What would you like to see females do to better handle conflict?

Vogue iconic models cover shoot
Vogue iconic models cover shoot
Vogue multicultural model story
Vogue multicultural model story

[Side note: I had to make this a myTake because of character limits, but it also somewhat suits a myTake, as far as topics go, I guess. But I'd really like to hear your suggestions (constructive, please) on what girls and women can do to better handle conflict (especially in today's turbulent and changing society where these gender power struggles seem to be louder than ever.) I am hoping that males and females will both respond and come up with some ideas and suggestions, but as history has shown, I expect much fewer females chiming in. That's just the way it goes, unfortunately.]

It seems to be one immutable truth that females just do not like conflict. Or really even any disagreement or covert aggression. This has both advantages and disadvantages, to society and to the individual.

Some Facts and Stats:

"Females earn more than 57% of undergraduate degrees and 59% of all master’s degrees. 48.5% of all law degrees and 47.5% of all medical degrees. 38% of Master of Business Administration and other generalist degrees and 49% of specialized master’s degrees. 47% of the U.S. labor force and 52.5% of the college-educated workforce. Yet they lag substantially behind men in terms of their representation in leadership positions. Women are just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs—down from a record high of 6% in 2017. 7% of top executives in the Fortune 100 companies. 10% of top management positions in S&P 1500 companies. As of January 2019: only 24% of members of Congress: 24% of the House and 23% of the Senate. 28% of seats in state legislatures. 18% of governors and, as of August 2018, only 23% of the mayors of the 100 largest American cities."

"Neuropsychological evidence suggests that women show heightened amygdala reactivity to threatening stimuli, may be better able to exert prefrontal cortical control over emotional behaviour and may consciously register fear more strongly via anterior cingulate activity."

One way that female brain physiology differs from male is in the number of connections during certain activities, particularly memory recall as it relates to past emotional events. Also, when doing tasks, men's brains are more singularly focused, where less areas of the brain light up and are activated, yet imaging heat maps show high concentrations of activity in these more limited areas. Multitasking is not the name of the game. "One thing at a time, please!" they may say, exasperated if interrupted, or overloaded with too many unnecessary or extraneous details. Female brains shower a wider spread of engagement (memory, emotion, when the individual senses are engaged - a smell, or song, again experienced can bring back a flood of emotion, or symbolic association or meaning, for instance.) So because of this higher intensity of engagement, I believe females tend to avoid certain things that will over-activate their internal system, since their mental/emotional state is so tightly tied to their physical. Of course it is with both sexes, but men tend to be superior at compartmentalizing events.

"Women are often found to be more agreeable than men (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001). This means that women, on average, are more nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic more often and to a greater extent than men. However, such a finding does not preclude the fact that men may also experience nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic states, and that some men may even score higher in these traits than some women."

When females are aggressive, it is more often passive, not active, as with men. (In essence, indirect/hidden vs. direct/overt.)

Here's my basic theory/conclusion (this is just a theory.):

Female brains have a higher-than-men stress response to threats. We humans have been on the planet for ~500,000 years, but in this basic form for ~5,000. So it is a fairly recent state of relative peace (risk of death comparatively low) that we experience, yet fear response originates from the amygdala, and this is one the most powerful and first parts of the brain to form (because it's so vital to our existence and survival), so despite general conditions changing, we are still very much beholden to our biology and physiology, moreso than environmental conditions, which are important but tend to take a back seat to the biological. (We do evolve, but slowly.) The most dangerous situations have historically been handled by men, while females' strengths were of a more psychological nature. Both sexes fulfill many practical responsibilities, but ours were of a more sensitive nature, shall we say. So I think it doesn't so much matter what the threat or aggression is, unfortunately even mild ones can cause a certain level of distress, thus most overt conflict is avoided.

So why does it matter?

* I believe this strong desire for avoidance creates an imbalance online, and in society, where men end up having greater influence. This gives less of a voice to the female population which lessens their impact on culture and change. However, online, much of this avoidance is as a result of the over-sexualized content, and men's hunger for discussion and interaction on this topic. Still, this avoidance spreads to all communication, regardless of subject or environment (whether virtual, as work colleagues, and in-person social.) Females have an equally strong voice when they choose to speak up, but they will more often only do so when they feel entirely 'safe' and comfortable, and able to handle opposition, debate, and judgement.

* It limits the types of roles that females play in society, particularly in professional environments. Certain studies show that females make excellent, sometimes even superior, leaders, as they care more about group cohesion and allowing and encouraging even less dominant voices to be heard, as well as a somewhat less competitive nature within groups. (In large staff meetings, who speaks up more?) Competitiveness in general can be attributed to both hormonal/chemical and cultural preference. Aggression is both more prized and more accepted among males than females. We, as a society, expect females to value and facilitate cohesion and exude an enduring sensitivity to the feelings and needs of others. Some would argue, to their dismay, that this is changing and exists significantly less than in the past, which is probably true. Many wish we could revert back to a time of more clear gender roles, and the classic at-all-costs supportive female, but it doesn't look like this will ever return to the way it was. We now have to find a new 'normal.'

* A unilateral avoidance of dissonance, friction, etc. tends to not resolve issues. Time can be an effective healer. But it can also create scar tissue. We all know that emotions, tempers, can run hot, and sometimes a refractory, cooling off period can be extremely beneficial, and deflate many issues before they flare up to an untenable state. A low flame is always better than a flamethrower. However feelings can fester, and a continual policy of sweeping things under the rug can just create a lumpy floor. And that's not a good foundation to build upon.

Conclusions

I don't want women to be men and men to be women. Far from it. But I do think we need to be less rigid in our expectations and demands of gender roles and behaviour. In my world and thinking, men are just as free to show pain or vulnerability, and should not have to feel as though they must muster the strength and inner fight to solely be responsible for the world's problems, or most difficult or dangerous situations. At the same time, women should be just as free to exert influence, and state their opinions even in times of philosophical opposition (in a calm, unemotional, reasonable, productive manner, of course), and show strength without being reprimanded for not being nice enough, a bitch, or a feminist. There must be a balance, an equilibrium to all this. I believe some of this is at the root of the cultural discord we are experiencing right now.

