Peer sexual harassment is sexual harassment which occurs happens between people who know each other. Sexual harassment is any non-consensual touching or comment that is of a sexual nature. This may seem to be a subjective definition, but for the inclusion of the word “non-consensual”. Consent is a very important idea when you’re talking about any sexual matter--from actual sex, to flirting and playful banter. When you’re attempting to engage someone, whether it’s a conversation or a hug, you should get that person’s consent before continuing. That doesn’t mean you need to explicitly ask everyone every time you want to talk to them; consent includes watching for non-verbal indicators that the other party is okay with your engaging them. As an example, I’ve had numerous people engage me in both harmless and sexual conversation on public transportation--the most memorable, to me, was the one guy who kept trying to talk to me even though I kept going back to my book and answering him (if I did) monosyllabically. It’s easy to say “You should have just told the guy to go away”--I wonder myself what kept me from doing so. Social situations are a two-party system, though, and to any reasonable viewer, I was not consenting to that guy’s attempt to engage me.
I would consider any form of unwanted touching to be sexual harassment. If someone doesn’t want it, they aren’t consenting to it. It is, of course, difficult to know what other people are thinking, but that’s why you have to be proactive in determining whether or not someone is okay with your actions. Don’t assume that if they aren’t speaking up, that they’re okay with it. Don’t be an accidental harasser--even good, well intentioned people can accidentally overstep boundaries. People are human, they make mistakes. That’s not the problem. The problem is when you don’t care enough to establish personal boundaries with other people. It’s hard; I know how hard it is, as someone who’s had to speak up countless times to establish my own boundaries, which seem to be more restricted than is common (I’m not a hugger, for instance, and am uncomfortable with hugging people I’m not in an established friendship with, but this seems to be uncommon in my peers, and I’ve had to have the “please ask before hugging me” conversation a lot). But it’s important to know what other people are comfortable with, especially if you’re trying to improve your communication with them. Having a five minute conversation about what the other person is comfortable with (“Hey, I know I’m a real touchy kind of person, are you okay with that? y/n”) can greatly improve a relationship--it tells the other person that you care about them; and if you respect their boundaries, it shows them that they can trust you.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
Gender Communication in the Workplace
This post is in response to this video.
The first issue that jumped out at me was the way in which the project manager, Terry, seemed to demand things from her employees. Regardless of the cultural and gender differences between her and her employees, it’s a generally bad idea to be demanding of the people you’re working with. It’s good to expect things from your employees, but to expect that the people you’re working with are responsible for everything that goes wrong is going to breed in your co-workers an inability to trust you. They won’t want to come to you for help because they’ll expect that you’re going to just blame them for the problems, instead of supporting and empowering them to find the solution themselves.
Terry also seemed uninterested in the actual reasons there were problems. She asked what the problems were, but didn’t allow her employees room to explain the issues. Had Carlos been allowed to explain the system of compadres that were in place, the problem with the equipment would have been avoided. Instead, Terry ignored the advice that Carlos gave--clearly not caring about his opinion or experience. There is nothing so demoralizing as thinking that the person you’re working for doesn’t respect your opinions--they don’t have to agree with you, but they should at least be interested and explore what issues come up.
In a gender communications context, women and men are often socialized to communicate differently; when Miguel spoke about how his culture uses a lot of body language and other nonverbal communication, I was reminded of the section in our text which went over how men and women often utilize different communication styles. Obviously, if two people are “speaking two different languages” (communicating differently), there will be roadblocks to effective communication. If one party is unable or unwilling to adapt to the communication style of the person they’re engaging in communication with, communication will break down, and problems like what we saw in the video will occur.
