"What I've learned is that the way that men are wired to relate is totally legitimate."
John Hawkins interviews relationship expert Shaunti Feldhahn, author of For Men Only: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women
and For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men.
A highlight:
While I don't think pronouncing that you are so Godlike that you are bestowing men with legitimacy for their way of thinking, it seems that Shaunti Feldhahn has a few decent things to say.
and For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men. A highlight:Now let me reverse that. Same question: what do you think the biggest misperception that many women have about men and dating is?
I think honestly there is a dangerous assumption that a lot of women have -- and we would never usually say it out loud, but it's in there. It's this idea that we women think we're really the ones who are good at relationships. We women kind of think we're really the ones with the interpersonal skills. We honestly think when we see something that we don't understand or something that makes us upset,"He just has to learn to relate better." What I've learned is that the way that men are wired to relate is totally legitimate. It's just totally different. We don't have to make them relate the way we do.
While I don't think pronouncing that you are so Godlike that you are bestowing men with legitimacy for their way of thinking, it seems that Shaunti Feldhahn has a few decent things to say.
Labels: interesting books
posted by Helen at 10:39 AM
141 Comments:
Her most important advice was on what both sexes fail to give the other. For men, she was spot on when she said that respect is more important than feeling loved. That's one more reason why I say that the Bible is the simplest, most effective marriage guide there is as it made this point 2000 years ago in Ephesians 5:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Paul's command to Christian wives is simple: honor and voluntarily obey your husband. Most men would rather have a respectful woman who doesn't fight for the position of head of household than a wife who passionately loves them, but doesn't really respect them (or even competes head on with them).
Men can claim up and down that they love spunky, rebellious, competitive women, but there are two main types of guys that are able to put with significant others like that (and women like that rarely respect a man who they can best): cheaters and wimps.
MikeT,
I'll bet it never entered your mind that pushing your religion on others could be offensive.
Tether, where was the pushing? I missed that.
Trey
"Wife, why do you honor me?"
"Because the bible commands me to."
"hmm Well played wife. You've managed to be true to the bible and emasculate me in a single stroke"
I think I'll take a pass. An Ephesians 5 wife, I do not need.
It probably has entered Mike T's mind that if Helen has a problem with him quoting scripture she'll tell him, and if she doesn't have a problem, then nobody else should either.
I always kind of cringe at those "let me tell you things your wife wants you to know" books and articles. First of all, the assumption is made that the reader is an idiot waiting for the writer's special wisdom. Secondly, I can speak for myself, as any grownup should be able to. Thirdly, I may not fit the pattern in the book or article and I wouldn't want people who deal with me thinking that I do.
That said, some of the Amazon reviewers said that the couples found the book to be a good starting place for discussion, and that's always positive.
I will say this about wanting respect. There is a thing that some people do, where they play dumb to get out of having to do something tedious or unpleasant. This is not a gender thing, it's an immaturity thing. But for instance, a woman will say that she does all the laundry b/c her husband never separates the whites from the reds and all her white things end up pink; or that she has to wash the dishes b/c he puts things away dirty; or that if he mops she has to go in after him b/c the floor is still a mess. (I'm talking about women who work full-time outside the home here.) If it's a passive-agressive thing on the man's part, where he deliberately screws up so he won't be asked to do his share, it may be successful. But he is training his wife to treat him like a child, and he should not then turn around and demand to be respected. It just doesn't work that way.
Me - I like strong women. My favorite are strong women who trust me enough to show thier vulnerability.
Bill
http://willstuff.wordpress.com
Laura,
Your examples are why I don't do any housework. If doing it my way isn't ever good enough then she can do it herself. Complaining about my efforts is a good way to get fewer efforts. This isn't playing dumb. This is reacting to basic reward-punishment dynamics.
Sure, I could learn to do it her way, but I am not a minkey that needs to be trained. Let's face it, doing dishes, laundry, vacuuming isn't that hard. It doesn't take a trained expert with female DNA.
Roci, if you aren't deliberately sabotaging by mixing colors with whites and so forth, and snickering when she says "never mind, I'll do it myself," then I am not talking about you.
I stopped buying reds and whites because of this.
white shirts go to the dry cleaners.
Everything else can and does go into the same load, with perfectly acceptable results.
Anything heavily soiled with grease gets washed separately.
But accidents do happen. Even some (gasp) women have occasionally put one red sock in with a whole load of whites. Occasionally a tube of lipstick gets in there too. Certainly not sabotage on my side.
Women ON THE AVERAGE are probably better at emotional intelligence, but there are a lot of exceptions..many men very good at it, and quite a few women clueless. Also, many women and some men try to use their relationship skills where they don't apply**the "just try to understand the terrorists and they'll stop doing it" meme is really a reflection of strategies, often now accepted by men.
Also, high emotional intelligence does not always mean that a person is nice or even decent. A dishonest salesman may consciously use his emotional intelligence for scamming. A dishonest woman may use her emotional intelligence to attract men and ditch them for fun or profit.
Well, sure. I've done that kind of thing myself.
Stopping buying reds and whites is definitely an effective problem-solving strategy.
So is telling your spouse to stop the running critique. I have had to do this. My husband doesn't mean to do it, but he'll get into a mode where I cannot do anything to please him. Maybe it's stress, but I have stress of my own. So rather than suffer silently I open my mouth and say, "if there is not an actual problem, would you please stop criticizing every cottonpickin thing I do." Once I point this out to him he apologizes and quits. It's not hard.
comment was in response to Roci, not "A dishonest woman may use her emotional intelligence to attract men and ditch them for fun or profit.", ha ha.
Helen, with all due respect, I don't understand your criticism of Feldhahn's comment. She didn't say, "I now decree a man's way of relating is also legitimate." She said, "What I learned..."
What's the problem? To me, it sounds more like humility than Olympian haughtiness.
Mario,
The author makes it sound like she is the one granting the legitimacy. It is her use of the word "legitimate" that bothered me. The word legitimate means "being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards." She stated, "What I've learned is that the way that men are wired to relate is totally legitimate. It's just totally different. We don't have to make them relate the way we do."
Meaning that prior to her "learning," she did not see men's way of relating as legitimate or reasonable. Men's ways of relating are not made lawful or reasonable because a woman thinks so. Their way of relating is legitimate because that is how (some) men relate.
Dr. Helen, I don't think that the author was trying to grant legitimacy, so much as acknowledge it.
As far as whether or not women believe they know how to have relationships and have to train men, well, that one's kind of a "duh," isn't it? Most of the women I know speak very openly about training their men. I think it's awful, and if men talked about "training" their women, they'd have to enter Witness Protection.
I think women need to recognize that men are not broken, that they're just different. We expect men to do all sorts of things to prove that they are worthy of us, which is where this "I'm better at relationships than you are" thing starts, in my opinion.
You build this idea of a perfect man, and then you go looking for a DIY project. Men, on the other hand, are usually more honest about what they want. Most women that I know fail to understand that the things their men ask for are needs more than wants. These women have laundry lists of complaints and desires and only after their desires are satisfied will they give in. Of course, by the time they've gotten what they want, they're so disgusted by the man they created that they won't give into him because he's pitiable, not desirable.
Bed. Made. Lie.
(Of course there are exceptions. These are generalities based on my own experiences.)
I got Helen's point too, and was irritated as well by the fact that she had to learn that because somebody didn't do something the way she did, that didn't make it wrong. Maybe she just worded all of that badly.
I've never heard a woman use the term "training" in reference to her husband. I'd probably have some pretty pointed things to say about that - did you marry a man, or a dog?
Funny how just mentioning that you have religious beliefs offends some. I suspect Tether is more offended by Christianity than other religions.
Not seeing men's way of relating as legitimate is pretty pervasive in our society. While Shaunti Feldhahn plays the God role, at least she learned something worthwhile.
Honoring your spouse makes sense. I heard Dr. Laura make a point of the Ten Commandments say to honor your parents, not love. I think that is an important point. Showing one honor (respect) can be much more important than love much of the time.
Regarding the quote at the top of the post: Since that quote immediately followed, "We women kind of think we're really the ones with the interpersonal skills. We honestly think when we see something that we don't understand or something that makes us upset,'He just has to learn to relate better.'", I took it to mean that she herself had held this opinion at one time, and that she had learned that it wasn't just a lack that made men different.
Tether,
Heaven and Earth will pass away before I start to care about that.
