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

[AmandaYVR]

Vogue iconic models cover shoot

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.

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:

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

"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!

[AmandaYVR]

Yessir...

[AmandaYVR]

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

[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.

[hellionthesagereborn]

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.

[hellionthesagereborn]

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).

[hellionthesagereborn]

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.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for your initial question, I would like them to stop seeing themselves as victims and men as the enemy and oppressor. I would like for them to not presume that men are unfeeling and evil (yes, most women think this) and consider that maybe they are as much to blame (some times more so) as men are.

[KrakenAttackin]

Bravo! Well said!!

[Snakeyes7]

Excellent! Could not have said it better myself.

[AmandaYVR]

Hellion, I know your world view well. You are absolutely consistent, I'll give you that. But the lens through which you view life is so tinted, so tainted, so slanted, so distorted, so biased, so personal, so accusatory, so defeatist, so angry yet despondant, I really don't see the point in replying. It is not a discussion, a conversation, and it will not be productive. I am wordy too (I know that, and I do everything I can to try and be more concise), but you just bombard with a wall of text, and it is just too much work to unpack it all and point out and counter the inaccuracies.

[AmandaYVR]

Not everything you say is incorrect. But I've been down this road with you before, and watched it many times. You won't concede. On anything. You have the most stubborn mind. A back and forth could go on to infinity and will accomplish nothing. I really think you hate women. I don't hate men. Publicly and privately I almost unfailingly support, and often defend, men (until they unreasanably attack, that is, or if I am watching their behaviour from afar.) I say again, I don't know what has happened in your life, but you are very, very bitter, and much (not all, but much) of this narrative you have concocted (yes, concocted) is false, and even if it was some or mostly true, what good is it doing to you? I think you're a smart guy, but it's pointless for me, or any females, to comment specifically on anything you say in regards to your gender issues. I can see you have some male fans (3 upvotes here). So be it. I'll interact with the people, and the guys, who still see some good in the opposite sex. I'm honestly not trying to attack you or insult you personally, I'm trying to explain why conversation is pointless. I could probably create an equally strong and biased negative narrative about the oppression of women throughout history, about being undervalued and disrespected for all that they can offer. But I suspect that is exactly how you feel, and so again, what's the point of tit for tat.

Anyway, you probably didn't write this to interact with any females. You just want to put this shit out into the universe. It's called an echo chamber. And it's destructive. And it makes some females hate you back. You know that, right?

[hellionthesagereborn]

I don't hate women, I hate the victim mentality many of them wield against men. You say I'm biased, maybe, but I have statistical data backing my statements so I feel that at the very least I have some basis for that bias. But I will ask this, why is it that women who make the claims that you make never think that maybe just maybe THEY are the ones who are bias? Its one thing to proclaim some one else is bias, any one can do that and its about as meaningless a statement as you can imagine, its quite another to look at ones self and ask whether or not they themselves are biased. Thus far I have yet to see any woman who sees women as victims do this, not once. So you can proclaim that I am biased but if your looking through tinted lenses then of course your going to presume that every one that doesn't see the world as you do as bias while you and you alone are the only one who sees clearly.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for me, I don't hate women, never have and never will, that's actually why I hate the victim mentality and feminism both of which do a huge disservice to women. Why is it that feminist who proclaim to be so pro women judge women as lacking when they do not do what men do? Why do they always see MEN as the pinnacle of success and power, why are men the metric for which all women are judged? That's not me hating women, that's me hating an ideology that takes away women's greatest and most valued attributes by trying to make them replace those traits with an inferior or even outright twisted and satirical version of masculine traits. I love women, that's why I think women should be allowed to be women and not be forced to be men. I also think men are just as worthy of being loved so I hate those who would hate men as well (and yes, if you proclaim that men are oppressing you and the enemy and they need to fundamentally change in every way, then you do in fact hate men, you cannot love your enemy or they cease being your enemy). You area also right, I am very consistent my views do not change no matter who is saying them, I do not state a belief without having backing evidence for it, I believe that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of immutable characteristics. Can you honestly say the same about yourself and feminists? So far you have not treated men the same way you treat women and for some one to proclaim to be for equality, that is a huge inconsistency. So again, I could be biased but that's why I use data to try and mitigate that factor as much as possible, so what do you do that mitigates your own bias?