I used to be a fairly quiet person. Quiet is often a euphemism for shy, passive, lacking confidence, etc. And that would also not be untrue. It was a mistake, not speaking up more. I don't feel this way anymore. I am still very feminine, and one who abides by a pretty strong moral code of conduct, I guess you could say, yet I now have confidence that my many years of observing, listening, exploring, questioning, soul-searching, and exploration inward have, in part and collectively, resulted in me having a competent understanding of myself and the world. Particularly, culture and society (anyone who knows me knows that I bring up these concept often, especially the sea changes, which I find most interesting.)

I must be reasonable and say that I did not entirely or so strongly feel or act this way twenty years ago, in my early twenties, which is the common age of many users here and I guess on the internet or social media in general. So I say this only as a suggestion - learning to express oneself in a calm, reasonable, rational manner is one of the keys and necessities of life. Many are asking things like, "What happened to logic?" "What happened to truth?" "What happened to critical thinking?" "Where is the examined life?"

I see a lot of angry male voices here, and a lot of muted females voices. However there are many men who are wonderful people, and who have much wisdom to share, and I do honestly respect their questioning nature. And there are many females who are the same. They tend to speak much, much less often, and on unfortunately far fewer topics, but when they do speak, particularly some of the great females that I follow, I am impressed with the thoughtfulness and depth of their responses (just as with the men.) I just often wish there were more of them, who were bold enough to express their opinions as well. Because you can't develop your ideas, your thinking, if you never take them out for a test drive. Some people will challenge you, some people will attack you (and I don't agree with the unprovoked attacks, at all, but I've spoken on that already at length in other myTakes etc.), but it is honestly the only legitimate way to strengthen your world view, or to expand it, as it were.

We are not islands. We cannot close ourselves down and expect to grow. Speak to each other. Many people are sharing many things here - it is what everyone enjoys about this site, and it is quite rare, maybe even unique, I believe, online. I know, ladies, most of you don't want to be accosted, or be pm'd lewd remarks and get all sorts of nudes sent your way (men, please hear this, pass it around... very few females want unsolicited pics, or to be relentlessly hit on), and this has a huge impact on your reservation and behaviour online. But to be fair to them, you're not as involved in all the other questions not of a sexual or political or contentious nature either. See the theories why on my question What do you think is the reason (s) females answer less questions here than males? Perhaps you are more discerning, more particular, and quite frankly more bored. But you are here. You are 56% of users (thereabouts or a bit less, if you take into account false accounts that are really male pretending to be female.) So as [aversion to conflict] being one of the many reasons why you comment in much smaller numbers, I humbly recommend that you start talking more, and in that I hope you will find some more methods to deal with the inevitable conflict that will arise.

I can tell you that I initially wrote off quite a few people here, based on a few pretty heinous comments or behaviour, but I have learned that entirely disengaging is not the answer. Not the complete answer, anyway. Shield yourself (men, you are included in that as well), perhaps, from whatever you need to to retain your sanity. But don't forget that not all that challenges you is wrong or should be avoided. The act of interacting with others is sometimes unpleasant, but it is not without importance. And some people do and can change, get better, grow. I've seen it. I swear to you. Men, I hope some of you attempt to relax some, on your antagonism, to help facilitate this conversation, which you actually do want, whether it is vocalized or admitted or not. You all have the desire to share this space, to share the planet, and some of you to share your lives. As the Beatles say, "Come together." And be kind to each other. You have more in common than you are different, and recognizing the similarities and appreciating the differences is integral to sharing this space - be that GAG, or the world at large. It's a big place, and there's lots of us. Let's just try and get along, and have some fun together. Sex is great, but we have more to offer each other than just that. Right?

And if you made it to the end, through all my ramblings, here's the final thought...

Don't forget what could be.

Kiss and make up.
Kiss and make up.
And even if you go to bed mad, you can wake up and start again.
And even if you go to bed mad, you can wake up and start again.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2018/11/20/461273/womens-leadership-gap-2/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826207/

A couple of references:

What would you like to see females do to better handle conflict?
29
4
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • Lliam
    Once again, you've written an astute and deeply thought provoking MyTake, Amanda.

    I find women's perspectives to be informative. I love hearing their points of view on issues (not just sex). My wife, for example, continually surprises me with her perceptiveness and wisdom. She catches things that I don't notice and comes up with questions and observations that I wouldn't think of. What's interesting is the way she will ponder things and then calmly express her thoughts. In contrast, even though she also values my thoughts and opinions, she can sometimes get overwhelmed by the way I express them, which can sometimes appear louder and more aggressive. Typical male behavior? Then, when I see her reacting, not to my words but to my body language, I dial it back. That's the value of the feminine.

    "Certain studies show that females make excellent, sometimes even superior, leaders, as they care more about group cohesion and allowing and encouraging even less dominant voices to be heard, as well as a somewhat less competitive nature within groups." Men are better at focusing on one task at a time, avoiding distraction, sticking to the main issue, and being decisive. They are also more aggressive, not necessarily physically, but in terms of speaking up, dominating discussions, being louder, and exuding an air of dominance.

    I think both approaches have value. But the female approach is more easily run over like a pedestrian by a speeding car. Because of this, what I see is, women who succeed in business and politics tend to be those who take on male characteristics/tactics. Those who are ruthless, competitive and domineering succeed. They don't bring the uniquely female qualities that would benefit society. Unfortunately, our culture rewards male qualities. There is an imbalance.

    I don't have any idea how that can be fixed other than for both men and women to recognize the value of the female approach. We don't merely need more women in positions of power, we need more women who think and act like women.

    I applaud your appeal to women to speak up and bring their perspectives to the table. Everyone would benefit.
    Is this still revelant?
    • "Men are better at focusing on one task at a time, avoiding distraction, sticking to the main issue, and being decisive. They are also more aggressive, not necessarily physically, but in terms of speaking up, dominating discussions, being louder, and exuding an air of dominance. I think both approaches have value. But the female approach is more easily run over like a pedestrian by a speeding car."
      Exactly. All so true.