Especially since I was simply pointing out that Christianity has been teaching, what she recently "discovered," for nearly 2000 years to couples.
"Wife, why do you honor me?"
"Because the bible commands me to."
"hmm Well played wife. You've managed to be true to the bible and emasculate me in a single stroke"
I think I'll take a pass. An Ephesians 5 wife, I do not need.
I wonder how many women will pass on an Ephesians 5 husband... (look that up if you don't know what I mean)
MikeT, that is the part of Ephesians that is important to me, the part that tells me what kind of a husband to be. I am responsible for that, for loving my wife. It is up to my spouse to deal with the submissive part, I have enough to deal with in the things I am required to do.
Trey
Trey,
Part of my fascination with Ephesians 5 comes from its role in forming the way the West thinks about marriage. The chivalric, self-sacrificial provider of needs (emotional to material) image for men comes from that chapter.
This business of men getting angry to express their feelings and shut down and women want to be validated all the time that they are loved maybe that is right, maybe it is wrong. For me the jury is still out on that.
However, I would like to comment on something else if Helen doesn't mind. I am female and only date men so I have no idea how women act in a relationship. But has anyone else noticed this....?....As I get older and the older the men I date and befriend I am starting to see much more passive aggressive behavior with them when they are unhappy.
To explain better, I might be in a situation with them where events occur and the man seems jovial and content, then hours or even days later he starts to say little things he knows will hurt me but in a fun way or, as in another situation, the man started to talk excessively about an old girlfriend (to bad for him that doesn't bother me) or a man will do something that I have made clear is unacceptable behavior around me. This has happened with men who are at or over 50 years old and I am seeing it more and more. Perhaps women do this too, I don't know. I get the feeling these men are attempting to get me to get angry so then they can discuss their true feelings about the events from days or weeks ago, if I explode then it would be okay for them to explode I guess. Unfortunately for them I don't get angry.
I wonder what is causing this behavioral change in men at a certain age, because I've never seen this so rampant.
Cham -
You do or don't care if the relationship lasts? If not, screw it, you don't care. If so, actually ask with a straight face and earnest disposition what it was 'about the events' that bothered them. Be prepared to self-examine if necessary, you were the only other one there.
Nothing's become rampant. You're just now noticing your new age bracket. Humans haven't really changed much during written history.
2¢
Well, if the "Good Book" says it, it must be true, MikeT. Sign me up, even if it's just the subjective interpretation of you or your little group.
I've seen enough Christians actually wanting to see the suffering of others (to "teach them a lesson" apparently) and enough un-Christ-like behavior or even a lack of realization of it ... that I'm thinking the radical ones are just dopes.
If you need help
approaching women and
getting dates
visit:
http://approachwomeneasily.com/
Approach Women Easily
Cham, how about a straightforward, "Are you trying to pick a fight?" Then they have to put up or shut up. I don't do the game-playing or mindreading either.
As to why at this age it starts ... who knows.
Target wrote: "Sign me up, even if it's just the subjective interpretation of you or your little group."
Hey Target, what is your interpretation of Ephesians 5?
And I think there are two reasons for your disappointments with Christians. First, we believe that we are all fallen and sinful creatures. I have seen enough evidence of that in my own life and church to believe that is indeed true.
Secondly, there was a cultural expectation, especially here in the South, that everyone was a Christian. That expectation and cultural pressure is diminishing as we speak, and I think it will be good for Christianity as people who identify as such will be doing so for more personal and hopefully important reasons.
Trey
I find it ironic that women like to pat themselves on the back and call themselves the relationship expert and yet they know so little of the things that men legitimately hav to deal with.
Popular AND especially ELITE culture has taught women that men are most always the oppressor and never the oppressed.
Women (and men) have been taught that men on the whole are not worthy of empathy or understanding.
Should we dare examine the aspects of feminism that are far from egalitarian as their supposed ideals purport?
What was the last time you heard a self described feminist ORGANIZATION espouse equality?
Men live shorter lives, spend more time in prison, die or get disabled on the job (92.3% of all workplace deaths are men while feminists pretend that women do work equal to men-equal work is equally dangerous), men have lesser educational outcomes, and they commit suicide more often.
And few feminist organizations (none of the major ones for sure) have any respect for men's changing needs.
Women seek equality in the workplace (a good thing), but they fight tooth and nail to prevent equality in the home for men.
The biggest gender equality fight of this century is to give men equal rights in the home as last century's gender fight was to give women right in the workplace and the community.
Feminists love the blame the victim when the victim is male!
When the victim is female......feminists decry any attempt to place any blame there.....
Feminists pretend to be about equality and fairness, but they fight for anything but equality of treatment for men in the workplace or the home
feminists will tell you all day long that women can do anything and everything a man can do.....and women need special treatment at work, special (LESSER) requirements for jobs like police and firefighter and armed forces member.......
women, they claim, can do any job a man can do, but they need special protection from violence?
hypocrisy and lies is most all we get from them.......
women can be cops, but the constitution needs to be watered down when a man is accused of a crime by a woman....
where are the major feminist organizations decrying the unfairness men face in divorce and custody courts?
women get child custody 83% of the time, but blame men for not wanting custody (and yet the feminist hypocritical organizations fight tooth and nail to make sure joint custody laws are NOT passed).
A mere allegation of abuse is all it takes to get a man kicked out of his own house (so much for due process and innocent until proven guilty).
This country eliminated debtor prisons centuries ago and yet they have been brought back into existence nearly exclusively for men (not that we should empathize with men in any way shape or form) who owe child support.
These same men can pay child support and these same courts will not enforce visitation.
Thus, a mpay an can be forced to pay child support (threatened with loss of driver's license, loss of professional license and loss of freedom) and the same courts will NOT enforce HIS right to see the kids he is forced to pay for.
HOW can a man be forced to pay for a kid he is not even allowed to see?
Didn't we fight the British for independence for this exact same thing?
Yes, we did. It is called taxation without representation.
Child support enforcement without child visitation enforcement is effectively taxation without representation.
ignoring the plight of men is useful and fun if you are a misandrist.
ignoring the plight of men is also useful if you want to make men look bad
ignoring the plight of men is also useful if you want to make men look bad.......
isnt that what most household work surveys do to make women look like the hard workers and men the lazy louts.....
next time you see a housework survey that makes it look like men are lazy at home, look closely at the fine print.......
itll tel you that the work that men traditionally do in the home is EXCLUDED from all housework surveys.......
HAVE you any idea how useful this is????!?!?!?!?!?
Ignore the work that men LIKE to do and you can make men appear lazy and unsupportive.......
ignore the work that men Do do and ignore the work that men prefer to do and you make em look bad......
it aint fair and it aint equal, but who cares, as long as it makes men look bad
the new accepted chauvinism is female chauvinism and it is just as disapointing as male chauvinism and much less well understood and almost never researched, studied or reported on.....
MikeT,
I'll bet it never entered your mind that pushing your religion on others could be offensiveI bet it never entered your mind that you don't have to believe in God to understand that the bible contains useful information and still-valid observations about human nature.
Olig and Laura:
I have no problem having an honest discussion about my behavior. In fact, sometimes I err and can be inconsiderate. I have no patience for passive aggressive behavior, I can sniff that out a mile away and no one will be fooling me. Sometimes it can be a fun quandary to figure out what is eating a passive aggressive. I have to think about what happened in the recent past that might have addled them. I tend to dump passive aggressives quickly from my life, I think it is such girlish behavior and not enticing at all. I guess this is sort of a welcome into old age. Perhaps I can find a positive to all of this. Thanks for the comments!
"I tend to dump passive aggressives quickly from my life,"
Me too. Drama folks as well, I have no time for that. I MUCH prefer Asperger's folks as friends, they are quirky, but good friends. Passive aggressive and drama people are too much like work to deal with socially.
Trey
I don't think of passive-aggression as girlish behavior because so many males do it.
It's what people do when they don't confront directly. Either because they're afraid of the blowback, or because they won't get results from direct confrontation; or because they're too lazy to have an actual discussion, or don't want to hear the other side of what's ticking them off ["But I don't want to do the laundry, and don't think I should have to." "Do you think I want to do it? Do you not wear clothes?"]; or because they lack the self-insight to see that they're doing it, which I think is the case a lot of times. This isn't really gender-specific.
