologists concluded that the items bought held not so much the key to the secrecy as what money means not only in a marriage, but also in our culture.

The psychologists concluded that money in American culture means freedom.

That the United States was founded on principles of freedom, ever how unjustly these beliefs have not been manifested by citizens and the laws governing us, American greatly value freedom, if not the illusion of freedom.

But what is freedom?

Ask this question and you'll receive as many answers as people to whom you've posed the question.

In light of the high failure of marriages and the increasing number of divorces, I now wonder if perhaps a good question for married couples to explore as individuals, and offer answers to each other is, how each defines freedom.

I'm almost certain that the definition each provides the other will touch upon if not land both in the middle of a discussion of money, how each views money, what money means to them, and more importantly, the hurts and emotional injuries each may have experienced during childhood regarding money.

Do these childhood wounds play a role in current marital disagreements over finances, how much money to save, and where to spend discretionary income?

How much do we use money to define the value our worth and that of the others?

More importantly, what are the intangible things that no person's money can acquire that each person needs from the other if the marriage is to survive?

And how much does the presence or lack of money influence our ability to give those things?

For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health...till death us do...

"American men are four times more likely than women to take their own lives. It's a troubling phenomenon, rooted in such factors as genetics, upbringing and even career choice. But a growing body of research suggests that divorce is one of the major culprits in suicides among adult males." --Katie Drummond, Suicide Rate Greater Among Divorced Men, Research Finds, Aol.news (March 10, 2010)

I found this article quite astonishing. On second thought the article also noted that, "...research...[shows]... married men enjoy major health benefits... a boost to longevity... decreased risk of smoking or alcohol and drug abuse...[and that]...Married men don't engage in the same risky behaviors..."

Clearly this is a problem. Men comprised, "...79 percent of the 32,000 suicides in 2005." I can't help but wonder of the current numbers in light the recent economic crisis that has affected so many marriages. Divorced men are... "39 percent more likely to commit suicide than those still married...[a] difference [that] increases to 50 percent when a man is a widow."

Researchers have long told us that men who are not married live shorter lives than those are married. Regarding women, the article adds, divorce and widowhood do not raise our risks of suicide.

Current research suggests this results from the fact that, "Women remain the primary caretakers in most households," an activity and position that renders us "...relatively immune..." to the emotional effects of divorce and the end of a marriage.

On a hopeful note, "Dr. Justin Denney, a sociologist at the University of Colorado...[concludes] that children [provide] a major protective effect against suicide. For each additional child in a household, adults [are] 6 percent less likely to commit suicide."

Now this is truly interesting. The more children you have the less likely you are to commit suicide.

I grew excited when reading this. Now this is not because I have three children. I'm thinking of my husband. But I must admit that when considering the possibility of dying before my husband, I find comfort in the fact that my daughters have promised to care for my husband.

Could this be what Dr. Denney addresses when he writes, "Closer relationships with children mean more connections with people outside of themselves," he said.

As a psychotherapist, I know that isolation exacerbates and amplifies the possibility of suicide. But Denny's statement goes so much farther.

In a culture changing each passing moment at the speed of light, we all need a sense of stability, a rock upon which to ground ourselves or moor ourselves during times of storm.

To be sure storms smash through our lives each day. From the driver who cuts us off on the freeway, to the company that downsizes resulting in layoffs that washes away our job--and without any notice.

Each day we face difficulties. And it is in the voluptuous garden of family relationships that we find comfort, stability and love.
Perhaps this is what Dr. Denny is trying to say.

In its idea role, family is the place where others await our arrival at the close of each day, where ideally we cannot be fired, but instead are greeted with open arms.

Without that men lose their reason for living.

When I think of Henrietta Lacks several things go through my mind. First, what an interesting story. Her cells are still alive, though her body is dead.

Isn't that amazing? And then sadly, her family, descendants, it sounds like, don't even have enough money to purchase a vial of her cells, never mind any of the myriad medical treatments and medicines developed and made possible by the amazing ability of her cells to remain alive.

I wonder if medical science has developed any treatments for cervical cancer from HeLa cells taken from Henrietta? Wouldn't that be ironic?

Comments beneath the article seem to generally agree that Henrietta's family deserves some type of compensation, if not out right royalties.

That's fair.

But what about the story?

I'm always asking that question. Of course, I'm a writer. A fiction writer, at that.