      You are a wise man, Lliam. Tell your wife I said so. I bet she's a smarty too.

  • AD240pCharlie
    12 guys, 1 girl so far...
    I guess we proved your point for you!
    Is this still revelant?
    • Yessir...

    • Hi Charlie,

      No updates allowed on myTakes so I'm tagging onto our thread here, because I'd like to post this brief but important update about conflict... or more specifically, how to be assertive without being aggressive (and this applies to both sexes, and all people.)
      Assertiveness is a dialogue that allows for input from others. Aggression is a debate — exerting power to protect oneself.

      Q: "How do I assert myself without coming across as too forceful?” "How far can I enter into the realm of what used to be 'the other' and still maintain my own?"
      This is a critical question at this moment in time.

      A: www.estherperel.com/.../how-to-be-assertive-without-being-aggressive

      Power dynamics and what it means to be in control has changed over time. If power was once hierarchical for your father or grandfather, it now lies in one’s ability to take input from others. Manhood has traditionally been predicated on a sense of autonomy and self-reliance. Today, men are embracing a realm of emotions and the benefits of interdependence vs. a forced sense of independence.

      So, shift the way you think about compromise and collaboration, and welcome dialogue. Asserting yourself with confidence will come from being open to input. You’ll be surprised by how much power comes from conversation.

      - Psychotherapist Esther Perel

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

427
  • hellionthesagereborn
    I disagree with your conclusion whole heartedly. You say women lack power and influence but the only people with it are women. Its true that women don't have direct power, but then that is just women's nature as direct power means direct threat to that power, women's power is indirect and manipulation of others. Look at what you have written, what is the underlying theme? You pointed out that men where the ones who had the dangerous jobs (and still do), indirectly alluded to how our educational system favors women (they get far more degrees then men), etc. etc. YET, how are you presenting women? You are not presenting them as equals or in fact better off (they are statistically speaking, far more then men), you are presenting them in their most powerful position they have, as victims.

    What I mean by that is simple, you are arguing that women have more education, where never expected to take on dangerous tasks and where protected by men (like worker bees protect their queen) which necessitates that men put their well being and lives at risk for the benefit of women. You point out that despite having an advantage in education (hence women having more bachelore and master degrees then men (63% of all college graduates are female despite which women get 4x the scholarships and grant programs of male students), women are not the ones working as CEO's, the jobs that average about 80 hours or more a week of work. Why? Why do they not have these jobs? They have the degrees but they CHOOSE not to get them and the same goes for women in politics, they choose this. Men also choose to do these things, why? You say its fear, okay fair enough, but why would men throw themselves into these tasks?

    Its not just fear, its the difference of values, its the difference in needs. We know for a fact that a woman's money has no baring on her desirability just as we know for a fact that it absolutely has a baring on male desirability. Again, this is a proven fact, so why not come to that conclusion? The fact is men have no inherent value and women do. If you have ten men and ten women and nine women die, you can only get one offspring, but if the inverse happens you can get ten. That means that a woman's value is greater as it pertains to reproduction then a mans. Couple that with the nine month gestation period and substantial resource and time investment of child rearing and she is even more valuable then he is because she is more invested. So what does that mean? Simple, a woman doesn't have to be successful, she just has to be good enough, a man on the other hand has to go above and beyond to get a mate.
    • So this is the reason why we see the discrepancy, women don't want these jobs and its not important when it comes to mate selection but it absolutely is vital to men for mate selection. However the reason why you did not approach it this way even though you did point out the significant advantages women have (they don't have to be sacrificed like men have, they don't have to make as much or be as powerful as men to get what men have, they don't have to work as hard and they are catered to in education and society at large (you would never use this term of course), yet you still framed it as if women where the ones being screwed over and men where the ones with the advantage. This is because women are their strongest when they appear at their weakest. Men are wired to protect and provide for women, this is triggered by neotanous traits which women have far more of then men. This magnifies the innate bias towards women that men and women both have. So women have leveraged this to their advantage gaining more rights and privileges (provably) then men by appearing weak.

    • For instance you point out that women don't use direct methods, which is largely true but only when she thinks she will suffer a reprisal. If we look, domestic violence is perpetrated by women far more then men, yet no one would ever consider this as reasonable claim despite the data. In fact our laws are designed in such a way that we only see women as victims, they are incapable of being viewed as aggressors even when they frequently are. This is the strength of women.
      I mean look, your arguing that women don't have the ability to influence society, despite the fact that they choose who reproduces and who doesn't, despite the fact that they ensure that men have to work more then them (because they refuse to marry "down"(statistics back this) and as such are the ones who raise children boys and girls and thus are the ones instilling values in them, despite the fact that they are the overwhelming majority of teachers who instill knowledge and values in the next generation, despite the fact that a woman's tears are infinitely more powerful then a mans who's are worth next to nothing. In short whether you realize it or not, you are sticking true to form, using indirect methods of acquiring substantial power, to be the one behind the power manipulating them to gain what you want while never having to run the risk of it backfiring and suffering the consequences (better to be the second in command then the one in charge, you get all the power and none of the risk).

    • I know your not going to believe me or your going to claim otherwise but lets look at the statistics:
      80% of suicides are male
      80% of homeless are male
      97% of combat deaths are male (civilian and combatant)
      93% of work place accidents and deaths are male
      70% of domestic violence victims are male (as per a Harvard study and the CDC)
      80% of emotional abuse victims in relationships are male
      .05% of domestic violence shelters are available for men
      37% of college graduates are male (and males are 4x more likely to drop out at all grade levels)
      97% of alimony is paid by men (despite 70% of all divorces being filed by women)
      80% of child support is paid by men (despite 70% of divorces being filed by women)
      84% of the time men lose custody to their own children after divorce
      63% longer sentences then women for commiting the same crime
      165% more likely to be convicted if the criminal is male
      20% of domestic spending (30% global) is by men, the other 80% of spending is done by women
      The court ruling of hermsman vs seyer states that no matter the circumstances a male is always required to pay child support, in this particular case that male was a 12 year old boy who was raped by his babysitter yet even then he was not allowed to be a victim. The list is even longer then this. Women have the power and the power they wield is that of a victim because even after all of this you and every other woman will state that really you are the victim (or that all of this is men's fault so that women are the victim and men are also the victim of men thus its all men's fault and never women's fault). Many of these laws where lobbied for by women as well.