Laura:
I've seen lots of women be passive aggressive but in all my years I have never seen a man act this way until a couple of years ago and now I am experiencing it pretty frequently. Maybe it has something to do with the male anger mentioned by Shaunti Feldhahn in the linked article. Perhaps our society feels verbal or physical outbursts are not acceptable in older people so the need to act out angrily is manifesting itself differently in older men. Women tend to be passive aggressive because of some womens' desire to exhibit their discomfort with a situation without appearing confrontational or unpleasant, but that is another topic for discussion.
Cham:
Might it be the continuing feminization of men in American society, where they are encouraged to think of themselves as victims and adopt what we typically think of as feminine fighting strategies?
(Have you noticed any dates ... "withholding" their affections/attentions over unusually small matters, which for years women were reported to do? "Not tonight dear. I have a headache" excuses? If so, we might be on to something here... like those deformed frogs they are finding poisoned by the hormones and pharmaceuticals in the water and processed foods...)
My dates don't hold their affections over unusually small matters, our relationships would be cut short if they did that. However, I am going to have think about this question about the men I know thinking themselves as victims. Up to this point I haven't noticed any men doing this and, among my single female friends they don't do it either. I will say this, however, if you want to see a sad helpless victim look no further than an older woman in a new romantic relationship. Some of them play that helpless victim card to an extreme around their new man.....Bandage my toe, carry my backpack, I'm too tired to make dinner, rub my back, bring the car to me, Cham is mean, I feel hurt blah blah blah.
Cham: “Perhaps our society feels verbal or physical outbursts are not acceptable in older people so the need to act out angrily is manifesting itself differently in older men.”Directing angry verbal and physical outbursts towards women can often work out very poorly for both parties, regardless of age.
There actually is a middle ground between angry outbursts and passive-aggression.
It's called having self control and acting like a grownup.
"It's called having self control and acting like a grownup."Can you give me an example of a controlled, grownup, angry physical outburst by a man, directed at a women?
Laura,
There is a lot of pressure on men not to escalate with women. If you escalate with the wrong woman, you can go to jail. A man can get pounded on by a woman, simply hold her arms to stop her, and go to jail. Some men also know that they have a temper and they don't want to escalate for that reason.
The only route to express anything with inconsiderate women who could escalate things is passive aggression, although I think the better course is NOT to express anything to women who could escalate things.
But you don't care about any of that. You just have your opinions about how men should act based on you being a woman and how the world treats you as a woman.
Words Twice, I'm confused by your question.
I would have said that an angry outburst typically indicates a lack of self control. And that passive-aggression is an immature way of dealing with conflict. So I'm not sure what you're asking me to give you an example of.
JG, please stop the mind reading. You are not good at it.
Why would a man want a relationship with a woman who acts in such a way that he feels he has to escalate? Walk away. If I were to play your trick of mind-reading I'd say that you see a normal relationship as a pitched battle. I see it as a mutually beneficial and pleasant partnership.
"I see it as a mutually beneficial and pleasant partnership."
------
Well, that's because you are superior to me in anything involving a relationship. You are only involved in mutually beneficial and pleasant partnerships. You are strong, you are invincible, you are woman.
But aside from that, you are not addressing my point at all. You are superimposing your experiences as a woman on a man. I assume that's the reason for your utter cluelessness.
And, frankly, if a man were to walk away from every relationship with a woman who acts in such a way that he feels he has to escalate - the human race would die out.
But, Laura, if we were debating this on Oprah, I'm sure the studio audience would cheer your statements and then boo me when I started to speak.
"I see it as a mutually beneficial and pleasant partnership."
---
And further: Most (older) men simply want to have peace and quiet in a relationship. That's probably why you view a relationship as a mutually beneficial and pleasant partnership.
Many women DON'T act that way for the most part in a relationship. They don't want peace and quiet, they want to stir things up. They want some drama. They want to provoke the man into an angry outburst so they known he has emotion for them (or possibly, in a darker vein: so they know that he can be manipulated).
And when you have the combination of a man who works all day (who REALLY wants peace and quiet because he's been battling all day) and the sit-at-home princess (who is just spoiling for some drama - the kind she saw on The View and Judge Judy), then the fun starts.
In any case, men experience life differently than woman. I think that's true.
Laura and others here don't seem to be able to grasp that. Or they just don't care, because their opinions are gold.
JG, I've only ever really had one relationship.
I am strong, invincible? Well, thanks for the compliment, but I don't know what you're basing it on.
Don't know about Oprah. I don't watch it. Apparently you do. Whatever floats your boat.
Anyway, I don't know what your point is, exactly, except that you don't seem to like me, which I already knew. So I don't know what you want me to address. Do you want me to say that sometimes a man needs to slap a woman and it's a damn shame that he can't? Or what? Tell me what you want me to say and I'll see if I can endorse it or not.
"Or they just don't care, because their opinions are gold."
???
Do you not think that your opinions are valid? Surely you do. Are you complaining because I think my opinions are valid? JG, if I didn't think my opinions were valid, I'd have to change them. Or is "gold" a code word for something else?
Laura: ”I'm confused by your question.”Sorry, I should have directed that question to Cham. JG already explained where I was going with this. It would be nice if every relationship was perfect and all conflict was resolved with zen-like calm, but they aren't, and the fact is that the laws and women's attitudes encourage passive-aggression. Our society tends to frown on active-aggression towards women.
I find it strange that in some of the comments here, it sounds like the women are pining for a Ralph Kramden type. To the moon, Alice!
Dang, Words Twice. Do you not see any other alternative besides physical violence and passive-aggression?
"Do you not see any other alternative besides physical violence and passive-aggression?"
------
Yes, absolute obeyance to the woman. Or avoidance of the woman. Either you oppose her, or you don't, or you don't get around her.
Seriously, Laura, I'm having difficulty buying your personal anecdotes about your great relationships because you come off here as a nag and a person who just chips away without wanting to understand anything.
Hand-holding agreement on all issues only goes so far. At some point, a man and a woman are going to conflict on something that is important to both of them. The pressure from society today is not only that the man doesn't slap the woman (I'm OK with that), but that he doesn't even offer any opposition at all.
Last time for Clueless Laura: You seem to be coming from a position of how the world treats YOU as a woman, and not from a position of how the world could possibly treat other people, i.e. men.
Laura: “Do you not see any other alternative besides physical violence and passive-aggression?”No, no, I certainly do see alternatives, and I agree with your earlier comment about a middle ground. However, when I read things like: “...adopt what we typically think of as feminine fighting strategies...” and “Perhaps our society feels verbal or physical outbursts are not acceptable in older people so the need to act out angrily is manifesting itself differently in older men.”, I have to point out the absurdity and obliviousness in statements like that. The fact is, if a woman can articulate that she felt afraid or threatened during an argument, she has footing to take legal action that can have serious, life altering repercussions for the man. You don't think this has any effect on how men approach conflict with women?
How is it that I am a nag? Because I don't defer to your superior wisdom?
"The pressure from society today is ... that he doesn't even offer any opposition at all."
Where in the hell are you getting that? Where? What pressure are you talking about? Seriously.
You are in a relationship - the woman does something that irritates you - you say "I wish you wouldn't [slam my car door like that because you'll tear up the hinge]" and society frowns? Really?
"I have to point out the absurdity and obliviousness in statements like that."
You realize that it was not me making those statements.
"I wish you wouldn't [slam my car door like that because you'll tear up the hinge]"
--------
And then the woman simply stops that behavior, never does it again, and never brings up that you asked her to do something.
I doubt that even YOU act that way, let alone "other women".
Why don't you date some women for a while and then report back here?
But that would be a cool dream world: You just calmly ask the woman to do something and she does it. Perfectly and with no complaints or opposition. No resistance on her part because she has to show that she's not "obeying" you. No need for her to show you that you are not the boss, not in any way, shape or form.
Huh.
OK, Laura, I'm going to live in that world from now on.
"And then the woman simply stops that behavior, never does it again, and never brings up that you asked her to do something."
Well, ideally she does. I do. I have to, if I expect the same from my spouse. But that's not the point you were making, is it? The point you were making is that society frowns upon men who treat women in any way except passive-aggression.
"Why don't you date some women for a while and then report back here?" Er, because I'm not a lesbian? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"OK, Laura, I'm going to live in that world from now on."
Why don't you.
Laura: "You realize that it was not me making those statements."
Yes, and I already apologized for that in my earlier reply; but while we are on the topic, what do you think about those statements, and do you understand where I (and JG) are coming from? You don't think this has any effect on how men approach conflict with women?