[Persephone2020]

Thank you so much for your insight and for posting. It gave me a lot to think about and I've found that I one hundred percent agree with you as far as this subject goes. The OP might not respect you for it, but I think you're very worthy of respect for staying strong and firm in your beliefs, Lord knows that isn't easy. You have also pointed out a few issues that I agree are huge issues like modern feminism and inequal treatment and respect for men. I just never know how to put my feelings into words and sometimes it is hard to debate the real moral issues with other women (and men occasionally) because I don't have the same amount of education that a lot of these women do so thank you again.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Persephone2020 Not a problem I'm glad I could help (most people are overwhelmed by how much I write so they don't get past the first couple of sentences (its just how I am don't know how to shorten it) so I appreciate that you did so). I find the best way to figure out how to phrase and explain your thoughts, on any topic really, is to basically explain it out loud to yourself. Also the best way to determine in my experience whether or not your on the right track is by looking at data. As I alluded to with my remarks before, I have biases as do all people so that is why I go with data, its as close to removing the bias as I can get (and just because some one is biased doesn't mean they are bad or they should be treated poorly. The worse thing you can do is assume that because some one thinks differently then you it must be because THEY are the ones who are bias or stupid. Obviously its easier said then done but that is the goal anyway). So again, glad I could help and give you something to think about!

[Persephone2020]

I totally understand and honestly your post intrigued me. I think everyone's voice matters, everyone has the right to voice their opinion and the way you voiced yours so - to - speak was intelligent, logical, used data and you admitted that you're biased while still believing strongly in yourself and your values. It impressed me and I for one think bias isn't really something we can take out of ourselves, but I don't believe being biased makes you wrong, I think it just affects the way you lean on certain issues. Personally, I value other world views and perspectives. I love to see the different ways people look at things, people and the world as a whole. In my opinion, if everyone has the same perspective you'd never learn anything. Differences ought to be respected not looked at like something to be destroyed. Thank you so much for your advice! I really appreciate it! Thanks for taking the time out of your day to listen to my rambling. Lol! I hope the rest of your day is wonderful and filled with joy!

[AmandaYVR]

hellion, you're missing the big picture again.
I never said biases are not a part of life, of people, yes of me. It is the level, amount, intensity, complete saturation of yours that I comment on. You believe so vehemently in the accuracy and interpretation of all of your 'facts', but I think sometimes you miss the forest through the trees. You are an absolutist. That's why there's no dialogue possible.

And to prove to you that I am consistent and being truthful, here is a link to a previous (recent) question of mine, about biases. (In which I clearly stated that I did have them, and fell in line with the typical majority - see the last screenshot I made.)
Do you have any implicit biases? ↗
P. S. You can see it was not a popular question. People want to enjoy themselves, enjoy life, not be confronted with ideas such as this. But I asked it. I take this stuff seriously.

Again, I did not say you're wrong on everything or that I disagree with everything, but your manner and thinking is just too rigid for it to be penetrable or productive to attempt to engage.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No, you stated I have a bias, but that is something that is in my opinion a pointless statement. Of course I have a bias, I am alive, I am human, I am male, I am an American, I am adopted, I am me. Obviously there are biases, but so what? When some one says "your biased" they are saying "Your biased and I'm not." because that is the only reason to say that. I pointed out statistical data showing that what your saying was incorrect to show you that I have made the greatest attempt to remove my personal biases from the equation that I can.

You dismissed it out right when you stated I was biased and I hate women (which again, I don't. I do not understand why criticizing feminism and criticizing the current "female" culture (victimhood culture, the idea that women are oppressed by men despite all evidence to the contrary etc.) is some how hating women yet a society that quite literally states that all men oppressed all women, that men where violent and abusive towards women through out all history (despite no evidence of this), who suffer from "toxic masculinity"(i. e. equating masculinity with poison (and why do we not have a female equivalent of this if we are "equal"?)) are some how benevolent and kind and love men? That doesn't make sense yet that is the argument you made.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for being an absolutist, again, what does that even mean? If you claim the sky is red and I have a picture showing its blue, is that me being an absolutist or me just stating the facts? This is not a subjective matter, if I was unwilling to discuss things that where subjective then yes I would be an absolutist, but this isn't subjective, this is objective and yes their is an objective truth. Again, we have discussed this before. I mean if I'm an absolutist, what does that make you? You've never once yielded, you've never once admitted that you may be wrong as far as I can tell. I just gave you multiple arguments and fourteen different statistics as well as a court case that allowed a woman to rape a little boy and then sue that little boy for child support with the full consent and cooperation of the law as evidence that what you where saying was not accurate. Yet here you are claiming that I'm the absolutist? So again, what does that make you?