    • Show All
  • Persephone2020
    To answer your question as clearly and honestly as I can here's a bit of background on my influences and the culture that helped shape my perception. I come from a strong southern family where weakness is frowned upon and women, although encouraged to help the men provide, generally have traditional gender roles (housewife, mother, cook etc.) while the men are expected to be strong physically, emotionally and mentally. I was raised in a Christian home by a mother that was/is strong, independent, kind, compassionate, hopeful, stubborn, primarily logical, works as hard as a man to restore our home and couldn't cook to save her life. My mom broke the traditional gender roles in our family and because she is different I view the world a little differently. She taught me that tradition can be good, but sometimes you also have to go against what tradition outlines for you to grow as a good semi-righteous person. With all that said; I think women should try to approach arguments with a calm, logical, mindset and as much as possible try to limit emotional outbursts. Nobody takes people seriously when their argument is built on pure emotion. They have to make sense. Where I come from strength is respected and men don't respect emotional women so to earn that respect especially in an argument you have to keep your emotions on a tight leash and stay calm.
    • Beautifully said. And very interesting. Thanks, Persephone!

    • You're very welcome! Have a wonderful day ma'am!

  • BlackRoseFairy
    As a woman I would say that when an argument comes up the best thing to do is to focus on the current situation. Even if you have an argument with someone you have known for years there is no point to bring out on the table something that happened 5 years ago. That's not a reasonable point to prove what you need to. Regardless to say that the other person might not even remember it.

    Also something I tend to do is to take some time to think about a matter after calming down, even if the argument got heated and accusations were thrown around. And then talk to the person again in a calm manner and sort things out.

    However experience has taught me to avoid arguing with stubbor or narrow minded people all together.
    We used to have some neighbours whom we hung out with from time to time. The father of this family was insisting that our dog should leave the house (OUR house by the way, not an apartment) because dogs shouldn't be held as pets. I argued with him a couple of times saying that the dog was happy with us and that she probably wouldn't be living now if we hadn't picked her up (We found her as a stray puppy on the street) to which he said "that's the law of nature, if she was to die then so she should" - which got me mad and fuming 😠🤬
    After having a couple of arguments of this nature, I decided to never talk to him about my dog again and when he brought up things about the dog everyone ignored him.
    • Totally agree.
      Sorry about your neighbour. I had one similar, growing up. We had two Husky puppies and an unrelated ex-show dog Malamute. We had a menagerie of animals. It was a rural area and most people were cool and relatively flexible. But we had one neighbour who lived in a house at the top of a hill and his backyard sat up against our little street. Be built a big fence around our yard eventually, to house the dogs, but... little did we know they could easily jump right over it, or dig under it. That's those breeds, for you. Very clever, and wild. They sometimes went into this guy's yard. He didn't have animals, that I remember, but he hated them doing that, so one day he just shot one of them. A lot of people in this town had guns, which I hated. Our puppy came hobbling back home, blood running down it's leg. It was a mess. We rushed it off to the vet, and it did survive, but what kind of human does these sorts of things? So yeah, I agree, some people just can't be reasoned with, and it's pointless trying.

    • 😮 What an awful person... I am glad the dog made it! Some people are definitely not worth to be called humans... 😔

  • First off, I was expecting a lot from you after reading the title and first paragraph.

    However, as a student who has written both German and English scientific texts before (very different approach but you need excellent citing for both), I laughed a little when I saw that you had only quoted ONE of your FIVE main ideas you present in the "facts and stats" part. This is not a place where people look for professional work, and also not one where facts are double-checked, but I was expecting more from you, especially when you said stuff like the following:

    "Also, when doing tasks, men's brains are more singularly focused, where less areas of the brain light up and are activated, yet imaging heat maps show high concentrations of activity in these more limited areas. Multitasking is not the name of the game. "One thing at a time, please!" they may say, exasperated if interrupted, or overloaded with too many unnecessary or extraneous details."

    I'm impressed by your English, but that's about it, where are your sources? I've never noticed a difference between the number of men and the number of women who say something along the lines of "One thing at a time, please!" There are some much fresher studies than the ones you appear to have used (for example, here are two from 2016: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10683-012-9318-8 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4610696/ ), which have found that neither men nor women are actually good at multitasking, they just think they are. I like that you mention the amygdala and would love to do some further reading on the topic, but you haven't mentioned where you drew your knowledge from.

    The same applies to this sentence:

    "Certain studies show that females make excellent, sometimes even superior, leaders, as they care more about group cohesion and allowing and encouraging even less dominant voices to be heard, as well as a somewhat less competitive nature within groups."

    If my teachers ever read "certain studies show" without any sources in my work, they'd be close to having a heart attack. I don't understand why you don't quote any of your findings. A myTake is about taking a clear stance on a topic of interest.
    You found a topic of interest and developed a thesis, you used evidence to support your arguments, but you lack transparency.
    • "At the same time, women should be just as free to exert influence, and state their opinions even in times of philosophical opposition (in a calm, unemotional, reasonable, productive manner, of course), and show strength without being reprimanded for not being nice enough, a bitch, or a feminist."

      I feel like your whole line of arguments is highly focused on Western countries, and, in particular, on America. The stats in Central Europe (male/female ratios) are similar, but I've never had the feeling that I don't want to state my opinion out of fear of being called a bitch.
      I'm not a nice girl, but I don't care about that. Is being called a feminist an insult? I'd say being called an extreme feminist is an insult. I identify as an equalist, but so far, nobody has described me as a feminist to someone else.