I'm including my response to a student's response to the video here because it's so short:
I agree that the video focuses primarily on cultural differences, but I think if you think of men and women as coming from different cultures, this video becomes applicable to gender communications. Of course, the analogy isn't airtight, as men and women from the same culture tend to share more in common with each other than they do with men and women from other cultures. However, as we've read about in our textbook, men and women often approach problems in communication as though they have been raised in separate cultures--much like cross-cultural communication, cross-gender is possible. I would argue that cross-gender communication is easier than cross-cultural communication; as I said, men and women from the same culture tend to have shared experiences that they can build on. When we speak to someone else, we are very much aware of their gender (gender is one of the first things we notice about someone, in fact), and as such we adapt our communication style to match what we think they expect and what we expect they will best respond to. How you communicate with people changes depending on context, and context includes things like what gender you perceive the other party to be. Men and women from the same culture will know, if only intuitively, how to communicate in a gendered context. Problems arise when these communication patterns are based on stereotypes, rather than being responsive to the individual you're communicating with--much as we saw in the cross-cultural video.
The first issue that jumped out at me was the way in which the project manager, Terry, seemed to demand things from her employees. Regardless of the cultural and gender differences between her and her employees, it’s a generally bad idea to be demanding of the people you’re working with. It’s good to expect things from your employees, but to expect that the people you’re working with are responsible for everything that goes wrong is going to breed in your co-workers an inability to trust you. They won’t want to come to you for help because they’ll expect that you’re going to just blame them for the problems, instead of supporting and empowering them to find the solution themselves.
Terry also seemed uninterested in the actual reasons there were problems. She asked what the problems were, but didn’t allow her employees room to explain the issues. Had Carlos been allowed to explain the system of compadres that were in place, the problem with the equipment would have been avoided. Instead, Terry ignored the advice that Carlos gave--clearly not caring about his opinion or experience. There is nothing so demoralizing as thinking that the person you’re working for doesn’t respect your opinions--they don’t have to agree with you, but they should at least be interested and explore what issues come up.
In a gender communications context, women and men are often socialized to communicate differently; when Miguel spoke about how his culture uses a lot of body language and other nonverbal communication, I was reminded of the section in our text which went over how men and women often utilize different communication styles. Obviously, if two people are “speaking two different languages” (communicating differently), there will be roadblocks to effective communication. If one party is unable or unwilling to adapt to the communication style of the person they’re engaging in communication with, communication will break down, and problems like what we saw in the video will occur.
__________________
I agree that the video focuses primarily on cultural differences, but I think if you think of men and women as coming from different cultures, this video becomes applicable to gender communications. Of course, the analogy isn't airtight, as men and women from the same culture tend to share more in common with each other than they do with men and women from other cultures. However, as we've read about in our textbook, men and women often approach problems in communication as though they have been raised in separate cultures--much like cross-cultural communication, cross-gender is possible. I would argue that cross-gender communication is easier than cross-cultural communication; as I said, men and women from the same culture tend to have shared experiences that they can build on. When we speak to someone else, we are very much aware of their gender (gender is one of the first things we notice about someone, in fact), and as such we adapt our communication style to match what we think they expect and what we expect they will best respond to. How you communicate with people changes depending on context, and context includes things like what gender you perceive the other party to be. Men and women from the same culture will know, if only intuitively, how to communicate in a gendered context. Problems arise when these communication patterns are based on stereotypes, rather than being responsive to the individual you're communicating with--much as we saw in the cross-cultural video.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Ways to Hurt in a Close Relationship
I really can’t generalize from my own experiences to speak to both genders in this regard, but going on what I have observed in my own relationships, and the relationships in those around me, it seems as though men are more likely to use physical violence to hurt their partners. Women are more likely to use emotional violence, or psychological violence, against their partners. Female-on-male physical violence is probably less rare than people tend to think, and it’s usually shrugged off because women tend to be the less physically strong partner. Physical violence, though, often comes packaged with psychological violence, because the receiver of the violence will often feel self-doubt as a result of their partner’s attack--they’ll question what they did to provoke the attack, they’ll convince themselves that it wasn’t that big of a deal. If it’s woman-on-man violence, I can imagine that most men would feel too ashamed to speak up about the violence, given the ridicule the idea of a woman battering a man often garners; men aren’t supposed to be physically inferior to women, so getting “bested” in a physical fight with your female partner is bound to create all kind of self-shame and feel emasculating. Men’s identities are often tied up in how physically strong they are, so having that questioned is going to cause them distress. Domestic violence is often framed as something that only women have to deal with, as well, and that creates a sort of vacuum in which men don’t feel they can speak up in.
