Psychologist Andrey Kashkarov explained why men leave their families
A man is also a human being and can walk along the “routes” characteristic of all adequate people in search of emotions, strength and influence, subjectively presented as personal happiness.
Any person is looking for where it is better for him, especially in the modern world, full of hedonistic temptations and choice, and the choice is not so much of partners, but of a favorable system of relationships, where the expenditure of effort and resources allows one to still have time for joy and conditional rest.
By acting in this way in search of a better life for himself, a man imagines that he will be able to achieve a certain order in which his conditional leadership and claim to control the family unit will be satisfied, and the saved energy can be successfully directed not so much to “lazy relaxation” as to changing this imperfect world.
With an understanding of this approach and gender role, the actions of a male partner or husband are quite understandable to him, but not always understandable to a woman.
This is why there is a conditional male corporate brotherhood (understanding of thoughts and actions) as well as female support among members of the species.
This is when men understand men and women support women.
A typical adult man, not deprived of physical health, is a warrior by nature, therefore, according to the philosophical thought of Carlos Castaneda, he is called to change, to “bend” the created world to suit himself, says psychologist Andrei Kashkarov .
The partnership intended by nature, including that created for the continuation of the species, leads to the creation of gender pairs.
Mutual feelings contribute to this, but we also know that they are not always necessary to perform gender functions. People entered into marriages (especially earlier) without mutual feelings, and then got used to each other.
In addition, “marriages of convenience” are seen by many as more stable and strong than families created “for love.”
From this it may be clear that a man, by the nature of his relationship with a woman, is in principle polygamous, although he does not express or demonstrate this in view of the established rules of role relationships.
But we also know that the “moral side” of the matter is very conditional, and there are communities in which polygamy is typical and even traditional; it is enough to become familiar with the approach in different denominations and the relations of religious cults.
So, the first circumstance that strongly influences male behavior is natural polygamy: in order to continue the family line, it is necessary to spread one’s influence as much as possible and, conditionally, “cover” as many women as possible.
The modern man is no longer concerned with the survival of his offspring - this is not the cave age, and therefore not every family in the world has many children.
But the goal of “maximum coverage” has not gone away, even if it is not customary to discuss it openly for fear of incurring the wrath of the corporation of women.
"The dog barks, but the caravan moves on"; changes inherent in nature itself are difficult to correct by moral standards, discussion and condemnation.
This is another reason why a woman interested in monogamy and relationship stability is unable to control the situation in this matter alone and entirely by force.
A typical modern man is not stopped even by material losses in the event of divorce and division of jointly acquired property. Having organized a family, a man subconsciously begins to look for "new".
Of course, we are speaking hypothetically and taking into account that there are exceptions to every “rule”.
To put it bluntly, it must be admitted that a boy and then a man do not see in a girl and later in a woman an equal partner, but see a creature, albeit divine, but weak and conditionally unequal, even if she is a genius.
Again, different religions, based on traditions, have reinforced this vision to this day. And the fact is that both the "antediluvian" and modern women do not fully compete with men.
There is no need to be offended here, since every person cannot be strong and influential in every sense and always.
Therefore, the creation of a modern family is an agreement, either explicit or camouflaged, in which each partner observes their own interests based on a compromise relationship with each other.
And these interests can quite logically undergo changes over time. We will not touch upon such a conditional factor as mutual respect.
If it exists, they don’t talk about it; they simply don’t notice it like any healthy element of the body.
The considered factor of influence “awakens” also when the role of a man in a couple and a family, already created and organized, is leveled under the influence of new circumstances of different genesis.
Often, a woman contributes to this leveling of the male role. If we carefully delve into the details of typical behavior of couples (in front of each other), we will see that it is not often that a woman at the initial stage indicates a desire to dominate the family, even if she has such opportunities due to her character, strong will and (or) material factors.
She pretends, adapts to the circumstances, solving her task of creating a family and providing for offspring. But in the process of living together, over time, with a change in guidelines and goal-setting, and also when the children grow up, one way or another, attempts to influence a man become obvious.
Someone will say that a strong man will not allow such a situation, the "wife" to get out of control. Having managed to provide for her and remaining an authority in terms of managing the cell.
However, practice shows the opposite: both missile cruiser commanders and presidents, and other influential people, sometimes get divorced and leave their families. As a rule, not "into nowhere", but into a new family, where it opens up scope for activity for a man.
Because not everyone will tolerate female “leadership” in the manner of the pharmacist Kokoschka – an example of a henpecked husband, masterfully described by Jaroslav Hasek.
To sum up, we note that the natural polygamy of the species, a large choice of alternatives for new relationships, a decrease in influence in one's own family unit (provoked by the wife's actions or in connection with the manifestation of independence of children, other factors), that is, new or accumulated circumstances in which a man loses satisfaction from control and influence, lead the marriage to completion.
If we take a particular case when a man leaves for another family, there are also some problems here.
In principle, a man is neither better nor worse than a woman. He can also be a self-sufficient substance that no longer tolerates a change in the situation, that is, a violation of the unspoken or open agreement with a woman about the division of spheres of influence and control in the family.
And when a man leaves, you need to think not about how he is “like everyone else – a goat”, but about the fact that the family is built and maintained by both, therefore, one of the adults, its main constituent members, is no longer satisfied with this or that role.
As soon as a man who shows care and responsibility (both concepts are imperfect and subjective) begins to ask himself the question: “Why?” - the family is in danger.
Experienced specialists agree that it is possible to keep a man in a modern family, where the wife is trying to influence the issues of managing the unit, only by finding a special and precise “key” to the husband or partner (as to a lock) - by creating conditions of dependence or interest.
Moreover, the second factor is much more reliable than the first.
It is as unwise to test a man's patience as it is to test a woman's patience; in this sense, both in a couple are worth each other.
But preserving non-nominal care and showing long-term patience in the age of developed alternatives and frequent examples before one’s eyes (which have become typical) of loneliness and self-sufficiency does not always work out; moreover, a modern woman, often brought up on the example of mothers and grandmothers in a single-parent family, does not always strive for this.
