Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[ThsAmericanLife]

Fourth Planet is a bit extreme but I agree with the jist of what he is saying. For quite a while all we have been hearing was the woman's side in the battle of the sexes. We men constantly hear how we need to change this or change that and when we do we do find out that the rules have completely changed and many of us are just confused. We don't know what the hell women want from us and we are tired of trying to figure it out.

 

For the first time in a few decades we are hearing the men's side in the debate. Many men no longer give a damn about being called sexist or being called a misogynist when we speak our mind about gender issues. That is what shaming is. Instead of actually having real debate some people accuse us of hating women and hope it will just shut us up. It worked for a while but it no longer works anymore. Both sides are being heard in the debate and I guess that pisses some people off.

 

It's not debating... it's whining... when the same answer is that your problems are due to someone else and not your own choices in life...

 

If even if you and these other gentlemen were correct... standing around complaining does absolutely nothing.

 

You are much better off just finding like minded people to hang out with and find a way to enjoy your life... not that complicated.

[Metis]

When did I ever call a woman that because she went away on business?

 

A poster said that his fiance is going away on business to Europe and that he wants to sleep with someone else. You told him then that since she's going alone, she's going to sleep with strangers "left and right". That's shaming.

 

Shaming as I see it is a tactic used to stall real debate.

 

Calling something "shaming" is a tactic designed to stall "real debate", unless you define "real debate" as one where everyone is in agreement on everything. However, as the FourthRepublic defined it, every time a woman contradicts a man, she's "shaming" him. So it's not a debate you want, you want to be the ONLY voice, and for women to shut the **** up.

 

Our resident misogynists like to bring out the subject of responsibility, so let me give you a dose on that. If I dispute what you say and point out all the ways in which you are wrong -- and that makes you feel "shamed" -- you, and you alone, are responsible for your own feelings. Your feelings of shame are YOUR problem. If you want to have a "real debate", stop being such a special little snowflake and learn to take it on the chin.

[Woggle]

I admit I jumped the gun on that one. I will be the first to admit I have serious trust issues with women but when I look at things I have witnessed and have been through myself I think I have good reason. I admitted I was wrong on that one and at least I can admit a mistake.

 

There have been times where a man says something that is undeniably true and either he gets called a woman hater or told it is just payback for all the times men have done it to women. That is shaming.

[Metis]

There have been times where a man says something that is undeniably true and either he gets called a woman hater or told it is just payback for all the times men have done it to women. That is shaming.

 

Then of course, there are times where a man says something that undeniably expresses a hatred of women, and he gets called a woman hater. That is shaming -- and it's very much deserved.

 

Also: there is a difference of opinion on what is "undeniably true". What's "undeniably true" to one person is moronic drivel to another. And let's not forget, much of the stuff over which misogynists here high-five each other is a matter of opinion, not objective fact, and thus it is improper to characterize it as true or not at all. So once again -- debate is about argument, not endless preaching to the choir about what "undeniable truths" are. It seems you guys don't want debate, just a circle-jerk.

[Woggle]

Then of course, there are times where a man says something that undeniably expresses a hatred of women, and he gets called a woman hater. That is shaming -- and it's very much deserved.

 

Also: there is a difference of opinion on what is "undeniably true". What's "undeniably true" to one person is moronic drivel to another. And let's not forget, much of the stuff over which misogynists here high-five each other is a matter of opinion, not objective fact, and thus it is improper to characterize it as true or not at all. So once again -- debate is about argument, not endless preaching to the choir about what "undeniable truths" are. It seems you guys don't want debate, just a circle-jerk.

 

There have been times where guys have posted undeniable facts and it just gets twisted around. I think some women hate the fact that men are speaking their minds at all.

[serial muse]

There have been times where guys have posted undeniable facts and it just gets twisted around. I think some women hate the fact that men are speaking their minds at all.

 

If a woman were to post this exact statement about men, what would you say to that, I wonder?

 

No, I don't really wonder.

 

Woggle, you can't even apologize for saying a crappy thing about a woman you don't even know without saying that you had good reason for it. Jesus.

[dasein]

You really tend to underestimate the people here on LS, Mrlonelyone. Lots of people here are at least as smart / well read / educated / thoughtful as you are. Your stance of "teaching us a lesson" really does little to earn you any credibility.

