Will you women DROP IT already?!

In My Humble Opinion
161

[QUOTE=LouisB]
My own wife has ADD; she loses her car keys, her wedding rings, her shoes(!) at least twice a week yet claims she can recall in verbatim conversations that occurred weeks, months, or even years ago. When I am talking to her, I’m never positive she is hearing a word I say; she will often interrupt to resume a conversation we were having at some point in the past. It often takes me several minutes to recall whatever the hell it is that she is talking about and that makes me insensitive to her feelings.

When my darling Marcie says, "We need to talk, what I hear is “Sit down and shut up; I have something to say and you are not going to like it.” The reason I won’t like it is because I usually don’t have any idea as to what she is upset about because whatever it is happened so long ago that I have forgotten it.

I used to say, “Marcie, you’re a trip.” Now I tell her she is a journey, not a trip, and that there is no destination in sight. She usually replies that I am finally beginning to understand her; I wish I had another fifty years to spend with her.

It takes work but its worth it; if she “needs to talk,” the least I can do is listen and respond.

YMMV
[/QUOTE]

The ‘sexual politics’ in this thread matter fuck-all to me. But Louis, can I just say that your post put a smile on my face and brought a tear to my eye. It is truly lovely AND exhibits real love, and transcends all the bullshit being spewed here.

You are a true gentleman sir.

162

This is the part where the mine field is. This is the part where there’s the ‘logical’ communication, and the ‘emotional’ communication. I am more of a ‘logical’ communicator. There’s no solution that’s going to be acceptable to the ‘emotional’ communicator, and so a ‘logical’ communicator like me is going to just not try it. The ‘logical’ communicator has already stated that ‘I don’t really think you should get a job.’ Continuing to probe that has no point unless your goal is to piss them off. That will result in you being told whatever you want to hear so that this part of the conversation ends. Then it will take a while before the ‘logical’ communicator wants to go on to this:

This is a problem that has a logical, reasonable solution. A ‘logical’ communicator, like me, cannot figure out why it needs to be a discussion about emotions rather than about dollars and cents. No matter how much a ‘emotional’ communicator tries to explain it, that connection will never happen. The ‘logical’ communicator discusses a problem with a goal-oriented approach: find a solution, act on it, and move on. The ‘emotional’ communicator discusses a problem with a feeling-centered approach: have someone else hear my feelings, have someone validate those feelings, and stop only when I am done venting.

It’s been my experience that two ‘logicals’ tend to work out well together, a ‘logical’ and an ‘emotional’ can if they try hard enough to understand that they are both different and neither can change who they are, and that when two ‘emotionals’ get together there are near constant fireworks.

I am not saying that being a ‘logical’ is better than being an ‘emotional’. What I am saying is that I think there are some people who do not recognize the ‘logicals’ as having a valid communication style.

As for me, I happen to be one of those ‘logicals’ who’s found that I am much happier in relationships with other ‘logicals’.

163

Delete “We need to talk” and insert “I’d like to talk with you about something.”

Things will go much smoother.

164

[QUOTE=catsix]
There’s no solution that’s going to be acceptable to the ‘emotional’ communicator, and so a ‘logical’ communicator like me is going to just not try it.
[/QUOTE]

Oh bullshit.

165

I don’t have this particular problem with my wife; she isn’t coy about being displeased with me or why. However, I’ve noticed one thing that bothers me…it’s always, always her having a problem with me, i.e. she’s Type A and I’m not. We’ve known each other for 18 years and she’s still trying to talk to me about some Type A bullshit. I never, ever approach her to talk to her about her issues; I understand that noone’s perfect and I let things go. I might get mad, but I get over it. These coversations are nearly always one-sided, ergo not useful. If you’re all Type A and want all this bullshit your way, do it your fucking self (or better yet, take a deep breath and just let it go); don’t try to draw others into your psychosis. (that’s not so much directed at my wife as Type A folks in general).

166

[QUOTE=An Arky]
I never, ever approach her to talk to her about her issues; I understand that noone’s perfect and I let things go. I might get mad, but I get over it. These coversations are nearly always one-sided, ergo not useful. If you’re all Type A and want all this bullshit your way, do it your fucking self; don’t try to draw others into your psychosis.
[/QUOTE]

You know, I don’t have a problem with it, but if you’re talking about it on a messageboard have you really “let it go”?

There are a number of people in this thread who don’t seem to have let it go while complaining that others don’t let it go.