I also think that emotional abuse is brushed off as some sort of unserious problem. I’ve had friends who have been in manipulative and emotionally difficult relationships, where their partner made them feel as though my friends were at fault for whatever problems were happening. I’ve seen what that sort of abuse can do to someone, and don’t feel like it gets talked about often enough. It usually involves making the victim feel as though they can’t trust their own feelings, that the victim is just ‘over-reacting’ to something, or just ‘crazy’ and making up stuff. While over-reactions and misinterpretations happen (humans are flawed beings, and mistakes get made), often abusers will deflect any responsibility for the problems that come up. I noticed that in the text, in the sections regarding the two ways abuse affects the abused, and why they stay (Ivy 295-297)--the Blaming Oneself and Blaming External Factors sections didn’t explicitly say it, but what happens in these situations is that the victim isn’t able to attach responsibility to the abuser; from what I’ve seen and experienced, the abuser is complicit in this thinking, refusing to accept that their actions have actually caused harm or refusing to engage their partner in discussion about how they’re harming their partner. It’s easy to point to a bruise and tell someone, “You’ve really hurt me,” but it’s another thing to point to a feeling and tell someone, “You’re why I’m feeling this [sadness, guilt, anger].”
I also think that emotional abuse is brushed off as some sort of unserious problem. I’ve had friends who have been in manipulative and emotionally difficult relationships, where their partner made them feel as though my friends were at fault for whatever problems were happening. I’ve seen what that sort of abuse can do to someone, and don’t feel like it gets talked about often enough. It usually involves making the victim feel as though they can’t trust their own feelings, that the victim is just ‘over-reacting’ to something, or just ‘crazy’ and making up stuff. While over-reactions and misinterpretations happen (humans are flawed beings, and mistakes get made), often abusers will deflect any responsibility for the problems that come up. I noticed that in the text, in the sections regarding the two ways abuse affects the abused, and why they stay (Ivy 295-297)--the Blaming Oneself and Blaming External Factors sections didn’t explicitly say it, but what happens in these situations is that the victim isn’t able to attach responsibility to the abuser; from what I’ve seen and experienced, the abuser is complicit in this thinking, refusing to accept that their actions have actually caused harm or refusing to engage their partner in discussion about how they’re harming their partner. It’s easy to point to a bruise and tell someone, “You’ve really hurt me,” but it’s another thing to point to a feeling and tell someone, “You’re why I’m feeling this [sadness, guilt, anger].”
Monday, April 28, 2014
Conflict and Gender Communication in Romantic Relationships
Conflict, in my experience, arises as a combination of conflicting needs, desires, or wants and poor communication between partners. Even if the partners aren’t experiencing a conflict of needs, if they aren’t communicating with their partner, this will lead to conflict. Poorly communicating to your partner can be just as bad, too--if you aren’t speaking up for yourself, if you aren’t being honest with your partner, or if you aren’t willing to listen to your partner, all of these can lead to conflict within a relationship.
The demand-withdraw pattern seems to me to arise from one or both partners being unwilling or unable to view their relationship as a sum of the parts, rather as being as they want it to be. A relationship isn’t just what one partner wants it to be, it’s got to be a mutual thing, where both partners are defining the parameters of the relationship. In a demand-withdraw pattern, it seems more like one partner is imposing their own desires on the relationship, and doesn’t seem to care about the other partner; this might be for a variety of reasons--maybe their partner has a history of ignoring their desires, maybe their partner doesn’t assert any desires and so they feel the need to fill a vacuum, or maybe they demand things because they haven’t matured to the point where they feel comfortable accommodating the other person. The partner who tends to withdraw might do so for a variety of reasons, as well--perhaps they feel hounded, perhaps they don’t know how to express their own desires, perhaps they aren’t willing to risk the relationship over what they view as a single instance of disagreement.