The problem here is I'm giving you every reason I have for my view and you are saying that I'm wrong, that the objective data is some how not wrong but also wrong (I don't even know how to wrap my mind around that (you didn't say it was wrong but the conclusion that women have it worse was still correct even though all statistical data shows the opposite. that women are oppressed even though legally this is not the case and statistically its not the case but you still believe it despite acknowledging the statistical data was not "wrong"?). I don't think I'm the absolutist. The only thing I believe that is absolute is the objective truth.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As I stated we can argue view points and that's fine, that's subjective but if your arguing against objective facts you are arguing against the truth and you will always be wrong. Again, which one of us is biased and which one of us is an absolutist? Every one who makes these kinds of accusations in my experience are people who in my experience are baised and are absolutists. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm trying to educate and get people to think and actually question themselves (their is a reason why I can spout off statistics, its because I don't trust myself and quite frankly neither should you, because we are all biased and we all want things to be true that are not for what ever reason. Acknowledging this fact is not me hating you or any one else, its just acknowledging the human condition (our brains are beautiful and clever but they are not built for logic and reason, that is something we forced upon it (and I think with good reason)).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Persephone2020 Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Yes, bias is unavoidable, if your alive your biased, if you think your baised. Your life experiences make you biased, your culture makes you biased etc.

For instance for me, I'm adopted, so I have noticed a personal bias of mine stems from that. To clarify, a lot of people view family as important, which I agree with however for me I don't see biological connections as important because for me that was never a thing. So I have a friend who's father was a terrible person but he kept trying to connect with him (the guy was an alcoholic for most of my friends life and was just an asshole (by my friends own admission (his exact wording was, "We thought that he was an asshole because he was an alcoholic. Then he got sober and we found out that no, he was just an asshole.")).

To me this boggled my mind, the man in my opinion did not deserve his sons love because he did nothing to warrant it yet for others they thought they should attempt to work it out because "they are family". So this is just one of many biases that I have and its shaped my world view among many others (and to be fair I don't think my view is wrong but it is a bias.).

So yeah, I agree your never going to get rid of bias that's why I use data so much (also a bias because I was and always have been so uncertain in life that I cannot trust myself so I am constantly reading and studying and trying to find data to back my views. Again, another bias (and again, I don't think its necessarily wrong, it just is what it is.).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Persephone2020 I also agree with you, other world views are important (I've studied religion, mythology, folklore, the occult (despite popular opinions, this is not just about demons and what not, mysticism is not just an eastern idea it permeates western religions and cultures as well and its quite insightful), anthropology etc. they all have truths hidden in them which are quite valuable (I actually some times listen to Sudhaguru, an indian guru because he has such fascinating perspectives on things)).

So yeah, never presume that some one is wrong simply because they say something you don't generally agree with, analyze it question it, poke and prod and research the claims then come to your own conclusion. Finding the truth is like mining, you have to chip away at everything you read, see and hear until you hit something that no matter what you do just will not break. If you find that then their is a good chance its the truth at which point you put it in the pile of other truths and when you get enough you can build the foundation of your thinking with it. its a slow process and its grueling (which is why most people don't do this (fully understand) but I think its the best approach in the long run.

As for rambling, you read my ramblings and I'm rambling now so if anything, thank you for listening to mine! I appreciate it and I hope you have a wonderful day as well!

[Persephone2020]

I would say thank you again, but I think that might be a tad repetitive. I totally get the influence of multiple sources change your perception of life and oftentimes people. I grew up in the a southern home where there was an emphasis on family. My biological father left us before I was three and he's been in and out of my life since I was six. It definitely attributed to my trust issues, abandonment, issues, and daddy issues. I can't even do trust falls. Lol!

