In fact, this article of the Family Psychologist Pavel Zygmantovich is devoted to the tendencies that prevent us from living. Well, at the same time, men who assured themselves that women who do not want to immediately pregnant and give birth, it's just some monsters.
Most often, people have no problems. At least psychological.But people are surprisingly talented in creating such problems almost from scratch.
Here is the simplest example (it is synthetic - consists of several stories with a complete replacement of all parts, including the floor of people; all coincidences are completely random).
There is a man and a woman. They are married. A woman applies to children, gently say, indifferent. And the man loves children and wants (but not right now, but in general - someday).
And the problem of this man is very simple - his wife, in his opinion, a terrible woman (and, and, strictly speaking, not a woman at all).
"Why" you ask? Because a woman should love children (after all, all women love children), otherwise it's not a woman, and not understand what.
And here is a couple that could live long and happily (especially since right now - pay for this special attention - the birth of a child is only in the distant perspective), is on the verge of a divorce.
How did it all happen?
I repeat once again the thesis from the beginning of the notes - people often create psychological problems independently.
Specifically, in this story, a man builds its conclusions on very strange ideas about life (or, if in a professional language, cognitive schemes). Because of these conclusions and problems appear.
Why did a man made these conclusions? Because, like anyone, are subject to various inconsistencies in thinking, which spoil a person's life. These addictions are usually referred to as the errors of thinking, but I longer like the option of "tendency" - sounds softer.
This tendency of a person has, apparently, from birth, and if not engaged in his head, it is very easy to succumb to these inconsistencies and inhabit a lot of problems. As, in fact, the example happened in the example.
Specifically, a man demonstrates a tendency to generalizations, to dichotomicity (it is black and white thinking), to the ownership and, finally, to catastrophization.
Template to generalizations
The tendency to generalizations is the consideration of the situation without taking into account the context and details. A man performs, the smallest, two generalizations.a) he believes that all women love children, although he did not spend any research (yes it is impossible to carry out - is physically impossible). That is, the conclusion is unreasonable and fair only for some women, and not for all.
b) He summarizes the concept of "love," makes it not concrete, but smeared. As a result, it is completely unclear what exactly he means and what exactly the behavior of his wife corresponds or does not correspond to its expectations.
Template for dichotomization
The tendency to dichotomization is the consideration of everything in black and white tones without intermediate shades. A man considers his wife only in two versions - or she is a good mother (loves children), or bad (does not like children).
He does not allow the thought that a woman can be once a good mother, once a bad, once - mediocre, once - satisfactory, sometime wonderful, sometime - someone else.
Human life extremely rarely allows you to spend a clear division. And even more so it is impossible to do where everything is constantly changing. And parenthood (and motherhood in particular) each person contains many manifestations. And a wonderful mother in a minute can be a terrible mother, and a terrible mother in minutes can become a beautiful mother.
These estimates are possible only at some specific point, and the general one, so to speak integrative, the estimate is simply impossible (and who believes that it is possible, he is learned in the tendency of generalization).
Next to ownership
A tendency to ownership - the presence of an idea that there are congenital remedies that need to follow the fact of congenitivity; If the expectations are not executed, it is considered as a tragedy. In this situation, a man thinks women should love children, simply because women are women. And since his woman does not like children, she is not a woman at all.
In fact, it is, of course, not so. Women can love children, may not love - it does not affect their femininity. There are no natural mechanisms for unconditional love for children. There are mechanisms, so to speak, "auxiliary" of love (the same hormone oxytocin, for example), but it is the mechanism of "alex", no more.
Also, women have no maternal instinct, and there is just parental behavior, which is only partly due to the biology (yes, that is, this is a long time in biology).
In general, it turns out that the idea of doubt, as often happens, completely incorrect. And since she is incorrect, it should not be upset because of it.
A tendency to catastrophization
The tendency to catastrophization is confidence that the events will develop on the worst scenario, without taking into account the probabilities of other options for developing the situation.In this case, a man sees only one version of the development of events - they will never have common children with this woman and it will make their life terrible.
How likely is this outcome of events? Not to say to a lot.
As practice shows, many partners initially relate to children and confusion in different ways. However, over time, their position is brought together, and they find a common point of view. It's not a quick thing, but it does not break through the knee - everyone sincerely agrees with this general point of view (because it is general).
Maybe another option - it turns out that without children it is good and no need to give birth.
Maybe the third option - after some time a woman herself decides to give birth.
In general, the catastrophic option "We will not have common children and it is terrible" is neither inevitable or most likely. And the man is upset and is ready to divorce.
Summing up
These inclinations in thinking, as I said, fairly spoil people life. This is, as usual, bad news.
There are also good news - all these inconsistencies are overcome. If you take the top over them, it lives much better.
Now, perhaps, you need to answer the question from the title notes. Strictly speaking, I already answered it in the text. Here just make a wrinkle.
No, not deadly, if a woman does not want children. First, couples can live without children. Secondly, there is adoption and adoption. Thirdly, there is no reason to believe that specifically this woman will have such a look at life eternal.
Is it worth divoring if one of the partners do not want children? It's not for me to decide how you understand. In my opinion, it is better to give each other time and not to crush - the likely probability is that positions come close. That is, one spouse will no longer want so much, but the second is not so refusing. You look, someone and call.