I think the best way to avoid the demand-withdraw pattern in a relationship is to not avoid conflict, as hard as that can be, and to confront differences in wants, needs, and desires directly. Being honest with your partner about how comfortable you are with certain activities, having boundaries regarding “couple time” and “me time”, and genuinely wanting to be in a relationship with the other person--not to view them as a necessity, or a chore, but genuinely want to build a life with that person (maybe for the rest of your life, or maybe just for six months)--seem like the best ways to avoid demand-withdraw.
My response to another student (it's short so I'm not going to put it in a separate post):
I think you're spot on when you say "Neither of the parties really have to take any responsibility for issues they share [in the demand-withdraw pattern]." The demander gets to put the onus of responsibility for a problem on the other party, and the withdrawer gets to shirk all responsibility by avoiding dealing with the conflict. The problem, meanwhile, is still present in the relationship; ignoring or making someone else deal with the problem isn't going to make it go away. It's also easy, after a while, for the withdrawer to frame their partner as a 'nag' or simply over-sensitive, rather than admit that they have a part to play in maintain the relationship. The demander can frame their partner as indifferent or insensitive to their needs, which will likely only fuel their flaw-finding.
I agree that conflict is often synonymous with fighting, while there are definitely differences between them. I think it's reasonable to expect conflict in a relationship, and I think it's natural to fear fighting with someone you care about. Having an argument with someone you care about is difficult. You don't want to be angry with someone you have deep feelings for. I don't think it's as easy as "not fearing" conflict, but being able to push through the fear, if that makes any sense.
The demand-withdraw pattern seems to me to arise from one or both partners being unwilling or unable to view their relationship as a sum of the parts, rather as being as they want it to be. A relationship isn’t just what one partner wants it to be, it’s got to be a mutual thing, where both partners are defining the parameters of the relationship. In a demand-withdraw pattern, it seems more like one partner is imposing their own desires on the relationship, and doesn’t seem to care about the other partner; this might be for a variety of reasons--maybe their partner has a history of ignoring their desires, maybe their partner doesn’t assert any desires and so they feel the need to fill a vacuum, or maybe they demand things because they haven’t matured to the point where they feel comfortable accommodating the other person. The partner who tends to withdraw might do so for a variety of reasons, as well--perhaps they feel hounded, perhaps they don’t know how to express their own desires, perhaps they aren’t willing to risk the relationship over what they view as a single instance of disagreement.
I think the best way to avoid the demand-withdraw pattern in a relationship is to not avoid conflict, as hard as that can be, and to confront differences in wants, needs, and desires directly. Being honest with your partner about how comfortable you are with certain activities, having boundaries regarding “couple time” and “me time”, and genuinely wanting to be in a relationship with the other person--not to view them as a necessity, or a chore, but genuinely want to build a life with that person (maybe for the rest of your life, or maybe just for six months)--seem like the best ways to avoid demand-withdraw.
________________________________
I think you're spot on when you say "Neither of the parties really have to take any responsibility for issues they share [in the demand-withdraw pattern]." The demander gets to put the onus of responsibility for a problem on the other party, and the withdrawer gets to shirk all responsibility by avoiding dealing with the conflict. The problem, meanwhile, is still present in the relationship; ignoring or making someone else deal with the problem isn't going to make it go away. It's also easy, after a while, for the withdrawer to frame their partner as a 'nag' or simply over-sensitive, rather than admit that they have a part to play in maintain the relationship. The demander can frame their partner as indifferent or insensitive to their needs, which will likely only fuel their flaw-finding.
I agree that conflict is often synonymous with fighting, while there are definitely differences between them. I think it's reasonable to expect conflict in a relationship, and I think it's natural to fear fighting with someone you care about. Having an argument with someone you care about is difficult. You don't want to be angry with someone you have deep feelings for. I don't think it's as easy as "not fearing" conflict, but being able to push through the fear, if that makes any sense.
Monday, April 21, 2014
"How to Win an Argument", Pt 2
Note: For this post, I'm posting the content of the person I'm responding to, as it is important context to have when reading my response. As per usual, all names have been redacted.