But this story is real. Henrietta Lacks was real. The HeLa cells taken from her body and yet to this day remain alive are real.
Let's see. Since for character is everything for me in constructing a story, let's look at who Henrietta was.

Her family describes her as very giving. "She was a mother to her five kids and to sort of everyone else," the USA Today article says, adding, "She would open up her house to anyone who came up looking for work.

Sometimes she'd have 12 people sleeping in her halls. She'd cook these huge meals. She was this real caretaker."

From first glance her cells seem to hold this distinct trait, "giving." The article later states, "They never died. [George]Gey...[the head of cancer research at John's Hopkins]...had collected countless other cells, and they all died. But hers lived....A factory.. set up to mass-produce them at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama [was] producing about 3 trillion HeLa cells a week and sending them to labs around the world."

In death Henrietta Lacks became greater than she had been in life. Her cells are around the globe in god knows what medications, and vaccines to fight illnesses.

If fact I might have some of Henrietta's cells in me. The same holds true for you.

Amazing.

And what of her family?

Henrietta's daughter, "Deborah Lacks," says, "her mother's caretaking made the story of the HeLa cells make sense...Henrietta was chosen and brought back to life as an angel to continue taking care of people through her cells."

How would you feel if this had happened to you someone in your family?

Would want compensation, royalties, or payment from the many medical and pharmaceutical companies that profited from the cells of your family member?

Would you find it hard to reconcile, or perhaps how might your address the matter if you and your other family members did not posses enough funds or resources to even purchase any of the medications made from your mother or sister's cells.

Then again, what if in death you learned that something taken from you had brought life to thousands and perhaps prevented death in millions.
Would knowing this fact compensate for what your surviving family members lacked and could not access?

And then there is the question of how we feel, you and I, knowing that we, or some member of our family has most probably benefited from a medical discovery or development made possible by cells from Henrietta Lacks. What do we say to her surviving family members, her children and grandchildren?

What might we say to Henrietta, should we meet her, in the life of the world beyond?

Reporters are suggesting all sorts of ideas about why "Alice in Wonderland" broke all sorts of records this weekend, most of which they submit has to do with the visuals--that being IMAX and 3-D or perhaps both.

It is nice to see movies in the bright and stunning colors rendered by HD like the television shows we watch at home.
Who can ignore the sunshine of CSI Miami? And I live in California.

It's stunning, despite the not-so-creative lines given the characters. Then again viewers don't come and return to CSI Miami for changes, rather stability, that Horatio will get his man or woman as supported by the wonderful cast who play his forensic detectives.

So back to Johnny Depp, Tim Burton and why so many people came out to see this age-old story of "Alice In Wonderland".

I'd like to submit that not unlike with CSI Miami and Horatio held in the HD brightness of constant sunshine, whatever the weather might actually be, audiences like stability.

And that comes in many forms. Weekly television shows deliver it in many ways. Movies, on the other hand, have the ability to remind us what truly matters in life. Made on the grand scales that they are, movies speak to the subconscious.

In times like today, with so much changing around both hearth and home, let's not discuss the recent round of earthquakes, who wouldn't welcome a dose of comfort?

But don't underestimate the average moviegoer, rather the human individual.

We want a good story, but one that while allowing us to escape, also affirms that life is difficult. This is a constant.

Two great moments occur in this weekend's movie, "Alice in Wonderland".

Just after receiving a marriage proposal from a suitor that would make Mother Teresa quiver, Alice, says quite poignantly, "I need to take a moment." Who wouldn't?
Hamish is scary. Most of all he urges Alice to stop dreaming and imagining.

We wonder if Hamish ever had a truly original thought separate from his mother.

The second and most touching point is when The Mad Hatter, played quite well, and did we think he would do other, Johnny Depp, says, after Alice promises to never forget him, "Oh, but I think you will."

How much have we forgotten, not simply of our childhood, but of all the times in our life where we triumphed over evil and difficulties, and forgot to hold on to our strength or what made us strong, willed us to survive.

What is evil?

The Devil, I think not. The devil turned around spells, 'lived'.

And that is what Alice does through her journeys in Wonderland. She lives and thrives.

Alice in Wonderland depicts family drama to which we can all relate. It shows us one girl's struggle to remain in relationship with those who while loving her, also place obstacles in her way.

Don't we all know these kinds of people?

Are they not a part of our own families?

They are our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands.

We love them.

