School’s out.
I don’t know if I’m in a silly mood or what, but that made me really laugh.
I KNEW it!
This lady is so confused she fell down.
Honestly, I don’t even get what we’re talking about here. What ‘‘conversation styles’’ do women have that men don’t have? I’m not trying to be snarky, I just don’t understand what this supposed difference is. Lakai, your explanation seemed very reasonable, can you give examples of conversation styles A and B?
The one example given by the OP involved a woman being deliberately obtuse, because she’s pissed off. What conversation style is that? Because that’s not a conversation style to me – it’s a character flaw.
It’s not meant to, I don’t think. It’s meant to reassure the speaker (and perhaps reinforce for the listener) that there really are some essentials to what makes a woman a woman and a man a man. In that sense, it assumes, and argues for, a social-conservative view of gender.
You’re right. I, as a woman, enjoy lies, and honesty shatters my delicate, illogical, womanly sensibilities. On second thought, Crafter Man, please forward some of your dishonest male friends as soon as you can. That is, if you can find one.
I think Lakai probably means that women tend to give the broad strokes of some things, taking it for granted that the listener can fill in the blanks because the implications are obvious. Which, when talking to other women, is usually true. Men, otoh, tend to not be as good as connecting the dots for whatever reason.
It’s an ongoing evolutionary battle. If women were simple, it would be easy for men to understand them. By being complicated, women are challenging their potential mates. You have to figure her out in order to convince her she should carry your genes (along with hers) on to the next generation. Why should she make it easy for you?
Do you have an example? I’ve never found that to be the case at all.
Wouldn’t making it easy for him also make life easier for her? I could just be lazy, but all that game-playing business sounds like huge hassle. My husband and I manage without it. 
So what? A bunch of people I will never meet in real life are going to get really angry and write a bunch of personal attacks because they disagree with what I said. Meanwhile my girlfriend and I are going to grab a bottle of wine and go to dinner (I think I’m in the mood for sushi). Maybe if I remember, I’ll come back and respond.
I don’t think it’s either. I simply accept that women will act in ways that often do not make sense to me.
I’m reasonably honest. I already have a girlfriend though.
Fair enough. I don’t presume to speak for those men.
Yes, make fun of me for standing up to some jerk in a bar and refusing a woman who was blatently hitting on me. Maybe while you are at it, you could go ahead and ridicule me for being one of those losers who is educated, actually makes a decent salary in a good job, is in a long-term relationship and doesn’t live with his parents.:eek:
Alright, I have to go to dinner now. I look at the rest of the comments later.
THIS times a thousand as far as I am concerned.
To me it REEKS of “solve the retarded uneccessary puzzle and maybe you’ll get some putang”
I will give one example from the book You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tanner, who was mentioned earlier in the thread.
The main difference in the two conversation styles is that one is focused on connection and intimacy while the other on status and independence. Tanner broadly attributes each communication style to either men or woman (can you guess which is which?) She knows she’s overgeneralizing but I think it helps her sell books. It’s a look more exciting to talk in terms of men and women rather than coming up with dry scientific terms for each communication style. I will call the manly communication “style M” and the womanly communication “style W.”
One difference in the communication styles is how each style tries to comfort other people. Style M, focused on status and independence, responds to troubles by offering solutions or pretending the troubles are not so bad. Style W, focused on connection and intimacy, responds to troubles by offering matching troubles.
So if someone says “I’m having trouble sleeping.” Style W would say “I didn’t sleep will either. I never do.” Style M would say “try wearing ear plugs” or “you should be fine with 5 hours of sleep, it’s no big deal.”
This can create problems if someone with style W hears the style M reply that attempts to fix or ignore the problem. From style M’s perspective he’s only trying to help, but style W, who cares about intimacy and connection, sees the reply as uncaring. Style W was expecting Style M to show he understood her problem, but that’s not what Style M does when presented with a problem.
In the reverse situation, if style M was having trouble sleeping and style W responded by saying “I didn’t sleep well either,” then it could come across to style M as belittling. Style M people care about status. Solving a problem gives you more status. Having problems gives you less status. But if you validate another person’s problem, it can be seen as an attempt to lower their status. That’s why if style M shares a problem he expects a solution and no validation. And why a style W looking to show understanding might be seen as belittling. Style M might read “I didn’t sleep well either” with sarcasm even when none was intended.