Student:
Your opinion is certainly interesting, [Student]. I definitely don’t agree that one partner should ever “give up” when trying to communicate with the other partner. I also find your use of the word “complain” curious, given that we were exploring conflict and arguing with members of other sexes. I think if you view your partner as just “complaining” about something, you’re building a barrier in your communication with them. The word “complain”, to me at least, implies that you don’t consider your partner’s experience as important as they seem to. Complaints, outside of the realm of customer service, are typically treated with less respect than just plain opinions. If someone is a “complainer”, they’re viewed as someone who’s never happy, who isn’t easy to please, someone who’s opinions can be discounted because all they’re doing is “just complaining.”
I think giving up on conflicts, instead of trying to understand why you and the other person have the conflict, is a bad strategy if you’re interested in building strong relationships. The biggest part of any relationship, be it friendship or romance or being coworkers, is empathy--empathy requires that you make the attempt to understand the other person in the relationship. Without empathy, a friendship is hollow, and a romance is doomed. Relationships are complicated, even when they’re just two people. Conflicts don’t have to be negative--I’ve had near-shouting matches with one of my closest friends, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have. Refusing to engage in an argument with someone you’re in a relationship with isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about ignoring the perspective of the person you’re in the relationship with.
Student:
In my opinion, the best tactic is the first one because once a man acknowledges his girlfriend, she will be calm down and tend to not say anything. The more you complain, the more girlfriend complains. Actually, girls complain more than boys, so that men should give up as soon as possible. And also, men should say "I understand you and love you". I think that strategy is the best for keeping relationship. For me, I do not like having a problem and continuing conflict because I am lazy. I will forget conflicts after I walk three steps. However, some girls continue conflicts for long time. That is why I give up conflicts as soon as possible. For the strategy #2, I do not think it is good idea because the talking will be long time. Because I am lazy, I do not listen for long time. I like #3 too because once I acknowledge I am wrong, girls can notice the boyfriend could understand. This strategy relates to #1. To avoid continuing the conflicts, boys should give up as soon as possible. I think only #1 and #3 is the best tactic to win because to compromise first is winning. If men complain a lot, it is not cool and they are childish. Men should be quiet and compromise as soon as possible. So, I think using two tactics, we can build good relationship and friendship. For the other tactics, you probably make girls angry, so I do not think they work.
Your opinion is certainly interesting, [Student]. I definitely don’t agree that one partner should ever “give up” when trying to communicate with the other partner. I also find your use of the word “complain” curious, given that we were exploring conflict and arguing with members of other sexes. I think if you view your partner as just “complaining” about something, you’re building a barrier in your communication with them. The word “complain”, to me at least, implies that you don’t consider your partner’s experience as important as they seem to. Complaints, outside of the realm of customer service, are typically treated with less respect than just plain opinions. If someone is a “complainer”, they’re viewed as someone who’s never happy, who isn’t easy to please, someone who’s opinions can be discounted because all they’re doing is “just complaining.”
I think giving up on conflicts, instead of trying to understand why you and the other person have the conflict, is a bad strategy if you’re interested in building strong relationships. The biggest part of any relationship, be it friendship or romance or being coworkers, is empathy--empathy requires that you make the attempt to understand the other person in the relationship. Without empathy, a friendship is hollow, and a romance is doomed. Relationships are complicated, even when they’re just two people. Conflicts don’t have to be negative--I’ve had near-shouting matches with one of my closest friends, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have. Refusing to engage in an argument with someone you’re in a relationship with isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about ignoring the perspective of the person you’re in the relationship with.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
"How to Win an Argument", Pt 1
Note: This is in response to 'How to Finally Win an Argument with Your Woman' by Laura Snyder. The link I have for this is a deadlink, but I will include the text of the "article" at the end. It's worth reading, if only for the realization that people actually think like that. Like, seriously.