But seriously, JG, I have to ask.
Suppose that a woman asks you to stop slamming her car door. Suppose further that you don't consider what you did to be slamming, exactly, just maybe closing pretty firmly. Would you argue that you didn't slam the door, or keep closing it the way you had been (or maybe even a little harder) or would you just close it a little more gently because she asked you to?
Cham:
Okay. Mary said:
"Might it be the continuing feminization of men in American society, where they are encouraged to think of themselves as victims and adopt what we typically think of as feminine fighting strategies?"
Here is an example of the use of passive-voice that I truly dislike, because it's weasly. Since you asked my opinion. "They are encouraged to think...." Who is encouraging them? Why are they compelled to think the way whoever it is seems to want them to? And I don't think they really are compelled. I just have more respect for men than to think that they all let themselves be jerked around like that. The ones I know don't.
And I don't think of passive-aggression as a typical feminine fighting strategy - as earlier stated, men do it too.
Also, I'm not sure about the "feminization" of men. For every Alan Alda, surely there's a Clint Eastwood.
“Perhaps our society feels verbal or physical outbursts are not acceptable in older people so the need to act out angrily is manifesting itself differently in older men.”
There we go with that anonymous "society" again. I don't think verbal or physical outbursts are really acceptable in anyone, or are more acceptable in younger people. And if there is a "need to act out angrily" that sounds more like be a response to some inner turmoil or an emotional disorder rather than a relationship problem.
I get all the passive aggressive I care to handle just driving the interstates going to job sites and meetings.
I still think it should be legal for those of us who often have to travel by auto to be allowed rocket launchers and machine guns mounted on the front of our vehicles.
br, better phasers - then there is no debris.
Laura: “And I don't think of passive-aggression as a typical feminine fighting strategy - as earlier stated, men do it too.”Men do it too, but men seem to be more comfortable with direct confrontation. As pointed out previously, when dealing with women, direct confrontation can involve special risks.
You never did get to my other question: you don't believe that domestic violence or sexual harassment laws and the way they are interpreted have any effect on how men might approach conflict with women?
Hm.
Well, one way they might affect the way a man approaches conflict is that he might think twice before offering violence or harassment.
I'm sure there are women who would make false accusations to get men in trouble. Just as there are men who beat the living daylights out of their women because they can. I can only suggest that both men and women have some discernment about the person they make themselves vulnerable to.
I think I'm missing something here.
During the OJ trial I went to buy a sandwich for lunch. The black women behind the counter were angrily discussing the unfairness of the way OJ was being treated. One of them called on me to agree that there isn't a woman alive who can honestly say that her man hasn't threatened to kill her at some point. When I couldn't agree she treated me with contemptuous disbelief. I thought, I do not comprehend your world at all.
I guess I don't understand exactly what you mean by "direct confrontation". You don't mean a man opening his mouth and expressing his desire for something to change, do you? Can you give me an example of what you do mean?
"Well, one way they might affect the way a man approaches conflict is that he might think twice before offering violence or harassment."
That's not really the issue. If a woman can say she was afraid, even if no threats of violence were made, that's already DV under VAWA and similar laws.
There's no way that these laws have not impacted the way men interact with women -- at least the ones who are not daft and do not want to go to prison.
Laura: “I can only suggest that both men and women have some discernment about the person they make themselves vulnerable to.”If only we all had clairvoyance.
Under those conditions (the constant possibility of false accusation), it is not hard to see why passive-aggression might be considered the safer outlet, rather than the direct confrontation that some women claim that they prefer. I am not saying that I myself prefer that route, but I can certainly understand it.
Laura: “I guess I don't understand exactly what you mean by "direct confrontation". You don't mean a man opening his mouth and expressing his desire for something to change, do you?”You really are astonishingly naive, or intentionally obtuse.
Once again: if a woman can articulate that she feels afraid or threatened during an argument, she has footing to take legal action that can have serious, life altering repercussions for the man. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be halfway convincing.
"You really are astonishingly naive, or intentionally obtuse."
----------
She gets away with it because she CAN.
Really disgusting. I don't even talk to women like that.
"Once again: if a woman can articulate that she feels afraid or threatened during an argument, she has footing to take legal action that can have serious, life altering repercussions for the man. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be halfway convincing."
That's it? That's all you got?
Heck, words twice, by your argument a woman is forced into passive-aggression because any man she crosses can beat the crap out of her. Right? What's the diff?
Novaseeker, "that's not really the issue" - I was answering a direct question.
The difference is that in both cases the man goes to prison.
Laura: “...by your argument a woman is forced into passive-aggression because any man she crosses can beat the crap out of her. Right?”Well, potentially, yes. This is why it is usually seen as a feminine strategy.
Maybe you really are that naive.
Novaseeker, so you agree that men cannot just directly express their concerns? They are forced into passive-aggression because women make false accusations?
Words twice, I don't fear being beaten if I'm not passive-aggressive. And I don't see the men around me fearing talking to me directly. If living without fear of other human beings who have demonstrated their ability to act in a civilized manner is naivete then I think I'll embrace it. It's worked for me for 48 years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura: “If living without fear of other human beings who have demonstrated their ability to act in a civilized manner is naivete then I think I'll embrace it.”I take it back, you are naïve AND obtuse. You are incapable and/or unwilling to address the real point here.
I am done with this thread.
"It's worked for me for 48 years."
--------
That's probably because - like many women - you have been shielded from reality.
That's also how housewives survive.
You are just an irritating woman. That's all.
And if any outside women who wonder why men clam up and don't express themselves are reading this: Picture dealing with this woman (Laura) in real life with her constant drip-drip-drip of nonsense and fairy-tale-world crap.
I don't understand why any man would want to be around that crap, let alone be in a relationship with her, but plenty of men are in relationships with clueless women like that.
And even worse, many men are paying for women like that and protecting them from the real world.
It almost boggles the mind. These women are worthless. Absolutely worthless.
They are at best capable of rerouting money from the man to the advertisers of Oprah.
Tether, I thought you didn't talk to women like me.
Words twice, you do remind me of those women behind the counter.
"Novaseeker, so you agree that men cannot just directly express their concerns? They are forced into passive-aggression because women make false accusations?"
Yes, I think that this has had a substantial impact on the way that men express themselves to women. The threat is always there -- I can tell you as a man, it is quite stifling, and it does impact my behavior in terms of avoiding any kind of direct confrontation with women at all times.
"...it does impact my behavior in terms of avoiding any kind of direct confrontation with women at all times."
So if you were trying to reach the Cheerios, and if I were standing in your way woolgathering, you couldn't ask me to move. You'd have to drop something heavy on my foot and say "gosh I'm sorry". Wow.
Not necessarily that, but avoid the situation -- as in wait until you are out of the way. Something like that.
I see it all the time at work -- men do not confront women, because there is no benefit to doing so, and only downside. You'll be in a business meeting with a mixed group of male and female executives, and there will be a lively discussion with the women participating fully, but the women are never confronted or contradicted directly by the men -- whereas men will immediately do so with another man. The women's comments will be addressed indirectly, sideways, very soft-pedaled and so on. Then after the meeting the men go back to their offices, close the doors, and complain maybe about what the women said and so on, but they won't confront directly.
The same holds true in many personal relationships.
Novaseeker,
I agree.
It's also rational behavior today on the part of men. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
The enemy is not necessarily feminists, it is absolutely and directly the (few) chivalrous male enablers of them. Those are mostly men in positions of power who think it's great to slam down other men to curry favor with women. A specific example is Joe Biden.
Long and short, people are a pain in the ass. The older I get, the less I want to interact with them. Yes doesn't necessarily mean yes, no doesn't necessarily mean no - etc. As I've aged, coupled with what I've been through, my ability to "let the rough side drag" has been greatly diminished.
If someone of the opposite sex means enough to you, one might put up with the quirk here and there. I guess quirks are in the eye of the beholder, too (A little humor there).
Of course, one can see my own impeccable logic and perfect qualities manifested above. Were everyone only more like me........
This has turned into a relatively interesting discussion. Somewhere along the line someone said that there is a middle ground between a verbal outburst and passive aggressive behavior when it comes to disagreement.
I don't believe that an adult discussion is necessarily "middle ground" but one of many ways of approaching conflict, other paths would include verbal outburst and passive aggressive behavior. Some of the commenters here are under the impression that the only way to mediate conflict is through either verbal outburst or passive aggressiveness.