      I feel like all you wanted to do with this post was to take the pressure off of both men and women, but what you actually did is you wrote a long take on how women are supposedly better than men in some aspects, without quoting sources and without highlighting that many women simply don't like responsibility out of the fear (that you DID mention) of conflict.

      I honestly disagree with you in so many points and I feel like that's the reason why the responses you got weren't great so far. I know that you put some work into this myTake, but maybe wait a little longer next time and make it actually great?
      You say that you're against stereotypes, yet all you did was highlight stereotypes that supposedly make women better than men.
      As a woman, I can only say that your take deeply disappointed me, because I'm someone who handles conflict well and doesn't take the back seat in a discussion.

    • First of all, I quoted several things, not one.

      Secondly, yes, I am speaking about the West. I live in North America and that is what I know well. I'm not saying there aren't differences globally. This site is in English and the vast majority of the users are in the U. S. so yes I speak from this perspective.

      Just because you bold and italicize all over the place doesn't make your writing any better or your points actually more valid.

      "I've never noticed a difference between the number of men and the number of women who say something along the lines of "One thing at a time, please!" You haven't? Fine. I have. And on a previous comment which I wrote months ago I got many male upvotes on a lot of this same information so I am not the only person who thinks this. But it is not my intention to say women are good multitaskers. I am well aware that no one is.

      You are 18 years old, I am not your teacher and this is GAG, and it is full of op eds and people rarely cite sources. This is not a psychology or sociology class paper. I am 46 years old. I've been on the planet almost 3x longer than you. Why didn't I cite all sources (I cited 3 and that's more than most do) because I learned them OVER A LIFETIME. It would not be possible to quote and reference every book, every lecture, every documentary, every article for things which I have learned throughout my life. That's why. I didn't just pick this shit up in one afternoon and formulate a biased opinion ad hoc. Some people regurgitate what they hear. Some people incorporate into their entire breadth of knowledge and form their own theories and conclusions by pulling all of the facts and information together.

      "... because I'm someone who handles conflict well and doesn't take the back seat in a discussion." Guess again.

      You've got a lot of fucking nerve.

    • I highlighted my main points to make sure people who only skim this know what my opinion is about.
      I always do that when I add my opinions.
      Thank you for adding that your perspective is solely North American.
      I'm a little bummed out by your response regardless, mainly because you follow the same kind of reasoning I see in little kids: "Because many others do this/think that, it is justified/I should receive the same treatment."
      There's nothing wrong with that per se, it's just unprofessional, but then again, this is G@G.
      I feel like you're missing the point in your paragraph about lifelong learning. The thing is, none of what you said is completely wrong, but when you quote things directly, you should cite them, and when you use other people's ideas, you should too.
      Whatever your experience has been totally has its place in a myTake, but everything else should be backed up.
      Pointing this out wasn't only meant to be constructive criticism directed towards you, but also criticism towards the community of G@G.
      Do people care? Probably not. But I can still try to make a change, to add a little science to people's trivial lives.

  • backdoorman
    Hmm, I'm not sure I believe some of those "facts and stats". I mean the stats about women and men with respect to college degrees and leadership roles seem pretty accurate, but I'm doubtful about some of the other things you mentioned, and I'm pretty sure some of it is just typical gender stereotype stuff that isn't supported by any respected modern research.

    Things like this in regard to men..."Multitasking is not the name of the game. "One thing at a time, please!" they may say, exasperated if interrupted, or overloaded with too many unnecessary or extraneous details"... seem like gender stereotyping to me and I have seen plenty of research that shows it's unfounded. Here's one...

    https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/226A quote from the study findings: "There were no gender and virtually no age differences regarding the single-task compared to the multitasking condition."

    I see things like this written by women that feel like a veiled jab at men and an opportunity to make claims about how women are better than men at this and that, and yet at the same time they are often complaining about how women lag behind men in real world results. Those sorts of things tend to do more harm than good.

    If you're really looking for suggestions and ideas about how women can be more successful in handling conflict and achieving leadership roles, maybe focus less on the male-versus-female stuff because it is largely unsupported and accomplishes nothing positive. Instead, keep it real and positive and I suspect your'll get more real and positive suggestions.
    • "I see things like this written by women that feel like a veiled jab at men and an opportunity to make claims about how women are better than men at this and that" I assure you that is not me. If you see this as a jab at men then that's on you. I am *very* supportive of both sexes typically, and my writing about that is all the over the place here. You probably are not interested in reading more but the evidence speaks for itself. This makes even more sense if you look at the context of everything I write, or even just have written recently. I am one of the people who tries to bridge the gap between the genders, not bitch at or about them, and I don't favour one over the other. In fact I am often supportive of men and have even been accused of choosing the wrong side. Positive only goes so far. It can also be known as pandering. You cannot completely avoid talking about problems and issues in society. That serves nothing. This mytake encourages females and does not disparage males at all. That's your distortion.

      And p. s. I know that true mutitasking doesn't really exist. But I have seen the brain scans of men and women and what I said is

    • Glad to hear you're supportive of both genders. Yes, there are differences in male and female brains, but studies have been very inconsistent in their findings with respect to if/how that affects ability to "multi-task". Some studies have shown some differences, others have not (I linked one) but the general consensus in the scientific community as of now seems to be that there is no conclusive evidence and the comments of yours I quoted above are certainly not supported.

      Men are "exasperated if interrupted"? Sure, some are, as are some women.

      "One thing at a time, please!" Men do not excel in leadership roles by only being able to tackle one thing at a time.

      I don't know what brain scans you've seen that prove men are unable to multitask and get frustrated when confronted with multiple tasks as there are apparently a lot of experts out there who disagree with you.

    • You might find the below link interesting, especially the 'Sex differences' section. The bottom line is that there has been no conclusive research that shows women are better at multi-tasking, though it has been a longstanding stereotype/myth that some studies have shown to be unfounded.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

    • Show All
  • DanOh2018
    Interesting read. I've had a very different life experience. Men while often aggressive tend only to have a brief and open skirmish while heirarchy is established.