I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine, and she showed me this really compelling video regarding “winning arguments”, and how most people think of arguments as tiny wars to be fought. The argument that the speaker was making was best summed up, I think, as “arguments are more productive if you think of them as learning opportunities.” I definitely find this to be a much more healthy attitude than “trying to win” arguments. When arguments are a battle, there is a winner and a loser, and you can’t gain anything if you’ve lost an argument. Communication should be about the exchange of ideas, and if there’s a loser (who hasn’t gained any knowledge by virtue of having lost the ‘battle’), then the communication is skewed and, in my opinion, failed. I also think that if you’re viewing your relationship as a war, rather than as a partnership to build a life with someone, you might reconsider your approach. Are there conflicts in relationships? Absolutely--two (or more) people who each have their own individual wants, needs, and desires will inevitably find that they have conflicting wants, needs, or desires. That doesn’t mean that one party should “win” at the expensive of the other.
As for the article, I find the tone and outlook rather sexist. “Women love arguments”? Really? And men “hate conflict”? These are statements founded on extremely frustrating and sexist gender stereotypes. They also aren’t consistent with what little I do know about men and women--if men “hate conflict” so much, then why do they play any type of sport? If men are wary of conflict with their significant other (assumed, of course, to be a female partner), is it because they don’t like conflict, or maybe because they’ve been conditioned to handle conflict in a certain manner (through violent means) and have also been conditioned to treat women a certain way (besides the whole “don’t hit girls” mandate, there’s the idea that men need to treat women with kid gloves, because they’re so fragile)? Additionally, the “tactics” to “win” an argument seem like pandering and not about actually communicating with the person you’re attempting to have a life with. Instead of “winning” an argument, maybe you could, I don’t know, try to understand why your partner is upset? I’m not directing this exclusively at men in a heterosexual relationship--I mean that everyone who is in a relationship (romantic or otherwise) should avoid trying to “win” arguments, and instead focus on understanding what their partner is saying, and why they’re saying it. Actually communicate with your partner, don’t try to just score points off of them.
I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine, and she showed me this really compelling video regarding “winning arguments”, and how most people think of arguments as tiny wars to be fought. The argument that the speaker was making was best summed up, I think, as “arguments are more productive if you think of them as learning opportunities.” I definitely find this to be a much more healthy attitude than “trying to win” arguments. When arguments are a battle, there is a winner and a loser, and you can’t gain anything if you’ve lost an argument. Communication should be about the exchange of ideas, and if there’s a loser (who hasn’t gained any knowledge by virtue of having lost the ‘battle’), then the communication is skewed and, in my opinion, failed. I also think that if you’re viewing your relationship as a war, rather than as a partnership to build a life with someone, you might reconsider your approach. Are there conflicts in relationships? Absolutely--two (or more) people who each have their own individual wants, needs, and desires will inevitably find that they have conflicting wants, needs, or desires. That doesn’t mean that one party should “win” at the expensive of the other.
As for the article, I find the tone and outlook rather sexist. “Women love arguments”? Really? And men “hate conflict”? These are statements founded on extremely frustrating and sexist gender stereotypes. They also aren’t consistent with what little I do know about men and women--if men “hate conflict” so much, then why do they play any type of sport? If men are wary of conflict with their significant other (assumed, of course, to be a female partner), is it because they don’t like conflict, or maybe because they’ve been conditioned to handle conflict in a certain manner (through violent means) and have also been conditioned to treat women a certain way (besides the whole “don’t hit girls” mandate, there’s the idea that men need to treat women with kid gloves, because they’re so fragile)? Additionally, the “tactics” to “win” an argument seem like pandering and not about actually communicating with the person you’re attempting to have a life with. Instead of “winning” an argument, maybe you could, I don’t know, try to understand why your partner is upset? I’m not directing this exclusively at men in a heterosexual relationship--I mean that everyone who is in a relationship (romantic or otherwise) should avoid trying to “win” arguments, and instead focus on understanding what their partner is saying, and why they’re saying it. Actually communicate with your partner, don’t try to just score points off of them.
_____________________________________________________
Text of "How to Win an Argument with Your Woman"
Women love arguments. It gives us a chance to talk (or yell) about our feelings, understand each other better, explain to you how you can be a better boyfriend. We're the ones that tell you that conflicts are good for relationships. Men, on the other hand, hate arguments. Maybe because you hate conflict. Or because you just don't want to get into it before the fourth quarter starts. Or maybe it's because we almost always find a way to spank you in a spat, even if your position is seemingly invincible.