[Persephone2020]

You give great advice. I could've used that when I was sixteen. Lol! Ah the age of naivety and bad decisions.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Persephone2020 Probably would be a bit overkill :D! As for being a teen, yeah, teens are biologically wired to be stupid with the increased hormones and greater impulsivity (which is why you should always go easier on them, they cannot help their biology), I don't think their is a single person who doesn't look at their teenage years and cringe at least a little (you know nothing of the real world but are expected to act like you do, that doesn't help either). Sorry to hear about your situation but with self reflection you can if not overcome, at least adapt and compensate for it.

[Persephone2020]

Lol! Too true! Looking back there's quite a bit of cringing going on. I was waaaay too optimistic, idealistic, carefree and trusting. Thank goodness my mom and the wonderful man that raised me had enough sense to recognize that I desperately needed protecting me from myself (common sense and that thing inside that tells you to worry about you first wasn't really a thing back then) as well as protecting me from others (horrible judge of character, I saw the good in everyone and I never really considered the idea that someone would intentionally hurt me). I'm still optimistic and I still see the potential for great things in people, but now I'm also smart enough to recognize that people no matter who they are have an equal potential to commit evil/bad acts. I'm just a little harder and less naïve than I used to be. I reckon that's just a byproduct of growing up though.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Persephone2020 Yeah, most people go through that. Optimism is good, their is good in most people but you also need the experience and good sense to know that not every one is willing to cultivate that good and not every one is able to put others first (its a hard lesson and unfortunately many people learn this the hard way). I always say that you should hope for the best but prepare for the worse because good things do happen and their are good people out their but you want to be prepared for when those bad things happen so your not dragged down with them.

[tallandsweet]

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.

[tallandsweet]

"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.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[tallandsweet]

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.

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[AmandaYVR]

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.)

[DanOh2018]

I appreciate you answering me but your responses practically drip with hatred and rage. You should look inwards and consider why that might be.

[AmandaYVR]

Untrue. I was calm when I wrote it. You stated your case, I stated mine.

[DanOh2018]

You seem pretty bitter for someone who's calm.

[AmandaYVR]

Sorry if it came off that way. I still think that you made a bunch of specific comments and I responded to them, that's it.

[DanOh2018]

☮️ & ♥️

[AmandaYVR]

🌻 Thank you, same to you.

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

Beautifully said. And very interesting. Thanks, Persephone!

[Persephone2020]

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

[Tdieseler]

Long, but informative and well written. Sadly, like every other Take where someone who wants neutrality writes and proves why... this will be read, and never applied.

What would i like to see females do to better handle conflict? many men may back me on this but my thing is Dwelling. Women just hang on to the problem.
A man see a problem or conflict, he starts looking for a way to make it go away. A woman sees conflict or a problem, she start probing at it. They want to "talk about it"... i can't count the number of times I've had to tell women, how da fuck (excuse my french) will talking about it help? its ALREADY HAPPENED. Some of them reply that "by talking, we can come to a solution"... to which (depending on my frustration) i usually reply with something along the lines of giving a summary of the events and ending with "so now we have talked, now lets hear solution propositions"... and she's usually like we didn't talk about it lol... smh.
also when new conflict arises, women bring up old ones that men had already done away with, hereby ESCALATING the new conflict beyond where it should have stopped.

i do the same with a female friend and she always tells me that is "sweeping it under the rug"... in some situations, yes, but in many situations... a solution means the issue/conflict is resolved.. dissipated... compromised... and should be forgotten. sometimes that solution is to sweep it under a rug.

Dwelling, they should practice not doing that.

[AmandaYVR]

Cuba: "Ok, now we're talking!" Much better!
(If you want to engage people more, you need to stress the playful more. It sounded like something else before. Although tbf, most women just don't want to debate, period.)

I agree with everything you said.
Talking is only good if it creates understanding, transparency, disclosure, or makes amends. Otherwise it's just rehashing and venting.
Women rarely get sick of talking. 20,000 wpd vs. men's 7,000, so guys usually have to sit there and listen to a whole lot more than they ever want to. (I wrote a mytake about that too.)
She should be asking herself, 'Is this constructive?', 'Is this going anywhere?' If not, walking away is not failure.

I've also written about this before. I believe at the root of women's bringing up things from the past and not moving on is... drum roll... (apart from being a bad and nasty habit and destructive to relationships, and social harmony, which they claim to want)... the brain hemispheres are too damn connected. Actually, what I just read last week is that men's brains are more connected between the two hemispheres, bridging them across (which apparently helps with increased motor skill proficiency); however in general men's brains compartmentalize more, and women's light up like 4th of July.