When we are in our formative years we often find ways to deal with conflict that work for us, because the family dynamic includes verbal(or physical) outbursts or passive aggressiveness. Then as adults we unconsciously incorporate those tools into our new relationships only to learn our way of approaching conflict resolution either doesn't work or compromises the relationships. What ensues is frustration and confusion.
There are so many better alternatives to these dysfunctional conflict resolution approaches. It's not an either/or situation at all. Direct adult discussions without verbal outbursts can be very effective, but this can be a learned skill. Maybe I am under the crazy assumption that old dogs CAN learn new tricks, but we have to make the effort.
It is nice to watch the conversation and not be slammed for disagreeing with some of you.
Laura, you are one of the most patient posters I have read. But I am not sure you will get anywhere with some of the others if you do not capitulate and agree that all women are shit.
Strike that, you would still get nowhere.
The key is to develop your self control and get in a relationship with a partner who also has done so. They you work out your difficulties. It has worked for me and my wife for 10 years and 4 children.
Having help from the Lord is also a big plus.
Treu
"But I am not sure you will get anywhere with some of the others if you do not capitulate and agree that all women are shit.
Strike that, you would still get nowhere."
I've already concluded that. I will never agree that all women are shit, any more than I would agree that all men are, so I am resigned to not getting anywhere with some of the others. If those some were all, I wouldn't comment here ever again. But they are not all.
Novaseeker, so if you asked me to move out from in front of the Cheerios, or if the men at your workplace opened their mouths in the presence of women, you actually fear the police being called and having to go to jail? Remember, this is the point you all are calling on me to get. As near as I can tell.
Let's talk about disagreement within a business meeting, because that is a good subject.
Novaseeker says:
"I see it all the time at work -- men do not confront women, because there is no benefit to doing so, and only downside. You'll be in a business meeting with a mixed group of male and female executives, and there will be a lively discussion with the women participating fully, but the women are never confronted or contradicted directly by the men -- whereas men will immediately do so with another man. The women's comments will be addressed indirectly, sideways, very soft-pedaled and so on."I have to deal with a group of people on a daily basis, we disagree from time to time and few people has a problem with it. However, within the group there is one man who often brings excellent ideas and feedback to the group discussion, however, every time he makes a comment it often starts with a, "You are an idiot because....." or "You are totally wrong and let me explain why....". This man has tested my patience to the point where I completely avoid speaking to him, and will take my discussions out of earshot from this man because I find his approach aggressive and repulsive. This man is constantly getting into anger-based conflict among our group participants.
There is a bit of an art form to successful business meeting etiquette, and what might count as lively discussion with conflict and contradiction to some might be perceived as rude and obnoxious behavior to others.
"Novaseeker, so if you asked me to move out from in front of the Cheerios, or if the men at your workplace opened their mouths in the presence of women, you actually fear the police being called and having to go to jail?"
In a sense, yes. It's not likely that I would be sent to jail over the cheerios, but if you get into a habit of directly confronting women, it can lead to issues down the line -- an emotional argument where you directly confront a woman *can* land you in jail. I think you do not understand this risk because as a woman you do not face it.
And in the workplace, anything that creates a "hostile work environment" is also something that can get you in trouble -- at the very least, lose your job. So it's best to avoid conflicts with women -- and this is what I see men doing every single day. As JG said, this is rational behavior under the circumstances.
It may be that the likelihood of any one confrontation going badly for the man is low, but over the course of a lifetime that isn't the case, and the penalties for when it goes badly are punitive enough that it does alter the calculus of behavior.
I tend to avoid passive aggressive behaviors, because I can't be bothered with them. But I do actively avoid conflict, and I can imagine that others simply go passive-aggressive rather than avoid.
"There is a bit of an art form to successful business meeting etiquette, and what might count as lively discussion with conflict and contradiction to some might be perceived as rude and obnoxious behavior to others."
I wasn't referring to calling people names (which is not done in my company when people are addressing people of either sex), but rather the different ways that men communicate with other men, as compared with other women. Very often -- most often, in my observations -- it's quite different, and the communication from men to women is much more indirect and guarded than it is to other men.
Novaseeker:
You've got me thinking about how I deal with other women. In my professional life I don't deal with other women at all. I am the only woman among about 200 men. But I do have a group that I meet with on occasion which does have women. When we meet the women tend to occupy a table in the middle of the room and the men and me sit on the perimeter. The women rarely speak up and I guess I tune them out.
Perhaps I don't do well with women, did I ever tell you guys about the "I hate Cham" party? I managed to upset so many local women a couple of years ago they got organized and had an event. I was busy so I couldn't attend.
TMink -
What I see here is mostly men trying to explain why they try to avoid conflict with women. And from my point of view, a lot of the statements are dead on target. They are reality.
And then you have to butt in with your assertion / interpretation that it's just men saying all women are shit.
Then you go on to brag about how something has worked for you.
So I think you see yourself as the chivalrous hero once again, but I think the reality is that you are either a dense twit or you are intentionally misinterpreting things for your own agenda (which probably involves boosting your own ego in some way).
Sorry, but you are really a piece of work.
And no, TMink, I'm not going to respond to your very sensitive question about how I feel about all of this. So don't bother asking.
k' thx!
"When we meet the women tend to occupy a table in the middle of the room and the men and me sit on the perimeter. The women rarely speak up and I guess I tune them out.
Perhaps I don't do well with women, did I ever tell you guys about the "I hate Cham" party? I managed to upset so many local women a couple of years ago they got organized and had an event. I was busy so I couldn't attend."
There is a phenomenon like this I have noted as well. Some women -- perhaps after years of exposure to men in mostly male work environments, or perhaps due to other factors -- find themselves relating better to men than to women. My ex-wife is like this. She openly says she prefers to work with men -- she prefers a very direct style of communication and gives and takes -- and gets really frustrated in very "female" situations like meetings with teachers and PTAs and things like that ... it literally drives her nuts when she is dealing with other women, so she says.
I expect that this has something to do with innate personality type as well as sex -- with some women naturally feeling an easier rapport with men than women, and some men feeling an easier rapport with women than men.
"It's not likely that I would be sent to jail over the cheerios, but if you get into a habit of directly confronting women, it can lead to issues down the line -- an emotional argument where you directly confront a woman *can* land you in jail. I think you do not understand this risk because as a woman you do not face it."
The risk a woman might face, and the reason why we must choose our partners carefully, is that if we cross a man with no self-control at a bad moment, we risk being beat up. That's been a fact of life for women pretty much forever, and in parts of the world it's still considered normal. So from what you're saying, women's fear of being beat up is now bookended by men's fear of being falsely accused. Right? The playing field is now level?
It would be level if the accusations were limited to actual violence. They are not. The mere subjective perception of fear is in itself domestic violence. That's not a level playing field at all.
And in any case, it's a key reason why we see men adopting strategies of dealing with conflict with women -- either avoiding that conflict (which is my approach) or some kind of passive-aggressive approach.
"The mere subjective perception of fear is in itself domestic violence."
I think people who run women's shelters would agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
Whoops, I think I misunderstood you. But it's kind of the same thing, isn't it? Your subjective fear that you may be accused falsely, even by some woman who has given you no indication that she might do so, causes you to change your behavior, so it is itself a kind of violence.
My point is that if one wants to understand why some men are less interested in confronting women directly, one must look at the law. A smart man is aware of the law and the problems with it -- men have been tossed from their homes for raising their voices in an argument, for example. So adaptation to those laws results in changed behaviors. It really is as simple as that in many cases.
Target wrote: "What I see here is mostly men trying to explain why they try to avoid conflict with women."
That part is not problematic. It is the blanket, sexist comments about all men or all women that are the problem.
Then when I disagree with you, you insult me. Same as it ever was. It is boring and repetitive.
I would ask you how you feel if I had any hope that you could respond in any way other than attacking people who do not agree with you on this subject. But I see no reason to do that based on your posts.
So you are offended that I have a happy marriage? Dude, you are wound way too tight on this issue. Way too tight.
But your response completely validates my assertion, so I guess thanks for that. I was kinda counting on it.