If you (general you) are building up resentment about a particular behavior, but instead of saying something about it you (general you) complain to people who can’t do anything, all the while saying that it’s your spouse who just can’t seem to get over things and dwells on things, isn’t that a little funny?

167

Fortunately, this hasn’t happened in the relationship I’m in – so far – but it was quite common in previous relationships.

Woman: We’ve got to talk about (something that I’ve done more than once that got her upset, along with times and places that it happened).
Me: You do the same thing too, you know.
Woman: We’re talking about you, not me!

168

[QUOTE=Catsix]
There’s no solution that’s going to be acceptable to the ‘emotional’ communicator, and so a ‘logical’ communicator like me is going to just not try it.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Oh bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

169

It’s not really clear to me how the guy who dumps his anger on someone and then tries to make the situation go away with a bandaid-like apology is being any more logical than the woman who is trying to figure out where all that anger is coming from (newsflash: they don’t come from a vacuum) and vent about the effect his behavior has on her. In fact, I think if anyone is being an “emotional” communicator, it’s the person who, um, well…do I even need to say? It’s just obvious to me. It’s the person who finds himself lashing out for no rational reason because he doesn’t know how to express his feelings well before the tea kettle blows.

I think men aren’t any more rational than women are. They just think they are because it makes them feel superior to women. They mistake emotions for irrationality. That’s an irrational conclusion.

170

[QUOTE=catsix]
Just because joint finances are the only way you view as correct, does not make it so.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? I view nothing as “correct” or “incorrect.” Whatever is correct for each person is their deal. I just don’t think you have the practical experience to tell a world full of married people that they’re doing it wrong and your way is going to solve their problems.

The your money/my money thing works great and is highly advisable for unmarried people. Once you are married, everything is LEGALLY “ours,” and expenses come up that are not just rent, groceries and utilities. My credit is involved in all his major money decisions, and vice versa; legally, it doesn’t matter that you have this pretense of your money/my money; if he defaults on a loan with both our names on it, we’re BOTH screwed. Who is saving for retirement/pension? That’s shared, legally, even if you were saving for yours and I was saving for mine. Whose name is on the car title? Both of ours. Why? Because two incomes on a credit ap gets approved much more easily than one, and it’s one of the perqs of getting married. We tried to keep it separate, but it’s not terribly easy, nor is it as practical as it sounds. I imagine this is doubly true if you have kids together.

IOW, your view on marital finance is naive and simplistic, as you have obviously never really been in this situation, so you don’t actually speak from experience, just some idealized image you’ve created to counter arguments on message boards. When you’re married, you have to work together on your finances, as a team, not just say, “You take your pile and deal, and I’ll take mine. Later.” It’s not possible when you have joint assets and kids, etc.

Also, if you think a man who says something incredibly nasty and undermining to his wife, like in fessie’s example, just because he’s angry, is the “logical” actor in that scenario, you’re working with a faulty definition of “logical.” He irrationally lashed out in anger and said something hurtful that he claims he didn’t mean. There is a bigger problem there; either he really DOES want her to get a job and it only came out when he was angry, or he is just cruel to his wife when he’s angry. Either way, there’s a problem there. A “logical” person would try to solve the problem, not brush it off and pretend it’s nothing, so it can come up again and again and fuck up their marriage.

171

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. When someone makes idiotic blanket statements that reveal their own prejudices, there isn’t much I can do about that.

She said “There’s no solution that’s going to be acceptable to the ‘emotional’ communicator.”

That is, without the slightest shred of doubt, bullshit.

172

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Sorry. When someone makes idiotic blanket statements that reveal their own prejudices, there isn’t much I can do about that.

She said “There’s no solution that’s going to be acceptable to the ‘emotional’ communicator.”

That is, without the slightest shred of doubt, bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

And, the guy who lashes out at his wife in anger and then apologizes is also an “emotional” communicator, not a"logical" one-- saying something you admit was false just because you’re pissed? Irrational and fucked up. The gender lines drawn here between logical and emotional are arbitrary and not accurate. Just wanting to “drop” something does not automatically make you the logical party in the discussion. Sometimes it would, but sometimes, no, you’re being irrational and not taking a problem solving approach, since solving problems often requires discussion. Depends on the problem, of course.

173

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I think men aren’t any more rational than women are. They just think they are because it makes them feel superior to women. They mistake emotions for irrationality. That’s an irrational conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

Generally speaking, men use logic and women use emotion to argue. Rationality and logic are sometimes mutually exclusive because rationality can be subjective and logic can be objective. Women (again generally speaking) take a different tack to arguements because they’re aware that men use logic, and, in order to manipulate the course of the argument, involve emotions that take the men from their comfort zone (away from logic). Further, women have an innate need for order. For some, that need extends so far that for any arguement there’s not a tic in that win column, that the arguement stays in the ‘fix it’ folder until there is.