[AmandaYVR]

I've seen the brain scans on this, and it's one of the most fascinating things - you put men and women each in MRIs, ask them questions, show them pictures, have them recall past memories both good and bad, and women's brains light up in various regions, while men's light up fewer areas, but with more magnetic heat in those areas. Translation? It's about pulling in sensory information, with feelings, with memories, with amygdala stress vs. men's singular focusing. Men pull less data when doing a task (any task.)

This is not an excuse. It's a physiological explanation for why women don't let things go. I think they're wired not to. (And don't get me started on logic vs. emotion. At least, don't complain to me about that, as I am 60/40 F:T. Everyone needs both, everyone should balance both.)

The problem (as I see it) is that women often sit on their high horse, feeling morally justified in this. They do pick up more subtlety in communication. They can recall past conversations with incredible detail (some of them can.) They know just what happened at a party, many things guys were oblivious of. But... because they feel something strongly, "You offended me", "That was rude", "Harsh", "I can't believe you said that to me. You cannot love me if you said or think that..." all result in her feeling really bad during that stressful argument she's having. She doesn't blame her sensitivity (and intuition, and ability to pick up on all this stuff and connect dots, forever and ever), but rather, she feels she is justified in what she feels.

She remembers the past instances of him doing that thing, and it piles on, accumulates, so that she sees it as a never-ending history of his shit/cruel behaviour. Maybe he just did it again (and that's not good - and if so, he probably deserves this argument.) But maybe she's just mad right now, and the reason she's bringing it up is because her amygdala's going nutzo and she's hurt/mad/upset, so she's 'kitchen-sinking it.' Get it?

[AmandaYVR]

I could say some things about animal/pet training here, but a bunch of guys would find that insulting (women are not the only ones who are sensitive sometimes), but suffice it to say, women (usually younger girls, and the hot-tempered at any age) need to adapt (yes, I always preach adaptation - adaptation is progress, evolution, for all living creatures) their method/behaviour and when the guy either 1. Admits he was wrong to do that thing in the past, or 2. Apologizes for hurting her, then she must let it go (if it doesn't repeat.) It's a fatal female flaw, in my opinion.

P. S. Sorry I can't do this any shorter. Brevity is not my friend. I try.

[Tdieseler]

@AmandaYVR much better? i didn't change anything in the way i respond lol... like i said... it could vary and as we keep running into each other, you'll see more and more ways i comment.

"most women dont wanna debate"... sigh, if truer words were ever spoken. i wrote this before, "To the modern woman, true love and the right man is one that does what she says, when she says it and how she says it." no push back allowed.
i can argue that this comes back to when i say women are better at breaking relationships than building it, a thing that the bible AND nature agree with. because this same definition of true love for the modern woman is the SAME woman that when she gets that type of man that does what she says, when she says it and how she says, she is the SAME one to get bored, and angry and tell him to BE A MAN or some crap along that line, down the way.
For creatures that like to analyze and want to talk about every aspect of things, many female concepts are half baked, temporary. I'll bring up the honesty thing again, they say honesty, but can't handle it, then use a better or different word. They say communicate but when you do, they only hear what they want to hear, or if you confront, they get angry.

men understand that conflicts can arise at any time so we dont waste time on one, we solve it and hope to have some free time to do some Guy shit before the next one pops up.

[Tdieseler]

lol, brevity is not your friend, thats good. you like to involve all the facts. makes for an eggscellent debate partner.
what i dont get is that many women know these things... they know that men are BASIC and simple yet MOST of them make absolutely NO EFFORT in trying to understand or adapt to this. but the man has to? He has to be gentle with her because her brain is going nutzo? how about my cool brain that was cool until she started pumping it full of her craziness? does she respect or adapt to the fact that maybe i like my head cool and she should go dip hers in a bucket? NOPE.

Cuz guys like me, we are tit for tat... i grew up around women and i came adapted the term "flip the script" when it comes to dealing with women and i... am... HATED... for it.
if she won't respect that i dont wanna be burdened with nonsense... i dont see why i gotta change or censor my words so her feelings dont get hurt. she doesn't care if mine are hurt. so i flip the script, and i dont care either.
And guys like me watch all the names created by women to poke at the male ego or degrade men and we just laugh...