Trey
Laura your contention that men and women are now on an equal playing field is false. Being a commenter here I'm sure you've read the links dr Helen has posted showing both women and men physically assault their partners. And Law enforcement typically dismisses complaints lodged by male victims. The playing field now stands with women able to assault their partners with impunity and with the ability to bring the force of the justice system to bear against men using very low standards of evidence. This is not a level playing field. I am a young guy, but I always have this in mind when I'm calculating risk/reward of entering or continuing relationships with women.
Thanks for this Dr. Helen. I'm a pastor and have had the standard counseling classes that come with the training, plus I've been to umpteen seminars and read many more books on relationships. The message I hear the most when it comes to relationships is that men just need to be more like women. So thanks for giving a different point of view.
Troy, Novaseeker said:
"It would be level if the accusations were limited to actual violence."
In other words, if the accusations were all deserved.
But women who are subjected to violence don't all deserve it, do they? So I'm still not seeing a tremendous difference.
And it's not true that women never are held accountable for DV that they perform.
"In other words, if the accusations were all deserved.
But women who are subjected to violence don't all deserve it, do they? So I'm still not seeing a tremendous difference."
Not if the accusations were "deserved". A woman can lie about whether she was hit, or she can lie about whether she felt scared. The latter should not be the basis of DV. A man can never get a woman arrested by alleging he felt scared. That is not a level playing field.
I found a quote in the book that resonates most with me, "'He needs to learn to relate the way I do,' we're trying to make him into a girl and men just aren't wired that way." It doesn't really apply to my intimate relationships, but it does exemplify the relationship I had with 3 female supervisors in counseling internship. They were all trying to get me to "feel what the client was feeling." I was like, "it is not in my capacity to do so..." but they didn't care saw it as being stubborn and kept pushing me to do it. After two semesters of counseling clients, they realized they were trying to change me to seem more like them. The outcomes for my clients were excellent despite my lack of emotional empathy. I used cognitive empathy and a problem solving approach and my clients kept coming back for more! Frankly women who are in positions of power and expect me to act and relate like them scare me. I AM NOT A FEMALE...please don't expect me to be one!
I am reminded of an issue of Newsweek a couple or few years back. The cover heading for the leading story of that week's rag stated that it has been scientifically verified that men and women think differently, the brains are wired differently.
Well, duh. Or as they say in Carolina, duh-huh.
I have heard much rumbling of the feminizing of America. I don't disagree that is where we are going. Not in the way way we men are to dress, but in the way we seem to be directed to think and act. As Miles said, forget it. I can't do it, it's not in me. I'm not female, and my brain simply does not function in that manner.
If feminizing means to "feel what the client is feeling" then I don't think I want to be feminized either.
When I was first promoted to a supervisory position, my boss's boss sent me for management training. He said that technical people don't know how to deal with people - they can deal with things, but not people. That training and some followup training that the company did proved very useful to me, not only in the workplace but in parenting and other areas. And having dealt with lots of technical people who became managers and never got training, I have to say I think he was right.
There are things one can insist upon from employees. I can't tolerate falsification of data. Have to have team players - no back-stabbing or sabotage, no using the last of something without triggering more being ordered, or leaving one's mess for someone else without a damn good reason. Methods and procedures have to be followed as written - I've run across people who were constitutionally unable to do that, and they can't work for me in the lab. But these things are behaviors. It's unethical to try to change another person at the core. How could you think you know better than they how they should think or feel? The most you should do is to try to set a good example. That's why I'm kind of flabbergasted at the idea that a woman (or man - see Henry Higgins) should think that other people should change and be like them. Or that it's right for them to try to force that.
TMink,
If I had to rate all of the university fields according to the ratio of intelligence to ego, I would put psychologists / therapists dead last. That means low intelligence, extremely high ego.
I would put physics people first (high intelligence / moderate ego).
I was in neither of those fields. Those are my observations in life.
But you take the cake, dude. You have an immense ego. I will stop now before I get really insulting.
Laura,
Do you just like to talk or something?
There were a number of very insightful points made here, and they just flew over your head like a 747.
You are so stuck in your own little role in life it's not funny. You can't even be bothered with the idea that other people have different experiences in life. What a silly woman.
I think in fairness to Laura that she seems to be a science type, and science type women are tending more to be, for lack of a better word, "male brained".
I know my ex is like that, and much prefers to deal with men. I told her I thought she was male brained, and she disagreed ... but eventually agreed. At least in terms of preference.
Tether, you're a hoot. You single out just about everyone at one time or another, and tell them what's wrong with them. I believe it was my turn a couple weeks back. Am I up for rotation again any time soon? I just want a heads up so I can go out and get some popcorn and cokes. I'm sure you'll have much to say.
Hey, I've got an idea; pull a mirror off a nearby wall and set it in front of yourself. Look at the reflection you see (if there is one) and rip into that person for a while. Feel free to post all the comments you come up with on this thread.
Sometimes you have some good points. It is not necessary to get personal all the time. Most guys I've met like you are about 5 foot 5, weigh about 140 to 150 and couldn't punch their way out of a beauty parlor. I'll bet you voted for Obama. I'm off for popcorn. Make it worth my trip to the store and back.
Laura wrote: "But women who are subjected to violence don't all deserve it, do they? So I'm still not seeing a tremendous difference."
People who assault their partner deserve to be punished for it, and nobody deserves to be attacked and violated by their spouse, we all agree with that. I think the difference is how easy it is for a woman to make a false accusation and ruin a man's life with it. Men cannot do that in the current legal climate. And there is precious little punishment when a woman does it.
The difference as I see it is this: the abusive partner actually did something wrong, the falsely accused are innocent, but out of luck. That is one of the chilling aspects of the legal system for men Laura.
You and I agree that it is imperative for both groups to choose their partners CAREFULLY, but men do not have the same power to use and abuse in family courts.
I wish nobody had it to abuse.
In my divorce, the former Ms. TMink told the judge that I had been writing abusive and harassing emails. She was looking to take our daughter out of state and cut my time down from half to every other weekend, claiming I was an abusive man and an unfit parent. The context was that I was my daughter's primary attachment figure as her mom had trouble accepting the intense neediness of an infant and young child.
The judge started to get on me about it, accepting what the other attorney said without proof, when my attorney asked the judge to read one of the emails chosen at random. In it I was very appropriate and telling my soon to be x that I would pray for her health and work out whatever visitation she needed while she recovered from a surgery.
The judge looked at the wife over her glasses and asked her if she even knew what abuse meant. I think it won the case for me and my daughter.
But what would have happened had my attorney let the slander stand? If the judge had not taken the time to read a single email?
My daughter would have been moved out of state and I would have had to restart my career as I followed her to get every other week visitation. This from a mom who was diagnosed as bipolar and had been hospitalized for it. I married the woman, so I take some responsibility for the fallout. But our child was innocent and should have been protected.
It is frightening for men in family court, especially decent men who love and protect their children. And that is difficult to convey just how frightening it is to have a woman slander you as an abusive monster, knowing that many judges will require no proof before accepting the lie and ripping the children from a loving dad.
Trey
I'm glad things worked out for you in court, Trey. I work with a woman whose husband has spent a lot of money trying to get and keep custody of his son from an earlier relationship in a similar circumstance. That ex apparently has some mental problems as well, and my coworker is under a constant state of stress about her stepson's situation.
I've also worked with a woman whose ex's family was all buddies with the nomenclatura in the court system and who couldn't get a fair deal in visitation with her daughter; they had money, she didn't, and they were able to bring ridiculous charges for her to fight (poisoning for instance, which somehow they were able to allege in court even though the police were never called or criminal charges filed) until she and her parents ran out of money.
I guess it's my "male brain". I am going back to one point that was made. I get that men fear being accused without reason. Women have been beaten up (men too, but mostly women) without reason. Men have been at the mercy of courts who might agree with an angry spouse. Women have been at the mercy of the fist-end of an angry spouse. I'm not seeing that big a difference between your experience of fear that a policeman might knock on the door if you tick off the wrong woman, and a woman's experience of fear of being beaten up if she ticks off the wrong man. And I'd ask you to compare mortality rates on those two possible outcomes to see whose fear might be greater.
Not that I live in fear. I refuse to.
You are making the point that the female accusers have the court system on their side. Well, that's not always been the case, even for female accusers who are telling the truth. We're seeing a pendulum swing back from the day when a woman had to be meek as a lamb and pure as the driven snow to have any credibility before the court. Because otherwise the tendency was for the court to find a way to say that she provoked the violence.
