Interesting I thought that Jake & Amy had somewhat of a role reversal-- that is, at the beginning Jake was the defensive / angry / sullen one, while Amy was somewhat unshakable. However by the end, Jake found resolve and became more open/genuine, while Amy was angry and bitter.
I enjoyed your missives on episode. Thanks
All Jake had to say was "let's stop this" and it would have derailed the whole foolish train wreck. She needs to do work on her childhood self forgiveness and he needs to grow up beyond his father's low expectations. But the gem they have as a family is being flushed - for not very good reasons. What utter foolishness. And all he had to say was "let's wait."
Yeah. He is a great father...
Jim, I agree. They did reverse positions somewhat. Jake also found value in the work with Paul and it was he who resisted it at first.
Dave, they both have a lot of individual stuff to work on. My pessimism about the long term stability of their relationship stems mostly from the burden of their pasts and the fact that their relationship began in an affair -- only a very small percentage of such relationships endure.
But none of this means neither of them is a good parent.
Well there we disagree, and disagree deeply. First, no one has the right to presuppose the probable failure of a marriage based on how it began. Perhaps a hhigh percentage of such marriages fail, but that does not mean the odds are stacked against it. This is not a numbers game. It is a family. And that little boy depends on it for the stability of his home life. Abandoning it for frivolous reasons, without giving EVERY effort to save it is irresponsible to HIM. And that is bad parenting. Period.
This one seemed really lame to me. Some obviously low hanging fruit was ignored by Paul. It was so obvious that they both were poised to connect but Paul didn't even ask the mandatory questions--'how did the decision to split up occur--who made the decision?' Yes, obviously Jake was pushing for it, but Paul didn't delve into the triggering event sitting there in the room like the elephant under the table cloth--Amy's infidelity--wasn't Jake stuck in his hurt and anger(like Paul was with Kate) by being unwilling to forgive her? Which really begs the key question even more from a previous session when Amy confessed her unfaithfulness and she asked Paul if Jake would forgive her, Paul acted like a first year intern and didn't urge her to ask Jake for forgiveness directly herself. Instead a huge opportunity was missed. So at the end they were both locked in their respective confused isolation due to very poor work from Paul. When Amy was sobbing all it would have taken was for Paul to have them look at each other and for Amy to ask Jake not to leave her if that was how she felt--which it certainly was. Think about it--doing all those sessions with them always looking straight ahead at Paul, hardly ever urged to look or speak to each other by Paul? That's no way to do couples therapy. I've done my share of it and this couple was so obviously ready to move to a healthier new connection--instead they were allowed to sit on the opposite side of the couch, looking straight ahead, not even speaking to each other. Paul scoffed at Gina using Imago dialouge with he and Kate, but that ws exactly what Jake and Amy needed and didn't get. A failed treatment, therapist incompetence--fiction thankfully--a cautionary tale for would be couple's therapists.
It s interesting that you see them ready to reconnect and I see them as heading toward splitting from the beginning. In the end though, don't you think it is important for the therapist to not have a stake in whether they stay together or go apart, as after all, it is not therapist's life to live? I try hard not to weight my expectations in either direction, which is not easy but I have t hold in mind that their lives are not mine and my choice is irrelevant for them; they must chose.
Right, the therapist should not have an agenda to have them stay together or part. For them to make an informed choice to stay or go however, it's incumbent on the therapist to not support precipituos break-ups like Paul did or flights into health--ie. ending treatment via a quick but superficial reconciliation. Paul erred by not getting more hands on, not facilitating face to face communication between them, even making the big mistake of meeting with them each separately. Even the couples tx when they both were in the room was conducted like individual therapy! Both their eyes were on Paul, almost all their statements and questions were directed to him. Good couple's therapy becomes a long over due conversation and truth telling and listening between the couple. The therapist fades into the background at some point. Jake and Amy's differnces weren't irreconcilable.
But Paul isn't a systems therapist or even a marital therapist. He is a pretty solid generalist and like many agrees to see couples now and again. Most couples' therapists have short comings working with individuals for the same reason because systems theory and most of the theory underlying marital work is less relevant to individuals. Your criticism is kind of like asking a family practitioner to be as good as a specialist -- a good generalist is still that, a generalist.
Any couple that wants to stay together can. Differences become irreconcilable only when at lest one partner does not want to reconcile. The differences themselves are neither inherently reconcilable nor irreconcilable.
You are right--Paul's most beautiful, effective work was with Sophie in individual therapy.--made me cry. He ended up sitting on the floor near her--and in the last scene out the window, he saw her semi-narcsissitic but hopefully redeemable father sit on the grass with her as well, finally listening.
Commenting by HaloScan