[AmandaYVR]

Your relationship dynamics sound very annoying. Even I am shaking my head.
You deal in absolutes. I do not. I can't stand it when people do that. It's a deal breaker for me.
You're bringing up a lot of issues here. I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, and go deeply, and try to find resolution on them. But this is pretty much too overwhelming already.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "nutzo." Her memories and associations are probably accurate. The problem is she shouldn't keep harping on all of them or the current issue will never get resolved. Your "cool head" is emotional detachnment, which she senses as "I really don't give a fuck" which goes back to her feeling pain, and slighted by you. It's a vicious, never-ending cycle. You both think you're right. If I was a therapist to the hypothetical you, I'd want to kick you out of my office.

[Tdieseler]

nice, very nice. an anti- diesel. like i said, im a man's man. i dont think its ok for a woman to want to be herself as a woman, and its not ok for me to be myself as a man. I've been looking to someone to run my theory by but because of my "sensibilities" and experience, i have my way and it works... dont get me wrong, but female input is hard as shit to get...
would you mind if i ran it by you?

[Jamie05rhs]

I read this whole thread, and I think you guys got off on the wrong foot.

@Tdieseler When she responded to your comment, I thought she was being very generous and coming to meet you halfway. I think you overreacted to her first paragraph, and that set you on a rant.

And then @AmandaYVR you were offended that your olive branch wasn't accepted, so you were more hard on him in the next round. And you both were pushed back into your own corners.

@But then @Tdieseler came back with an offer to parlay. @AmandaYVR Would you be willing to give him another chance?
And @Tdiesler would you be willing to be kind?

[AmandaYVR]

@Jamie05rhs lol Jamie! You're so cute, Mr. Mediator.
Ok, read this one too, then. This was our first interaction. (Ever.)
Why do girls usually blame the guy for their breakups and sometimes even shame them? ↗

[Jamie05rhs]

Thanks, Amanda. :)

[AmandaYVR]

I just saw your reply. Didn't see it before.
What is an "anti-diesel"? You mean I am against you? What does your name mean, anyway? It's very cryptic.
I don't know what you're going to say, but... yeah, I guess. I do concur, I hear it all the time from men, how females shut down or walk away from this stuff. Then nothing gets resolved.
You can run whatever by me, but keep in mind there always has to be compromise. Like I said, absolutes don't work. I'll try and be impartial (as long as you try and not be extreme.)

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[BlackRoseFairy]

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

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

"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

[backdoorman]

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.

[backdoorman]

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

[AmandaYVR]

You're really fixated on multitasking. Again, I didn't say that either sex is good with multitasking. I know it doesn't truly exist. I really don't want to belabour the point.

[backdoorman]

I'm not fixated on multi-tasking at all. I just pointed out some inaccuracies, you denied them and I provided some evidence to support my point.

I'm not a big fan of gender stereotypes, especially ones that don't have merit, so I call them out when I see them. As someone who tries to bridge the gap between the genders, I would think you would be supportive of that.

[AmandaYVR]

Ok, I take responsibility for my writing regarding multitasking. I combined several ideas into a very short couple of sentences and I can see it did not come out entirely as I intended.
To be clear, once more, and then I'm done with this topic:
No one is a good multitasker. When this is attempted (as is often not a choice but a necessity in life) all tasks suffer and are done to a lesser quality. I am well aware and honestly don't need citations or links to get on the same page about that. I agree.
However, my experience, throughout my lifetime, is that men are much more irritated when they are not allowed to focus on one thing at a time. Maybe it's a verbal element when added that is the consistent variable, or maybe men may 'flare up' to try and get some space. I do not see this with females nearly as often. If a woman is talking on the phone, say, ordering food for delivery, you can whisper or say quietly something like, "Hey, don't forget the extra dressing", and no big deal. I could give tonnes of personal examples of men in the middle of a task (the phone call, or say, fixing something, or writing an email) and they won't be happy about it. They can't hear the words. Now to give credit, my experience is also that men are better at shutting out external stimuli. My guess, and yes this is a guess and not based on anything that I've read directly, is that they 'zone out' other verbal sensory input more (but not entirely) than girls. Ever notice how girls know what conversations were happening in a restaurant, or at a party, or in the kitchen with some other family members? They're curious, they're eavesdropping, but they also can hear all this stuff. Even when they don't want to. I don't believe men are picking up on this as much. Is this a slight? No it is not.