As a male, if I have a problem, then I would want a Style M answer. I would want someone to either solve the problem or tell me it’s no big deal. If some one responds with their own experience I might take that as a belittling validation of the problem. The other day I came home from a long drive to a new location, and a woman told me that she often gets worried on complicated car journeys of her own. Initially I wondered if she was trying to say I was scared of driving long distances. Thinking something along the lines of: “You dare question my supreme mastery of the road?” - a response oriented around worrying about status. Then I remembered the different conversation styles and realized she was only trying to comfort me by showing she understood. Conflict avoided.
I’m honestly surprised that you have a girlfriend. I’m not saying that you couldn’t get one, I’m saying I’m surprised that you would want to spend your time with someone who lives in a fantasy world and can’t comprehend logic and reason.
Does she know you think that about her? Do you even like her?
I don’t mean to be too combative, because this isn’t a debate, but do you have any evidence, either external or even Tanner’s own, that the differences you and she are talking about are actually meaningful? Shouldn’t any adult male or female be able to communicate in both your M and W styles?
If I tell one of my employees I’m not satisfied with their performance, is it acceptable for them to tell me she feels the same way about her own subordinates and always does if they’re a woman? Or should she be expected to find a way to solve my problem like a man would naturally want to?
If my friend tells me their cat died, wouldn`t I be an asshole if I said it was just a cat and offered to help bury it? Whether my friend was male or female? I mean honestly, as a man, if your beloved pet died, would you want people to empathize or to attempt to diminish your problem and find ways to solve it?
Both genders have the ability to communicate in both styles - it’s just that they usually aren’t aware of the different styles. So they say something assuming they’re communicating with style M and then someone using Style W gives it a completely unintended meaning.
If two people have one conversation with different perspectives, then their different perspectives are meaningful. Understanding where each other person is coming from and their assumptions about communication can help them communicate with each other.
The evidence in the book concerning the example I gave comes from a researcher recording conversations among teenage boys and girls. The author then points out the differences of communication style within the conversation. How the guys deal with problems and then how the girls do it.
You’re changing the context of the conversation. My example was a situation where someone says that they have a problem of their own, not with the person they’re speaking with. If the boss said she was having car trouble, then it would fit my example. Then a woman would likely respond with a story of her own car troubles and a guy would likely respond with solutions to the problem.
Depends what the friend cares about more - status or intimacy? If your friend wants intimacy then the best response would be to show empathy. If your friend cares about status, then the best response would be to say “shit happens, lets go bury him.” However, I imagine that in this situation there would be fewer men who care about status, so empathy would be the right way to go even with men.
It wasn’t supposed to be the same situation. It’s supposed to be a situation where a anyone, man or woman, would know to respond with a definite solution not empathy.
Status of what? Their dead pet? I’ve never met a man who brought up a dead pet and wanted me to blow off his problem or help bury it. And for that matter I’ve never met a woman who couldn`t recognize that work conversations = practical solution time.
I’ve talked to people who empathized when I wanted pragmatism, and I’ve talked to people who were practical when I wanted empathy… but I’ve always chalked it up to bad communications. These types of mismatches seem much more highly correlated with bad communicators than with men vs. women.
Yeah, while wearing strappy stilletos and sheer bras. Nothing confusing about 'em.
I need coffee.
If you think your girlfriend is essentially an emotional lesser being, why are you with it?
It just seems funny that you say that women live in a fantasy world and think that a bunch of younger women wanted to have sex with you.
Incidentally, what does your being an educated guy with a job have anything to do with it? If we had a millionaire on here, could he get away with remarks about the servile Negro or the moneygrubbing Jew?
I don’t find women to be particularly confusing.
I find most women to be, just as most men are, inclined to attribute to the opposite sex (that would be us malefolks from the women’s vantage point) volitional intention & therefore responsibility while being a bit more inclined to explain the actions of themselves and the rest of their sex in terms of reaction to context (which includes us males insofar as we are part of their context).
In other words, both sexes do a lot of what they do that frustrates the hell out of the other sex in reaction to what that other sex is doing; the behavioral patterns form a co-reactive (and co-dependent) dance, and each sex is inclined to think the other does what they’re doing “on purpose” or because “that’s just how they’re wired”.