Based on what I read, this "study" is just a review and consolidation of other actual studies. They didn't do any science here. However, in the "Results" section of the abstract it does state "Fifteen original studies were selected. Preclinical trials were able to reduce amyloid-b plaques and tau phosphorylation, improving cognitive performance in AD animals."
Also, in the studies they consolidated there are several that mention in their results that it breaks up the plaques. For example: "Jordão et al., 201010 Mouse FUS associated with administration of anti-b-amyloid antibody (BAM 10) in transgenic mice (TgCRND8) promoted a significant reduction of b-amyloid peptide plaques."
While I think Seventh_Jim was maybe a bit harsh, I also think he's right. There's no place in a marriage for nagging. Nagging has never made a man want to listen to his wife.
Any man can be a leader with his wife if she steps out of the way and allows him to.
On an unrelated note, are there any actual women in this "Traditional Wives" subverse? I was hoping for some female camaraderie...
Thank you! Yes, this is what I'm going for. What this book is teaching me is that my husband is a grown-ass man and doesn't need another mother. I mean I thought I was being helpful, but the people on here saying that nagging can be a good thing are frankly misguided. I've realized there's no reason to tell him anything really. If he wants to leave his clothes on the floor now, I let him. BUT, I don't do any laundry that isn't in the hamper, so if he wants his clothes washed, he'll have to pick them up eventually. He also knows that I don't like clothes on the floor, so the better I treat him the more he wants to make me happy and the more likely he'll be to not put them there in the first place.
Again, the book has taught me that a happy man really WANTS his wife to be happy, and the occasional request every now and then will be met with joy instead if irritation. Also, it's better to have harmony than a "properly" loaded dishwasher. :)
Money isn't actually a problem for us at all. We both work and earn well. The problem comes from me having all the veto power when it comes to spending. The book taught me that my controlling nature originates from fear that if I'm not in charge, things won't be done correctly (which is often how I feel). The result is a husband that can't spoil me with gifts (the way most wives would like - not in a greedy way though) or make major money-related decisions because I know better about what can/can't be spent. I also don't think he's as motivated to make more money (he has his own business and the money that comes in is directly related to effort put in) because he doesn't really see the positive impact he has financially with me paying all the bills and choosing what to save/spend.
I want to let go of this responsibility because I think it would be better for both of us. Even if he screws things up, I know we aren't going to lose our house or go bankrupt - he's a very hard worker, even if he's not as organized as I am. It would also force me to trust in him more. And for him I think he'd see the impact of his work better and be able to give me the money I need to buy groceries, gas, clothes, etc. without issue. I think he'd be more excited to get out and work (which he really does love to do) and take care of his wife the way every man wants to, when they're in a happy marriage.
So I can't agree that household finances are a "feminine thing to do". They're based around math, which is typically stronger in men, and the person who controls the finances has the ultimate veto power on any purchases since they're more familiar with if the family can afford something. If the woman has the ultimate veto power, she's now in a position of power above her husband. And this being the "Traditional Wifes" subverse, I was looking for feedback from that perspective.
There's a lot more to it but really i'm just looking for other women to talk to, preferably who've read the book since it's explained much better there than I can explain.
sharkbait 0 points 1.1 years ago
Based on what I read, this "study" is just a review and consolidation of other actual studies. They didn't do any science here. However, in the "Results" section of the abstract it does state "Fifteen original studies were selected. Preclinical trials were able to reduce amyloid-b plaques and tau phosphorylation, improving cognitive performance in AD animals."
Also, in the studies they consolidated there are several that mention in their results that it breaks up the plaques. For example: "Jordão et al., 201010 Mouse FUS associated with administration of anti-b-amyloid antibody (BAM 10) in transgenic mice (TgCRND8) promoted a significant reduction of b-amyloid peptide plaques."
/v/UpliftingNews viewpost?postid=6639ff8c26346
sharkbait 1 point 3.5 years ago
lol what? 2 messages responding to someone else is "flooding the chat"? fuck off
/v/Voat viewpost?postid=61c4907f08246
sharkbait 1 point 3.7 years ago
While I think Seventh_Jim was maybe a bit harsh, I also think he's right. There's no place in a marriage for nagging. Nagging has never made a man want to listen to his wife.
Any man can be a leader with his wife if she steps out of the way and allows him to.
On an unrelated note, are there any actual women in this "Traditional Wives" subverse? I was hoping for some female camaraderie...
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=6165da40b3d67
sharkbait 1 point 3.7 years ago
Thank you! Yes, this is what I'm going for. What this book is teaching me is that my husband is a grown-ass man and doesn't need another mother. I mean I thought I was being helpful, but the people on here saying that nagging can be a good thing are frankly misguided. I've realized there's no reason to tell him anything really. If he wants to leave his clothes on the floor now, I let him. BUT, I don't do any laundry that isn't in the hamper, so if he wants his clothes washed, he'll have to pick them up eventually. He also knows that I don't like clothes on the floor, so the better I treat him the more he wants to make me happy and the more likely he'll be to not put them there in the first place.
Again, the book has taught me that a happy man really WANTS his wife to be happy, and the occasional request every now and then will be met with joy instead if irritation. Also, it's better to have harmony than a "properly" loaded dishwasher. :)
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=6165da40b3d67
sharkbait 0 points 3.7 years ago
Money isn't actually a problem for us at all. We both work and earn well. The problem comes from me having all the veto power when it comes to spending. The book taught me that my controlling nature originates from fear that if I'm not in charge, things won't be done correctly (which is often how I feel). The result is a husband that can't spoil me with gifts (the way most wives would like - not in a greedy way though) or make major money-related decisions because I know better about what can/can't be spent. I also don't think he's as motivated to make more money (he has his own business and the money that comes in is directly related to effort put in) because he doesn't really see the positive impact he has financially with me paying all the bills and choosing what to save/spend.
I want to let go of this responsibility because I think it would be better for both of us. Even if he screws things up, I know we aren't going to lose our house or go bankrupt - he's a very hard worker, even if he's not as organized as I am. It would also force me to trust in him more. And for him I think he'd see the impact of his work better and be able to give me the money I need to buy groceries, gas, clothes, etc. without issue. I think he'd be more excited to get out and work (which he really does love to do) and take care of his wife the way every man wants to, when they're in a happy marriage.
Does that make sense?
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=6165da40b3d67
sharkbait 0 points 3.7 years ago
So I can't agree that household finances are a "feminine thing to do". They're based around math, which is typically stronger in men, and the person who controls the finances has the ultimate veto power on any purchases since they're more familiar with if the family can afford something. If the woman has the ultimate veto power, she's now in a position of power above her husband. And this being the "Traditional Wifes" subverse, I was looking for feedback from that perspective.
There's a lot more to it but really i'm just looking for other women to talk to, preferably who've read the book since it's explained much better there than I can explain.
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=6165da40b3d67