Here's where I previously wrote about some of the same stuff. Notice the male upvote count.
Do women expect men to be mind-readers? ↗

[AmandaYVR]

by the way, we're arguing about the details here, and clarifying some things (I believe that comes partly from my writing and trying to accurately convey my ideas, and partly from assumptions and biases made by readers), but I don't think you're being offensive or unreasonable in the way you're saying it. I can tell by your word choice that you're engaging in a conversation/debate, which is fine. It is, obviously, the point of what I often talk about, not disengaging, but communicating with respect for each other.

[backdoorman]

Ms Amada, thank you for the clarification. There is probably some truth in your suggestion that part of the issue here was my interpretation of your words. I was a little put off by some of them, and I'll take some responsibility for that. Perhaps I should have given you more of the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.

I agree with much of what you said here, though I interpret it a little differently (more about personality and less about multi-tasking ability) and would attribute that behavior to some men (and women), but not most.

I do agree completely that women tend to be more observant, perceptive and aware of things men just don't pick up on, for example in restaurants as you mentioned, but I don't necessarily think that is due to anything related to multi-tasking ability. I don't know how many times my girlfriend has rearranged the furniture, bought a new chair or had her hair done and it completely flew past me when I walked into the room. She would notice most anything before I do, but we would both agree I'm a better multi-tasker than she is.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain where you were coming from. I'll try to do a better job in the future of not jumping to conclusions.

[AmandaYVR]

Yay, we got past the impasse! Hallelujah. I am happy.
Some people and situations are worth continuing, and clarifying. We all have to look carefully at the wording people choose. I'm serious about this stuff, my mytakes about talking to each other, censorship, shutting down conversation, all that. I'm not going to be one of them, if the other person is being reasonable and fair.

Yeah, I've heard that before about women. Why do they notice so many things, the details, the minutia? I've never heard any theories on this. Curious. (It also comes with the territory of being bogged down, fixated, stuck, on details sometimes.)

[backdoorman]

Agreed, wording is important, both in terms of how we interpret the words of others, and the words we choose to convey our messages.

Good question about why women are more tuned into details than men. I read somewhere that it has to do with the fact that women tend to have a larger prefrontal cortex, which makes them better able to notice, process and remember details. I don't know whether I've remembered or stated that correctly, and I'm sure it's an oversimplification.

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

Excellent. Very constructive. Thank you.

[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

[Insightfull]

"Don't forget what could be." I like that

[AmandaYVR]

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

[Insightfull]

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

[AmandaYVR]

Same to you.
A bushel of sweet peas for 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.

[AmandaYVR]

That's very sad to hear.

[Obdntboytoy]

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.

[COMMODOREII]

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

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

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?

[winterfox10]

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.

[AmandaYVR]

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

[winterfox10]

I think women in general have an attitude that they are doing men a favor by interacting with them. Women also seem to have a tendency to express how hurt they are by lashing out at whoe or upset them. It's like a potentially life and or reputation destroying temper tantrum.

[KrakenAttackin]

I totally agree. The whole "friends" thing with someone you secretly want to be with is agonizing. Who needs it.

[hsshannah96]

I experience being upset when the guy leads me on to think that he wants more than he does

So in my case it’s the opposite

[hsshannah96]

The reason I know FOR ME I have to act how I do is because if I don’t I just let guys run right over the top of me

I know because the SECOND I let my guard down, a guy takes advantage of me

[winterfox10]

@hsshannah96 That's partially because of your age as well, I think. There are guys who won't hurt you. The sad part is that the vulnerability that lets bad guys hurt you is the same vulnerability that good guys need to love you.

[hsshannah96]

I date 30 and above

And I left the whisper app

Guys on there are such asshats

[hsshannah96]

I was with a guy who was 27. He was not nice

[winterfox10]

@hsshannah96 That's part of why they tell young girls not to try and cross the age gap; 9.5/10, they're just using you.

[hsshannah96]

I didn’t used to

It was worse when I didn’t
My first ex was 22 and a complete turd

Raped me twice

[hsshannah96]

Guys in their 20’s are NOT READY FOR COMMITMENT. What don’t you get about that

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

This is great. Thank you, Don.

[hsshannah96]

Thanks Don

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

I see a theme here...

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

[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.