They love us. But sometimes...sometimes....

As long as there are humans and families we will face dilemmas and challenges--our desires and goals facing off with theirs.

People who see "Alice in Wonderland" will not only urge others to see this movie, but return to see it again because it mirrors us--families, individuals, the dreams we have and that are often thwarted.

And Alice, brimming with imagination and honesty, shows us how to "take a moment" and in finding our true "Wonderland," live through it and bring into reality what was once only in our heads and hearts.

Read the opening story of "Keeper of Secrets...Translations of an Incident"

Secrets can destroy not only a marriage but the person holding that secret too. Living your life with someone in order to please another can hurt you, and also injure those hold dear. Raven Clarke is a psychotherapist who has harbored a secret for over 16 years. Married to a wonderful man, she often thinks of the life she could have had if she had stayed with another. Haunted by her past and reliving it in her mind, her dreams and her visions, Raven becomes more obsessed with what could have been versus what is. Three beautiful children and a loving husband that her mother insisted she marry, Raven comes face-to-face with a woman who shares a similar dilemma. And yet Raven fails to realize that she needs help. The linked novel, Keeper of Secrets...Translations of an Incident, centers on a violent incident that each of central characters in the 8 stories views in a different way. Observing the incident impacts both their present and pasts in an emotional way.

Raven Clarke is not the only one who has a secret in her family. Her mother does too. This becomes evident as you learn about their distant relationship, and the truth about why the man she called Daddy Bill really left. Raven is a former psychotherapist and cannot come to grips with the guilt she still faces about aborting her child from another man, namely Absylom, her Ugandan lover. Together she and Absylom would meditate, seek harmony and peace.

In Dancing Siva, Raven Clarke, is having dinner with her husband and his client when she sees this woman trying to kill her husband. Not at all happy to have accompanied her husband to the dinner partner Raven tunes out what is happening in front of her revisits her past instead. She had wanted to remain home due to lack of sleep and fatigue by her infant daughter's nightly crying. Will Raven ever deal with her past, resolve her issues, and become one within herself? Will she ever forgive herself, and stay true to her family, or continue viewing her situation and disturbing dreams as a bad omen resulting from what she did in the past?
(excerpted from a review written and posted @ Amazon.com by Fran Lewis

On receiving the very thing she wants-a divorce and the power to sell their house-over which they have fought the past year-Anna Manning learns that Edward, her soon-to-be ex-husband is dying from cancer.

A faithful wife for three decades, and stay-at-home mother of four children, Anna endured Edward's constant absence due to travel for his international real estate firm and numerous extra-marital affairs. With their children now adults, Edward has less than six months, possibly three, to live.

Anna takes him home to die in the house she has fought so vigorously to sell. But letting go of someone who has caused so much pain in your life doesn't come easily. Edward has changed. There are Anna and Edward's four children, three of whom who are married and struggling to endow their families with meaning and purpose.

There is also Inman who loves Anna, and gives the one thing Edward denied her-passion and intimacy. And lastly there is Anna. An art history major turned wife and mother out of college, she had planned on divorcing Edward and with her proceeds from the sale of the house move to France. Anna would visit and study the works in Europe's famous museums-perhaps work as a docent in one.

News of Edward's terminal illness provokes her to understand the present, rooted in a wellspring of the past and pouring into a future without him.

The House shows what happens when one adopts the belief that: All hold regret and are seeking forgiveness. Our salvation rests in the hands of others-most particularly the ones we love, and who have treated us wrongly.

I recently read this article, "10 Things Men Wish Women Knew About Them"
I normally don't find these articles helpful. But after 28 years of marriage, and 3 kids, I agreed with all 10 items.

Here they go.

Men Like Compliments
We Are Brutally Honest Because We Care
Appreciate Our Reliability
Love Means Never Having to Be Attached to the Hip
We Respect You as Females/We Love What Makes You a Woman
Be The Boss in the Bedroom
Our First Commitment is to Ourselves
Seeing is Believing
We May Lose the Small Battles/Always Remember the Wars We've Won
Fathers Are Just As Important as Mother

I didn't always feel this way. But time and experience have taught me much.
Time struggling at continuing down the same road that leads to a wall and then realizing I needed to break some bad habits.
The road I traveled was one of low self-esteem and not believing I was important, that what I wanted mattered.This contributed immensely to my low self-esteem.
The bad habits centered on one major and large hindrance