I was chit-chatting with the maintenance manager yesterday, not about this subject, but somehow he brought up a female student who worked for him in a work-study when he did maintenance at a university. She was walking down a set of steps one day, a male student she didn't know was sitting on the ledge next to the steps, and as she passed him he grabbed her butt. She turned around and socked him with her fist, right between the eyes. Well, she had to go to the dean, who asked her if she wasn't dressing or walking provocatively. "I don't care if I was stark naked," she told him, "he had no right to touch me." The man who was telling me this story was still indignant about that dean. And there have always been men who have thought that kind of thing was wrong, but surely you agree that women have not always been able to feel that the court is on their side.
Back in Memphis, four years ago, I actually witnessed a woman being forced into a car by two men. She was screaming, "no, no, I don't want to go". One of them had her by the hair and the two of them managed to get her in that car. I kind of risked my life pulling out my cell phone and trying to get the license plate number and all while this was going on. One of the men started yelling at me about that, and a man came out of a golf shop with a club to make him leave me alone. They sped off and we called the police. The police never came ... my husband checked on that and was told that it probably was a domestic dispute, as if that's never a concern. Yes. It's true. I was there. I've wondered ever since what happened to her. And if it had been me or my daughter ... well, we have the advantage of being white, so it's possible the police would have cared and come looking for us. I guess.
So I'm sorry for your fear. I'm sorry for women's fear too. We're not meant to live this way.
Larua, I have a patient who has an antisocial cop for an ex husband. He works for the court in her county, her situation is a nightmare too.
"And I'd ask you to compare mortality rates on those two possible outcomes to see whose fear might be greater."
No need to compare, the fear of an abusive spouse, most of them men, is huge and justified. But I think part of the disconnect is that we are talking about different issues. I do not think at all that men are the more sinned against gender, and maybe that has come across in some of the posts.
Instead, I think many of us guys are just trying to give the legal system injustice some of the expression and public awareness that domestic violence against women has had for a couple of decades.
I see what you are saying, that it is no picnic being a woman either. I concur.
"Not that I live in fear. I refuse to." That is not a surprise, but it makes me happy to read. Good on ya sister!
"She turned around and socked him with her fist, right between the eyes." Outstanding!
"Well, she had to go to the dean, who asked her if she wasn't dressing or walking provocatively." What a pig! We agree on this type of crap completely. And that to me is part of the answer to the growing gender war, the need for people with some sense and perspective to have each other's back. "We're not meant to live this way."
Again, we are on the same team here.
The pain that drives some of the comments here does not leave room for understanding of the fear and pain of the other gender. I am not in that place, thank God, and reaching out to each other in understanding is the best answer to these problems that I can figure.
Well that and singing Kum Bah Ya. 8)
Take care of yourself, and thanks for the good conversation, it is a pleasure and a help to discuss these matters with you.
Rock on.
Trey
All Laura is doing here is playing the woman-first victimology game. And then the sensitive, chivalrous TMink rides in to agree with her.
Here are the steps in that game:
1) Feign temporary interest in the problem being asserted by the man
2) Pick some problem where women seem to have it worse
3) Hold up the two problems in comparison and show that women have it worse - as always
4) If a current problem can't be found, go back in history. Go back as far as you have to, or to foreign countries, to find good material
----
OK, Laura, I'll play:
Do you know that the number of women killed by spouses is absolutely dwarfed by the industrial accidents that kill MEN every year - killing men who have taken on these hazardous jobs so that their wives can sit on their fat behinds and watch TV.
Now add in the number of men who were DRAFTED and killed in wars, and we are getting somewhere. Drafted and killed, I might add, while the girlfriend or wife was back at home, partying her brains out on his checks and fucking the neighborhood men.
OK, honey, now it's your turn again.
Oh, I forgot:
After Step (3), insert "... and then sigh deeply"
American women are the most privileged, spoiled, entitled group of people who have ever walked the face of the earth.
The risk a woman might face, and the reason why we must choose our partners carefully, is that if we cross a man with no self-control at a bad moment, we risk being beat up. That's been a fact of life for women pretty much forever, and in parts of the world it's still considered normal.Laura, what kind of violence risk assessments do you think men have to do as a matter of course, both today and historically?
Because I can assure you that if your answer isn't much, much more serious, broad, and comprehensive than it is for women, you're grossly ignorant of what the average man's life is like in comparison. Remember, not only are men by far the majority of the targets of violence, men almost exclusively compose the group that interposes themselves first and most often between violence and the innocent, and suffer the consequences.
Virtually no one expects women to do anything about genuine violence from those with poor self-control. But virtually everyone does expect it of men.
I'm going to break it down for you in simple terms: you spend way too much time here trying to defend your poor behavior, and nowhere near enough on trying to cure the ignorance that causes it. Said ignorance being your lack of comprehension of the male experience of life as distinct from that of the female, which is blatant in its display and grotesque in its size.
The bottom line is, you lack comprehension of and empathy for men. If you choose to, you can change that. Try asking more sincere questions to help you understand the viewpoints of others, rather than insincere ones to score argumentative points for cheap personal thrills. Try accepting our points of view long enough to comprehend the reasoning behind them, rather than just until the first point where you disagree.
People dislike you around here and tear into you argumentatively because you say remarkably stupid and ignorant things in a condescending and superior manner. Consider this: Also, I'm not sure about the "feminization" of men. For every Alan Alda, surely there's a Clint Eastwood.No. It's not sure at all. In fact, it is if anything the complete opposite of sure; it is virtually indeterminable. It is, in short, meaningless childlike babble. But you produce it authoritatively as though it had both grounds and consequence.
Well, it doesn't. It's one of the stupidest freaking statements I've ever seen posted here. It means nothing. It's about as semantically valuable as argle bargle morble whoosh.
Acksiom, please ignore my comments from now on, as I shall yours. My name is at the top so it is easy to do.
No.
Again:
The risk a woman might face, and the reason why we must choose our partners carefully, is that if we cross a man with no self-control at a bad moment, we risk being beat up. That's been a fact of life for women pretty much forever, and in parts of the world it's still considered normal.Laura, what kind of violence risk assessments do you think men have to do as a matter of course, both today and historically?
Because I can assure you that if your answer isn't much, much more serious, broad, and comprehensive than it is for women, you're grossly ignorant of what the average man's life is like in comparison. Remember, not only are men by far the majority of the targets of violence, men almost exclusively compose the group that interposes themselves first and most often between violence and the innocent, and suffer the consequences.
Virtually no one expects women to do anything about genuine violence from those with poor self-control. But virtually everyone does expect it of men.
I'm going to break it down for you in simple terms: you spend way too much time here trying to defend your poor behavior, and nowhere near enough on trying to cure the ignorance that causes it. Said ignorance being your lack of comprehension of the male experience of life as distinct from that of the female, which is blatant in its display and grotesque in its size.
The bottom line is, you lack comprehension of and empathy for men. If you choose to, you can change that. Try asking more sincere questions to help you understand the viewpoints of others, rather than insincere ones to score argumentative points for cheap personal thrills. Try accepting our points of view long enough to comprehend the reasoning behind them, rather than just until the first point where you disagree.
"I'm going to break it down for you in simple terms"
If you want to converse with me you will have to stop the condescending crap.
Since that wasn't condescending ITFP, no.
Again:
The risk a woman might face, and the reason why we must choose our partners carefully, is that if we cross a man with no self-control at a bad moment, we risk being beat up. That's been a fact of life for women pretty much forever, and in parts of the world it's still considered normal.Laura, what kind of violence risk assessments do you think men have to do as a matter of course, both today and historically?
Because I can assure you that if your answer isn't much, much more serious, broad, and comprehensive than it is for women, you're grossly ignorant of what the average man's life is like in comparison. Remember, not only are men by far the majority of the targets of violence, men almost exclusively compose the group that interposes themselves first and most often between violence and the innocent, and suffer the consequences.
Virtually no one expects women to do anything about genuine violence from those with poor self-control. But virtually everyone does expect it of men.
I'm going to break it down for you in simple terms: you spend way too much time here trying to defend your poor behavior, and nowhere near enough on trying to cure the ignorance that causes it. Said ignorance being your lack of comprehension of the male experience of life as distinct from that of the female, which is blatant in its display and grotesque in its size.
The bottom line is, you lack comprehension of and empathy for men. If you choose to, you can change that. Try asking more sincere questions to help you understand the viewpoints of others, rather than insincere ones to score argumentative points for cheap personal thrills. Try accepting our points of view long enough to comprehend the reasoning behind them, rather than just until the first point where you disagree.