[AmandaYVR]

"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.

[Kiran_Yagami]

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.

[AmandaYVR]

"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.

[AmandaYVR]

The real impetus for writing this mytake is to encourage female users to write more. I would like to hear more of their thoughts on the world. Would you?

You don't have to overcomplicate this and make it into another senseless gender debate. That's so exhausting. I don't bother with that. It is mostly futile.

And p. s. who said anything about the world ending. Not me. I don't do histrionics.

[Kiran_Yagami]

I don't presume you lack compassion for men. I sympathize with the plight of men in dangerous positions, but I acknowledge that those positions are necessary. There will NEVER be a time that it is not necessary for men to put themselves between the rest of us and danger.

"And yet, also, on a parallel timeline, more women are graduating with degrees."

It's not a parallel timeline. Women ARE graduating with more degrees AND there are more of them in college than men. That's fact.

"Do you know what the #1 most common job is for females? Retail. Minimum wage."

Also fact, but women getting minimum wage jobs after graduating college has almost nothing to do with conflict management. It has to do with them taking on degrees that are useless. The federal government, and all it's wisdom, will give a student loan to anyone for any degree, regardless of the merit of that degree and its ability to pay off the debt incurred by acquiring it. WE LIE TO WOMEN AND GIRLS by telling them it doesn't matter what they study in college as long as they go. That wasn't even true 50 years ago and it sure as hell isn't true now. With an over-saturated job market, you must be as competitive as possible and what you study is a large part of that competitiveness. It is my opinion that this is a major source of women's earnings deficit. We spoil and coddle them instead of preparing for them for the battlefield that is the job market, and we do them no favors by doing so. YOU CANNOT BE OR DO ANYTHING YOU LIKE AND EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY. No one can, some people are just lucky enough to be good at something they like that also makes a boatload of money. Most of us don't and have to settle for doing something we can tolerate to make money. Study something useful in college. That's a start.

[AmandaYVR]

I agree with all that (these last comments.)

I'm saying that women and low-paying retail and graduating with college degrees is happening in parallel. Maybe not enough time has passed for us to see any real effect yet. Or maybe the economies are playing a huge role.

I don't know if there's any validity to the idea that females are studying less practical, job-applicable subjects than males in college though. Have you actually seen that?
The governments loan people money, just as they do for all sorts of things. I guess you think it's different, and they should value what is being studied, because other types of loans need collateral? In these other cases, the person, and the knowledge they gain, I guess becomes the source/collateral. I tend to just look at all loans as a money-making proposition for banks and for the economy. They want money to be flowing, people to invest, and to earn interest. Some countries do basically free education. I'm always wondering why that doesn't get talked about, contrasted and compared, to nations that don't. Maybe they do. But does that generally create better societies? Is America just so capitalist that it just can't wrap its mind around this idea?

[Kiran_Yagami]

Given that men still dominate STEM, law, and medicine degrees in spite of the fact that women outnumber at college, hell yes I've seen it. Those are the only fields world studying. I was EE in college and the number of girls in class could be counted on one hand, and that's just the ones we started with. They didn't all make it. If you don't intend to take on one of those degree fields then you don't need to go to college at all. You're just burning cash and time at that point.

[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.

[NatalieKeller95]

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

[KrakenAttackin]

@NatalieKeller95 You are correct.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[KrakenAttackin]

I disagree. As soon as society realizes what we are doing is not working, things will revert to the mean.

[AmandaYVR]

Disagree.

[Miristheiss]

State clearly what they want, what their expectations are, what is upsetting them and not expect us to just know.

[AmandaYVR]

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.

[Dargil]

Think and speak rationally.
Do not retreat into feelings.
Do not deflect by playing the gender victim card.

[AmandaYVR]

Reasonable and constructive. Nice job.

[Jjpayne]

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.

[AmandaYVR]

Thank you so much, Jj. I appreciate it.
You're definitely one of the good ones here.

[Jjpayne]

Thank you :)

[Redone84]

So just seen This and thought I would give my take.
Just talk about the conflict rather than go in shell and then put a wall up and letting us just wonder how to end the argument.
I've always hated conflict in a relationship and always want to sort it out before you go to bed.

[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.

[KrakenAttackin]

Absolutely, positively, correct. Well said, sir!

[soleil2666]

@KrakenAttackin Thanks mate 👍