If you're going to do battle, boys, you might as well be armed. Here's how to beat her at her own game.
Battle Tactic #1: Evasive Maneuvers
The fastest way to win a fight is to avoid it completely. And there's an almost foolproof way of doing that... it's called "acknowledging her feelings." In most cases, that's all she wants when she picks a fight anyway. Just restate her complaint so she sees you're listening and then hit her sympathy. (Key words: I, understand, you, that, must, feel)
Battle Tactic #2: Actually Listen
Might not sound all that devious, but one of the reasons she consistently kicks your butt in battle is because while you're talking, she's cataloging all the inconsistencies in your story. Listen to what you're saying first, and pay careful attention to what she's saying and when you reply, address her points. At the very least, she'll take you more seriously.
Battle Tactic #3: Admit You're Wrong.
One of guys' biggest mistake is overvaluing being right. Any woman can tell you that being right doesn't matter in an argument; admitting you're wrong and winning an argument are not the same thing (Consider the difference between "I was wrong to buy a motorcycle without consulting you" and "I will return the motorcycle.") In fact, by admitting you were wrong up front, you rob her of ammunition and there's nothing left to fight about.
Battle Tactic #4: Don't Be Distracted
Resist the temptation to pounce on her false premises, unsound deductions and blatant falsehoods of her reasoning. Again, this isn't about being right... and she's just firing those shots to find your weaknesses. Other sneaky woman tricks to ignore: false apologies, wildly unreasonable ultimatums, tears and withholding sex. Oh, and don't try to use any of them yourself. You'll never pull it off.
Battle Tactic #5: Know When It's Over
Ideally, you'll end your fight with a sense of closure, usually with a statement along the lines of "I need you to do X" or "I see Minor Problem A as being a symptom of Much Bigger Problem B." >From that point, it should be fairly easy to come to a mutually agreeable compromise. Watch her melt when you say "Can we work on this together?".
Battle Tactic #6: Know When It's Really Over
Before you get ready for the make-up sex, though, make sure it's really over. Watch her body language. Is she nodding her head in agreement, or sitting there wearing a scowl with her arms crossed? If she looks angry, it ain't over, even if she says it is. Proceed to sexual overtures with extreme caution.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Pt 2
I think [Student] makes an excellent point with regards to how men can be insecure about their body image; however, it is interesting to me to note that women are far and away more likely to be diagnosed with an eating disorder than men. I do think that American culture places an unhealthy emphasis on looks, and do think that men and women face their own separate issues when it comes to body image. It seems to me, however, that men are more likely to be forgiven for bucking the trend when it comes to how they look. That is to say, if a man chooses not to put hours into the gym, chooses not to diet in order to keep a trim figure, and chooses not to always wear stylish clothes, he isn’t judged as harshly as a woman who does the same. Having never experienced being male, I can’t speak authoritatively on this, but I do have experience living as a woman who doesn’t conform to American beauty standards. I have felt immense pressure to conform to these beauty standards, both internal and external.
As I mentioned in my first response, I do think that marketers have caught on to the idea that they’ve been neglecting approximately half the population. Magazines, beauty products, and clothing manufacturers seem to be more and more emphasizing a certain male beauty standard, which I find wholly unfortunate and frustrating. The trend is towards an equality between the sexes, but it is an equality that leads to mental health issues, physical health issues, and encouraging all the wrong things. Men falling prey to the same body image problems that have plagued women for quite a long time now is far from the feminist ideal of equality.
As I mentioned in my first response, I do think that marketers have caught on to the idea that they’ve been neglecting approximately half the population. Magazines, beauty products, and clothing manufacturers seem to be more and more emphasizing a certain male beauty standard, which I find wholly unfortunate and frustrating. The trend is towards an equality between the sexes, but it is an equality that leads to mental health issues, physical health issues, and encouraging all the wrong things. Men falling prey to the same body image problems that have plagued women for quite a long time now is far from the feminist ideal of equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)