More women in my experience do this than not. In fact, many consider men fools because they DON’T do this. It’s the reason that reality TV is so popular with women (at least IMO) because of the personal politics involved, and how this person is able to manipulate that one into doing what THEY want, and so forth.

Not all women are this way, nor are all men the opposite, but it’s rare to find a man who’s a manipulator for the sake of the manipulation, and a woman who uses logic and reason over emotion and self-rationalization.

[QUOTE=rubystreak]
And, the guy who lashes out at his wife in anger and then apologizes is also an “emotional” communicator, not a"logical" one-- saying something you admit was false just because you’re pissed? Irrational and fucked up. The gender lines drawn here between logical and emotional are arbitrary and not accurate. Just wanting to “drop” something does not automatically make you the logical party in the discussion. Sometimes it would, but sometimes, no, you’re being irrational and not taking a problem solving approach, since solving problems often requires discussion. Depends on the problem, of course.
[/QUOTE]

No doubt. The gender lines drawn here represent the most likely scenario based on simple human experience, rather than hard data, simply because the data would be impossible to accurately collect.

Just as wanting to “drop” something does not automatically make you logical, pressing on and keeping an issue alive beyond its impact or real ability to be fixed, changed or otherwise propely addressed, does not make you a problem solver. In fact, sometimes it just makes you a pain in the ass.

174

[QUOTE=kambuckta]
The ‘sexual politics’ in this thread matter fuck-all to me. But Louis, can I just say that your post put a smile on my face and brought a tear to my eye. It is truly lovely AND exhibits real love, and transcends all the bullshit being spewed here.

You are a true gentleman sir.
[/QUOTE]

I meant to address this before, but LouisB I could not agree more with kambuckta. With all I’ve so far said on the subject (and I’ll include all I’m likely to say), your post renders it meaningless in the face of your love for your SO. May we all know that kind of love. Good on you friend.

175

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Generally speaking, men use logic and women use emotion to argue. Rationality and logic are sometimes mutually exclusive because rationality can be subjective and logic can be objective. Women (again generally speaking) take a different tack to arguements because they’re aware that men use logic, and, in order to manipulate the course of the argument, involve emotions that take the men from their comfort zone (away from logic).
[/quote]

Yeah, and men (generally speaking) perceive a mere difference in communication styles as being a sinister tool of manipulation, when that is usually not the case at all. Ironically, this indicates a certain jumping to conclusion mentality that flies in the face of all this objective logic that they profess to having. Which leads me to believe they are only deluding themselves if they think they are more rational than women.

Women seem to more comfortable talking and expressing their emotions while men are uncomfortable with that (probably due to social programming). This discomfort on the males part causes him to shy away from discussion of conflict, because that almost always involves emotions and he doesn’t like those. Because women don’t have this built-in bias, they are more open to talking about conflict, including talking about their feelings, which they are not in the habit of suppressing like men are.

Why does it have to be anymore complicated then that? Women don’t live to make men unhappy. To hear some of yall, that’s exactly what it seems like you’re saying.

176

And yet I have seen examples of things being managed exactly the way you say is ‘impossible’ that have lasted 35, 40, 45 years.

So maybe you don’t know everything. You don’t have to put ‘two incomes on a credit report’.

I’ve never, ever had difficulty getting any kind of loan application approved or passing a credit check without putting someone else on it. I’ve got a solid, steady income and a high credit score. My mother’s car was purchased on her credit alone, because she didn’t take my father to the dealership when she wanted to buy it.

When you have good credit, and can actually afford what you’re trying to buy, it really doesn’t seem that difficult to be approved for the loan.

And you have to recognize that your way is not the only way, and that you are not the arbiter of what you ‘have to’ do or how you ‘have to’ handle things. It is perfectly possible to have three piles of money instead of one. There’s the joint pile, the my pile, and the your pile whether you think so or not. You manage your money how you want, but don’t expect that everyone follow your rules.

Logicals have moments where they blurt something out in anger the same as anyone else. The difference is that they don’t continue to harp about it for a fucking month.

And yet every time we have one of these discussions, with few exceptions, there are more women in the thread going ‘but he needs to talk about his feelings’ and more men going ‘is it really necessary to bring up every single past mistake I’ve ever made and how she feels about them because I was late meeting her at the restaurant today?’