Laura, what kind of a response do you expect from people when you dish out your schoolmarm-bossiness?
Combine that with the fact that you truly have no idea what men's experiences are like - and a general arrogance - and people are going to bristle at your statements.
The person dishing out crap here is ... you.
JG. How am I bossy. How am I arrogant. I am stating my views. Perhaps in your world a woman shouldn't do that.
I think it's a real hoot that after you all have called me an entitled princess, clueless, naive, etc., you have got the absolute nerve to complain about my tone. Please find where I have ever been ugly to anybody as you have to me. But once again, maybe that's the kind of thing you think a woman ought to put up with.
Out here on the internets, people can get pretty rough. Helen has had her intelligence insulted on this very thread. Here, I'll copy-and-paste it before it disappears, since some people seem to like their hit-and-runs.
"Tether said...
TMink,
If I had to rate all of the university fields according to the ratio of intelligence to ego, I would put psychologists / therapists dead last. That means low intelligence, extremely high ego. ... 7:27 PM, May 15, 2009"
Evidently Helen isn't such a shrinking violet that she can't overlook such things. People who have an internet presence have to be kind of tough. Maybe you should take a leaf from her book, and not get all bent out of shape if you don't get sweet agreement with every word that comes off your keyboard.
"Do you know that the number of women killed by spouses is absolutely dwarfed by the industrial accidents that kill MEN every year"
Industrial accidents, though tragic, do not equal murder.
Trey
TMink,
The way I see it, that statement was intended to mock Laura - who ALSO compared apples to oranges in an attempt to make it look like women have it worse.
You couldn't bring yourself, apparently, to point out the contradiction to Laura. You're a swell guy.
Laura quoted Tether writing: "If I had to rate all of the university fields according to the ratio of intelligence to ego, I would put psychologists / therapists dead last."
I actually agree in spirit with Tether. I would probably put Gender Studies teachers below psychologists, but in many academic programs, there is precious little difference between the two.
Aside from being a tool for the left, much of psychology has now become a means to "explain" and appologize for wretched behavior. It makes me ill to have people in my field engage in those behaviors, but it is rampant.
Tether and I share a certain antipathy for my profession. We also agree about problems with the legal system. But he will tolerate no disagreements before getting unhinged, so the areas of agreement are practically worthless.
Trey
Laura,
I should get down on my knees and thank God (and I'm not even a person who is into formal religion) that I am not around a woman like you in real life.
I could readily see a drip-drip-drip-nag-nag-nag until a man around you just commits suicide. Ugly.
And yes, when considering the RATIO of intelligence to ego, psychologists are at the bottom: mostly due to the divisor (ego). Their ego is massive.
If we are just talking about raw stupidity (without dividing by ego), I think elementary education majors and gender studies people would be near the top of most people's lists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You are commenting on Helen's blog and saying that Helen has a massive ego compared to her intelligence. Wow. Now is thinking that that is incredibly discourteous a "woman" thing? Please tell me it isn't.
JG, you couldn't answer a single argument I made, so you just continued the ugly.
The thing about industrial accidents was actually completely off-topic. The point was made that men are in a unique position in that they have to fear false accusations of DV, so that they are forced to treat women with passive-aggression. My response was that women have had to fear the actual DV, so men aren't forced into passive-aggression in any way that women haven't been. (And that no one is actually forced; how you treat people is a choice you make. Time was when it might have been difficult or impossible for a woman to walk away from an abusive man, but now anyone can leave a relationship.)
I'd ask you to explain how industrial accidents have anything to do with this, but you couldn't, so you'd just call me ugly names again. Think I'll skip it.
Gee Laura, how can I feel like a real man who rescues damsels in distress when you keep taking care of yourself so well? Give a man driven by rescue fantasies a break, will ya? Whine, whimper, do something besides patiently and logically making your points while people surround and attack you as a human being because you disagree with their ideas. 8)
Trey
JG wrote: "The way I see it, that statement was intended to mock Laura - who ALSO compared apples to oranges in an attempt to make it look like women have it worse."
I disagreed with both of them JG. I think your reading comprehension is lacking. At least when you are so emotionally reactive it is.
Trey
Labor-related deaths may not be relevant, but overall violence still is.
So, again, Laura:
The risk a woman might face, and the reason why we must choose our partners carefully, is that if we cross a man with no self-control at a bad moment, we risk being beat up. That's been a fact of life for women pretty much forever, and in parts of the world it's still considered normal.Laura, what kind of violence risk assessments do you think men have to do as a matter of course, both today and historically?
Because I can assure you that if your answer isn't much, much more serious, broad, and comprehensive than it is for women, you're grossly ignorant of what the average man's life is like in comparison. Remember, not only are men by far the majority of the targets of violence, men almost exclusively compose the group that interposes themselves first and most often between violence and the innocent, and suffer the consequences.
Virtually no one expects women to do anything about genuine violence from those with poor self-control. But virtually everyone does expect it of men.
I'm going to break it down for you in simple terms: you spend way too much time here trying to defend your poor behavior, and nowhere near enough on trying to cure the ignorance that causes it. Said ignorance being your lack of comprehension of the male experience of life as distinct from that of the female, which is blatant in its display and grotesque in its size.
The bottom line is, you lack comprehension of and empathy for men. If you choose to, you can change that. Try asking more sincere questions to help you understand the viewpoints of others, rather than insincere ones to score argumentative points for cheap personal thrills. Try accepting our points of view long enough to comprehend the reasoning behind them, rather than just until the first point where you disagree.
"The point was made that men are in a unique position in that they have to fear false accusations of DV, so that they are forced to treat women with passive-aggression. My response was that women have had to fear the actual DV, so men aren't forced into passive-aggression in any way that women haven't been."
-Laura(southernxyl)
Men also have "to fear the actual DV."
The number of men known to have been killed by women's "actual DV" is not much different from the number of women killed; men's DV deaths are not so well reported nor as hyped in docudramas so the public isn't as aware of a man killed by a violent woman as the reverse. The number of men killed in relationship violence by aggressive women may well be higher than the number of women killed in relationship violence because of the much, much higher number of men killed whose killers are never discovered.
Just look around, services for women who make the least substantiated claims of domestic or relationship violence are everywhere and well publicized. When have you ever seen a mention in any mass media of services for men who suffer DV from women? Where does the man who is being beaten, scratched, gouged, kicked, scalded, and knifed by a woman go for DV shelter for himself and his children in your community, Laura(southernxyl)? Where are the anger management programs for women in your town and how often do your local courts order women into them as a condition of ever being reunited with their children after an accusation of DV?
Men attacked by women are not seen as victims by most people, they're seen as losers to be mocked, belittled, and despised. "A real man..." blah blah blah, the people with easy answers for their easy prejudices will opine as they blame the victim because he's a man. A woman's violence isn't considered to be violent, it's considered cute - just look around, you'll see girlfriends slapping and swatting at boyfriends but if he ever so much as raises his voice to her then she's a victim of DV or relationship violence. And has anyone ever seen an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond in which Deb didn't hit Raymond?
DV from women against men is underreported, if reported it often goes unrecorded, if recorded by the police the incident is often uninvestigated, if investigated is rarely charged, if charged the case is often dropped, if the case is brought to court it is often dismissed, if tried the verdict is often not guilty because that little lady could never really hurt that big lug (her violence is "cute" remember?), and if found guilty the sentence the guilty woman gets is often suspended. If your local police and prosecutor handled cases of DV against women that way, there would be calls from the men of the community for reform - and dismissals of the chief of police and the head of the prosecutor's office.
This is getting long so I'll just refer people to whom this is all new stuff to read up on it themselves starting with Warren Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power.
Okay, Micha Elyi. Let me see if I can summarize.
1 - Women and men have been equal victims of actual violence from each other.
2 - In addition, the courts totally side with the women when there's any dispute.
3 - Therefore, you as a man are unable to simply engage in direct dialog with any woman ("please move out from in front of the Cheerios"), you are FORCED to deal with her through either violence or passive-aggression. [I'm assuming that you are offering these points to me in the context of this thread.]
If you truly live in such fear that you cannot speak to a woman as one human to another, I am sorry for you. I'm not being snarky here. As I said to Trey up-thread, we are not meant to live like this.
What's your fixation with Cheerios, Laura?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Post a Comment
<< Home