    Women on the other hand hold grudges, and more often use deceitfulness and character assassination, viciously trying to ruin lives rather than just establish hirarchies.

    I haven't seen too many good female leaders my professional life unfortunately, but I have encountered a great many petty and vindictive female welders of influence who aren't worthy of leadership. Whether that's because they make emotionally driven decisions when it's not appropriate or because they are blinded to the quality of an idea because of who said it. Or as you said fear of conflict, which results in brutally oppressing decenting opinions of those below them, or cowardly refusing to stand up to superiors when it's required for the sake of their team.

    It's gotten to the point where if I have a female leader I never speak my mind, act like a sickly sweet yes man and request the first possible transfer.

    Moving along. Male sexuality is demonized, when all we really want is to share the simple pleasures of life and be valued.

    Men are visual and so enjoy visuals, most women don't want to meet us halfway and prefer the theatre of the mind. Which is usually what happens when women want attention online. Hence my recent loss of interest in sexting. Every woman wants a novel, even as a writer I grow bored of doing the same tawdry scenes over and over. I'm a giver, but it's a poor use of my effort. A thankless job usually.

    In general I think there's been a very real trend towards devaluing all but the richest, fittest and most charismatic men, which is the source of all the anger. Being reasonably affluent and charming I thankfully don't take the brunt of it. But I weep for the more simple lads who will always be passed over.

    Instead of demanding we change why not try to appreciate the masculine? Hard driven protector's providers, leaders and lovers.

    Let us give what we have to give. There are lots of lonely women on here who seem to want companionship, but only on their terms, which is probably why they're lonely to begin with.

    You all seem to want a knight in shining armor or a wealthy prince. Give Shrecks a chance, you might have fun in the muck.
    • You are difficult to respond to, Dan.
      This is the only way I can think to do it.

      Interesting read. I've had a very different life experience. Men while often aggressive tend only to have a brief and open skirmish while heirarchy is established.
      Women on the other hand hold grudges, and more often use deceitfulness and character assassination, viciously trying to ruin lives rather than just establish hirarchies.
      - I pretty much agree with these.

      I haven't seen too many good female leaders my professional life unfortunately, but I have encountered a great many petty and vindictive female welders of influence who aren't worthy of leadership. Whether that's because they make emotionally driven decisions when it's not appropriate or because they are blinded to the quality of an idea because of who said it. Or as you said fear of conflict, which results in brutally oppressing decenting opinions of those below them, or cowardly refusing to stand up to superiors when it's required for the sake of their team.
      - Nope, got to counter you here. Fear of conflict definitely does not result in "brutally oppressing decenting opinions of those below them..." Doing that is a sign of power, quite the opposite.

      It's gotten to the point where if I have a female leader I never speak my mind, act like a sickly sweet yes man and request the first possible transfer.
      - That's really too bad.

      Moving along. Male sexuality is demonized, when all we really want is to share the simple pleasures of life and be valued.
      - You can say that, but we can just as easily say that males do a lot of evil deeds in the name of sexual desire (lying, cheating, harrassment, rape, etc.) If you are saying that both sexes need to be able to freely share pleasures without being judged and reprimanded... well maybe. But you can't have it one-sided, as many men do. It's the whole madonna/whore thing.

    • Men are visual and so enjoy visuals, most women don't want to meet us halfway and prefer the theatre of the mind. Which is usually what happens when women want attention online. Hence my recent loss of interest in sexting. Every woman wants a novel, even as a writer I grow bored of doing the same tawdry scenes over and over. I'm a giver, but it's a poor use of my effort. A thankless job usually.
      - This is pretty ludicrous. This whole 'men are visual' thing has been used as a crutch just as much as an explanation, for years now. It's very convenient, isn't it? "A thankless job"? Wth. You want to sex with stranger girls online and then you criticize them for being too demanding when it comes to the amount of words you have to use? Come on. So go out and find a real life girl that you can stare at.

      In general I think there's been a very real trend towards devaluing all but the richest, fittest and most charismatic men, which is the source of all the anger. Being reasonably affluent and charming I thankfully don't take the brunt of it. But I weep for the more simple lads who will always be passed over.
      - This is a simple supply and demand issue. And times have changed. The age entering into marriage has shifted to the oldest it's ever been. Thus, more 'product' of both sexes on the market. There are slightly more females worldwide. Women are now working, maybe their own money. So what if only the best of the best, most appealing have lots of options? It's always been that way. That's a fair market. There's nothing really to say about it. It just is.

    • Instead of demanding we change why not try to appreciate the masculine? Hard driven protector's providers, leaders and lovers.
      - Everyone would benefit from making improvements to themselves. Everyone. But yes, I do understand howit must feel, that females are super picky nowadays. They're on the market too though, also a product to be compared and valued. It's pretty easy for women to have sex with strangers, right? It's infinitely more difficult for them to find a good man who actually loves them for who they are inside, and wants to settle down.

      Let us give what we have to give. There are lots of lonely women on here who seem to want companionship, but only on their terms, which is probably why they're lonely to begin with.
      - I wouldn't know anything about that. I'd be curious to know what, exactly, you mean by that. And I presume that whatever you will say about gag, a similar thing applies irl.

      You all seem to want a knight in shining armor or a wealthy prince. Give Shrecks a chance, you might have fun in the muck.
      - It's not as common for girls to want to be saved now. That whole concept is becoming more and more archaic. What they do want is a good man who treats them well. And they care less about looks. Even sense of humour ranks higher on many surveys. Still, with Valentine's Day around the corner (and I did ask a q specifically about this), a little classic romance, or even just a legit date, is rarely a bad thing. They don't want to be necessarily wined and dined, as much as told, or shown, they are appreciated. (And I know, the same goes for guys. I advocate for both.)

    • Show All
  • Texaskid1

    Asking women to handle conflict better is a waste of time. They will never , ever handle conflict any better today than they did 10,000 years ago.