Every. Fucking. Time.

Whether you like it or not, these discussions naturally divide down the gender line with few instances of cross-over. It’s not a scientific study, but in all my observation it’s never played out differently.

177

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Yeah, and men (generally speaking) perceive a mere difference in communication styles as being a sinister tool of manipulation, when that is usually not the case at all. Ironically, this indicates a certain jumping to conclusion mentality that flies in the face of all this objective logic that they profess to having. Which leads me to believe they are only deluding themselves if they think they are more rational than women.
[/QUOTE]

It’s only a perception until it happens, then it’s an experience. Still, I never said the manipulation was sinister, it’s just how it happens, or it’s how (most) women are “wired” as was previously stated (by who now I can’t recall).

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Women seem to more comfortable talking and expressing their emotions while men are uncomfortable with that (probably due to social programming). This discomfort on the males part causes him to shy away from discussion of conflict, because that almost always involves emotions and he doesn’t like those. Because women don’t have this built-in bias, they are more open to talking about conflict, including talking about their feelings, which they are not in the habit of suppressing like men are.
[/QUOTE]

Suppression of emotions is an issue of social programming, but it is also natural programming. How many women want to spend time with a guy who gets weepy about things all the time, or resorts to the same type of subtle physical manipulations that women do to gain the upper hand in arguments? Most women would tire of that in a big hurry. Frankly, it’s in our best interest to be strong in the face of adversity and conflict rather than to break down and express completely the things we “feel” because, honestly, sometimes we feel like the person we’re in conflict with just needs a kick in the ass. We don’t explore that feeling because we know it’s going to end poorly, so then, logic is the master of the arguement. In the end, we’re not comfortable with emotions because you can’t solve problems with emotions, you solve problems with solutions, it does no good to discuss how the problem made you feel if that feeling doesn’t come with a solution to the problem.

It doesn’t HAVE to, but it IS that way sometimes. I mean, I love women, but I also see the connection between the sexes for the dance that it is. I don’t think women live to make men unhappy, but the tests they apply in the search for either a mate, a father for potential kids, or a protector can certainly be vexing.

178

[QUOTE=catsix]
Logicals have moments where they blurt something out in anger the same as anyone else. The difference is that they don’t continue to harp about it for a fucking month.
[/QUOTE]

And unfortunately, what they don’t seem to realize is that saying, “I’m sorry I didn’t mean it” doesn’t buy them a one way ticket out of “I’ve been an asshole” city! So we want to freaking talk about how they’ve hurt us. Is that so difficult? Take some responsibility for your actions - if you’ve hurt someone, frankly you owe it to them to let them tell you why and how they’re feeling. That is not harping about it for a month. It’s “I’d like to talk to you about this”.

179

It’s incomprehensible. Why do you want to talk about it? The thing is over.

You know how you can’t understand why they don’t want to talk about it?

Yeah, same idea.

I prefer the guy method of ‘Shit, sorry bout that. You want a beer?’

180

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
It’s only a perception until it happens, then it’s an experience. Still, I never said the manipulation was sinister, it’s just how it happens, or it’s how (most) women are “wired” as was previously stated (by who now I can’t recall).
[/quote]

Instead of just taking the view that women argue differently than men (which can be objectively determined), you go one step farther and opine that they argue differently in order to disarm men. This is a conclusion based on an emotional response, not logic or reason.

Women are under as much influence of social programming as men are. Everyone receives the same messages: Women are this way, men are that way. So just because women don’t want weepy men doesn’t mean there is necessarily a biologic basis for this preference.

The world just might be a better place if people talked about their feelings rather than jump into fight mode, ya think? The thing is, both are expressions of emotion. One is more likely to get one killed than the other, though.

This is wrong, too. You solve problems by getting the emotions out there in the open so you can better understand the root causes of whatever started the conflict in the first place but do it in a rational way. Hypothetical man who yells at his work-from-home wife to get a job didn’t just pull that thought out of thin air, and he’s only deluding himself if that’s what he thinks. Women may be more likely to understand that because they are used to studying their emotions. And that’s why she can’t just let things drop like the man wishes she would.

It’s also funny how you start this sentence off by saying “we’re not comfortable…” which again is an emotional response. Sometimes necessary things are painful. Letting emotions get in the way of recognizing and doing what is necessary is not a sign of someone who is a good problem-solver.

I think men and women would do well to see the pros and cons of both ways of communicating, and meet each other somewhere in the middle.