    No matter what educational level, race , nationality etc it is always the same ; women will handle conflict by screaming , yelling , crying , and if need be making a false accusation of rape or assault. That is how women handle conflict.
    • Okay there, Australopithecus afarensis.

      What would you like to see females do to better handle conflict?

    • Texaskid1

      Still better than Femeninapecus hateallmenesis

  • Insightfull
    I am impressed with your thoughtfulness and depth.

    I don't like conflict with women. Still, I would like to see women express themselves openly in situations in which there is a disagreement so that issues can be resolved. For what it's worth I try to create a space for them to tell me what the problem is, but am often left guessing and have had to learn to let go. It's unfortunate that a friendship can be so easily ruined by what might have been a complete misunderstanding
    • "Don't forget what could be." I like that

    • This is wonderful, Insightfull. Wise words, you are absolutely correct, I agree with all.

    • @AmandaYVR Thanks :) The exact same right back to ya.
      You are a wise insightful and clearly wonderful woman. Happy Valentines! 😍

    • Show All
  • winterfox10
    A big thing could be to simply not react immediately. Just take some time to consider the possibility that there is a huge difference between someone who has it out for you, vs when you simply aren't getting your way.

    This is huge in dating relationships. It's not fair to be upset with a guy and call him an abusive jerk, simply because he doesn't want to be a casual friend.
    • Thanks for writing something constructive.
      I agree with you. That's true, your first paragraph.

      On your second, not sure what you mean about the friend thing. In this scenario does the guy want more or less than what the girl wants?

    • Like if the guy is interested in her romantically, but she isn't interested in him romantically. A lot of women will be hurt, angry, confused, and lash out at guys who say that being a casual friend isn't enough for them. Women need to understand that in the same way that it is their right to decide if they want to date a guy, it's a guy's right to decide if he isn't interested in having a platonic friendship, and that's okay.

    • Ah, ok. Girls lash out at that eh. Weird.

    • Show All
  • Dargil
    Think and speak rationally.
    Do not retreat into feelings.
    Do not deflect by playing the gender victim card.
    • Reasonable and constructive. Nice job.

  • Miristheiss
    State clearly what they want, what their expectations are, what is upsetting them and not expect us to just know.
    • Well said. I know it's a common request by men. It's not exactly a common thing/the norm with women, being that direct, but it's what men want and need.

  • DonCachondo
    I think it would help tremendously if at the very least a woman would kindly notify whenever any new seeds of conflict have sprouted in her head. That way, we can always nip our conflicts in the bud before they ever get the chance to flourish into a garden of quarrels and weaponized intimate details, which would inevitably expand enough to burst out of the woman's mouth at dangerous speeds if we were to ignore it long enough.
  • Dongtai
    Be direct and clear versus expecting guys to “just know” and read their minds or even worse, making us wait until you’re read to talk about something that affects both of us.
    • I see a theme here...

      Right on, Dongtai. I think you speak for everyman.

  • This is incredibly good!! I'd expand on this and write a book. You really do this very well! I agree with all of your points here.
    • Thank you so much, Jj. I appreciate it.
      You're definitely one of the good ones here.

    • Thank you :)

  • RickPen
    My experience has been the polar opposite; men have always been helpful and nuturing, unless absent. Women, however, have raped, beaten, condemned, undermined, and destroyed some of my future that was so hard-fought, and much of it was in the name of feminism or disdain for boys.
    Even in the job market, the worst bosses I had were women, as they abused their power universally, were extremely passive-aggressive, and would shut down in a real conflict, leaving someone else to pick up the problem and fix it. Every time the resolution came by way of a male, and in those jobs, it was usually me, as I'd have the ability to find a resolution while working normally.
    I simply have not experienced women being better at anything other than liars, rapists, manipulators, thieves, and abusers, than men, all because they're far more indirect. I sincerely wish I'd had more good women in my life. At this juncture, I'm resolved to looking over my shoulder should a woman be behind me.
    • That's very sad to hear.

    • But it is true ,8 deaths in Australia all men and fathers because of the gender job gap and yes there is a reason for it men work constantly in there careers females stop have a family as a result has less overall experience and ability those men died because feminism grizzled to make it law that females must be represented equally just because they are bloody female so the head of safty in minnig was gifted to this female with lack of experience and ability and the safety on the job was compromised and 100% proven those men died because of her action and that makes my anger levels go through the bloody roof i dont no any man to get a job like that just because he is a male so why should females get preference over a man because she has titts, it has to stop.

    • That's crazy. I always work better with women. I never get ahead in the workplace if my boses are guys.

  • soleil2666
    Men are constantly in pain, women are constantly trying to get more than their fair share. I don't know whether the female threat response is stronger, or simply nurtured to be adhered to - for men, the socialisation is the opposite - ignore the pain and carry on (and drown it in alcohol or meaningless sex later).
    Those are not male rules, I think they are there to serve/privilege the females.
  • stormbreaker06
    stop talking or only say 500 words a day.

    i think females aren't suppose to talk so much. which is why females are so screwed.
    • 500? Men say 7000 wpd on average, buddy. We can speak a lot less, but we'll probably be more blunt. You ok with that? Think carefully now.

    • lets say what you say is true. men stay relevant and aren't screwed up due to having a big mouth. men create and invent things.

      women talk talk talk talk and fail to see what is relevant. That's why they can't progress because they are busy talking.

    • This is so stupid.
      We're done here.

    • Show All
  • automatic812
    On a more basic note and without the theories attached to society barriers and beliefs, I would like to see women express their thoughts, opinions and emotions in the moment without fear of conflict. Men and women can both be guilty of not being vocal with one another before things reach an uncomfortable level which often results in one or both of the individuals involved feeling less appreciated or not respected. Conflict doesn't have to be elevated beyond expressing oneself. Obviously there are those who are overbearing, self-centered and do not like to compromise so it is key to be aware of each unique personality and make decisions accordingly based on the present company. Work versus personal relationships often do not allow us the ability to be the best we can be, often barriers are in place we must avoid or risk jeopardizing our position. Self reflection and knowing your worth are key to not allowing conflict to drag us down.
    • Excellent. Very constructive. Thank you.

  • That - is - so - beautiful. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 it really hits your heart. 😭😭😭

    😋😂
  • howlinsilently
    Multi coloured jello to wrestle in...
    What? This os plausible answer right?
    • Ooooh I hate jello. I was part of a mass organized jello fight in a barn as a teenager and I haaated being that sticky. No no no.
      The colours are fun though.
      This is terribly sexist though, on a serious question. I'm firing a warning shot over the bow...

    • Warning shot taken onboard. That was poorly aimed if was a warning. Now before i find seriousness, what were you fighting over back then?
      I would like women to be civil and not adopt aggressive posture and find soolutions that will be amicable and prevent further dissagreement. As you know that men have shown little skill in humane matters and if you gals can't do it then we are good as gone

    • So let me get this straight... you make a joking, sexist remark on a serious question which asks for constructive opinions. Then a woman answers to you in kind, speaking your language, both acknowledging the joke and making the point that you were entirely dismissive. Then you over-react, calling it an aggressive maneuver, and deflect by criticizing the woman for not being civil. Have I got that straight? Nevermind.
      Then how about these?
      What’s good for the goose is good for the...
      What’s the matter, not enough sex questions already on this site for you? Have to make everything sexual, do you? It’s not original either. I’ve already had a mud wrestling comment.
      Fine. Then yes, I am now sinking your battleship.

    • Show All
  • Kiran_Yagami
    The desire for avoidance isn't a bad thing. Men and women compliment one another. They aren't supposed to mirror one another. If both men and women are focused on pushing through conflict to get ahead, who is going to temper that with avoidance? There would be no balance in any work place. I don't give a damn if there aren't enough female CEO or board members. There aren't enough female soldiers, waste disposal workers, plumbers, garbage truck drivers, or SWAT officers either. Equality is all hugs and puppies, yet that's the only part you want to talk about.
    • "Equality is all hugs and puppies, yet that's the only part you want to talk about." Untrue. You criticize me for being too positive. Another guy criticizes me for being too negative. Some girls think I'm criticizing girls. Some guy think I'm criticizing guys. Whatever. You see what you want to see.

      And it's pointless to list off a bunch of professions or jobs where males dominate/are the majority. I could do the same for females. What does that prove? Nothing. Of course no one wants to live in a world where everyone is interchangeable and identical. I never said that.

    • I'm not criticizing you for being too positive. I'm criticizing you for only desiring that women be in positions of power and authority when the further down rungs of ladder are just as devoid of women as the rungs at the top. There are fewer women in prison and mental asylums as well. We going to fill those vacant positions too? The fundamental difference between men and women can't just be brushed away by making women somehow more willing to engage in conflict. Why are you so worried about what other women choose? If you want to be a CEO, go for it. No one is stopping you, but it's not your business to make other women CEOs anymore than it is my business to make other men navy SEALs. If we eliminate choice then it was all pointless to begin with, and women tend to choose to avoid conflict. Whoopty doo. Let them. The world hasn't ended yet and it ain't going to over this.

    • "I'm criticizing you for only desiring that women be in positions of power and authority when the further down rungs of ladder are just as devoid of women as the rungs at the top." WRONG. Don't put words in my mouth. That ONLY word is key. Do you know what the #1 most common job is for females? Retail. Minimum wage. Not enough to live on. And yet, also, on a parallel timeline, more women are graduating with degrees. My stats speak for themselves. I didn't create them, I just posted them. They are getting educated, but are not in high-level positions, compared to men. It's a small fraction. I'm just providing context to the fact that women don't speak up, don''t fight for more pay, the promotion, or for their opinion to be heard on gag. That's all I'm saying.

      I know this argument well, that if women want equal pay they have to take on equal responsibility and risk and danger and stress and heart disease and death. Well it's not like I want guys to endure all that stuff. Don't presuppose that I don't have compassion for men as well.
      I don't know how anybody can argue that men and women are both equally suited to all the same jobs. It's so clear we are not. I never suggest this, either. It's not realistic. Why do you think so many women work in healthcare? And men work in fields requiring physical strength necessary to operate heavy equipment? Some of you mean keep going on and on that equality means we are all the same, we all act the same and do the same and think the same. That's not what it means. It is about being treated the same for the same work, or vote, etc., but being valued for our differences.

    • Show All
  • KrakenAttackin
    How about women stop trying to become men? We are different creatures, mentally and physically, but women seemed hell bent to become more and more manly. Well, guess what -- if you insist on becoming a man, you will start to have problems of men.

    I have no sympathy for women who insist they are "equal" to a man than complain about how "unfair" life is when they are held to the same standards as men.

    seriously, when you fight your own genetics and pretend to be something you are not, but will be miserable, and (in the case of women) make everyone around your miserable.
    • and some men out there are trying to become women, when you flip around the dynamics of the genders, it screws everything up, everything should be kept to it's biological track, not diverted

    • @NatalieKeller95 You are correct.

    • Nobody's 'trying' to be the other exactly. It's just happening organically, a sign of the times.
      The world (well, culture) was definitely more stable between the genders before all this fluidity, but what can we do. It's not going to reverse. Train's left the station.

    • Show All
  • October808
    Heart and mind out of balance. Needs harmonic resonance.

    Namaste.
  • Lightning8
    Make less assumptions, draw less conclusions, but have a clear heirarchy of moral values. Certainly more than this
  • funtims615
    Talk about it. Quit saying that nothing wrong.
    • Yeah. Are some girls saying "nothing" but actually it's a test to see if the guy will continue to ask again? I shudder to think about that.

  • D2theB666
    Throw a clean god damn punch for starters
    • Metaphorically, verbally, or literally?

  • cjnelson1118
    Close there mouth
    • If we close our mouth then you learn to spell.

  • JKingOff
    Nude mud wrestling. Anything goes.
  • Good take
  • freeone
    Wow! What a question...
    What an answer!
  • sexualcoach
    Fuck more... get licked often
Loading...