 

Let's get an example of "shaming" up top so we will know exactly what we are talking about. Instead of retorting to any of what MLO actually posted, any of the numerous studies, links, graphs or opinions he posted, you ignore all that and offer a character judgment, attack him personally as a human being, if by implication, that he is arrogant.

 

In other words, "You personally are lacking in some way(s), so your POV is invalid, and I don't owe you the respect of responding to your actual ideas."

 

That's shaming, characterizing someone as having certain personal characteristics as an excuse for not paying them the respect of engaging the actual things they say. It's a form of ad hominem, a pernicious logical fallacy.

 

Variants applied to men include "You are just bitter, cheap, a misogynist, bad with women, small penis, hateful." If the substance of one's response to someone else is only that kind of character assessment, and not accompanied by any legitimate form of disagreement, reasoning or analysis, the intent is to shame the other person into submission, compliance or agreement.

 

(EDIT: Just had an epiphany, they insist on using "bitter" because they know that "angry" can easily be denied, because the term angry is relatively precise whereas "bitter" is anything but, thus harder to deny. Good for me! LOL)

 

OK, with that example, will address the post.

 

How has this idea come around to be something exclusively done BY women TO men?

 

I've seen men use the shaming tactic on women here before, rough estimate it's 90/10 female male who engage in it here and elsewhere. Guys who do it IRL who aren't gay tend to get laughed at and made fun of for doing it, for sounding "prissy." So no, it isn't something exclusively done by women to men. Just 90% give or take IME here and elsewhere.

 

 

If a woman responds negatively to a man who is trashing women, or wallowing in self-pity, or displaying blatant bigotry - she is "shaming" him. In fact, around here, a woman disagreeing or arguing with a man about anything is "shaming" him.

 

But the kind of talk about women - especially in relationship to sexuality - extremely "shaming," or at least intended to make a person feel ashamed.

 

Apples and oranges, if you respond to someone who makes a nonpointed, if offensive generalization, permitted by the community guidelines, with a direct response along the lines of "YOU are... a psychopath, sociopath, waste of skin," that's NOT shaming but merely express insults that violate the community guidelines. It is impossible to make community rules that accommodate all levels of people being offended, which is completely subjective, so the community guidelines are very specific in prohibiting direct personal insults.

 

Now there is gray area about what a direct insult is, do you have to mention the poster by name? or merely make a statement that is obviously directed at a specific poster but doesn't mention them? What's pretty plain though, is that generalizations other than those of the most crude and vulgar kind, are permitted because they don't target specific posters. It's unreasonable to get offended at some anonymous person on the internet saying "I hate people with red hair, all people with red hair suck." Them's the breaks on the internet. A different matter if someone says "Your avatar has red hair and YOU suck."

 

If you feel a poster violates the community guidelines you should report them rather than using that as an excuse to violate the guidelines yourself.

That would seem to be common sense, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

But what you describe is similar to shaming, but not quite the same.

 

Do you guys think that a woman arguing or disagreeing with you is equivalent to "shaming" you?

 

Nope, legitimate discussion, argument, disagreement is not shaming. Already defined it above.

 

Or, maybe you are ashamed of YOURSELVES if a lowly woman can win an argument with you?

 

Nope. see above at the top.

 

If a woman calls you out on some BS - is that "shaming" you? Have you ever done anything or said anything at all that you actually felt ashamed of? Are you fine with guys "shaming" women? If so, in general, or just about certain subjects, like sex?

 

Nope, see above at the top.

 

 

In matters sexual, relational, and gender related, women are so used to society agreeing with whatever they have to say, that they have lost the ability to argue effectively. The logical muscle has become atrophied. In its place, the flab of unquestioned subjective is in their brain, claiming moral superiority by virtue of reproductive function.

 

Hence, the culture has created an atmosphere where proof or evidence is never required of women. Women are morally superior to men because, well, they just are. And men are icky, anyway.

 

And so the usual comments from women ensue.

 

Together with my first long post to the thread concerning anthropological origins of certain types of manipulation, the above quotes from T4P's post sum up my feelings on where "shaming" comes from.

 

MC, here is a blog post that came up from googling "shaming tactics." If you want to make the claim men do it too, then perhaps describe some equivalents to the tactics described that men engage in, we are all ears.

 

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

[Woggle]

If a woman were to post this exact statement about men, what would you say to that, I wonder?

 

No, I don't really wonder.

 

Woggle, you can't even apologize for saying a crappy thing about a woman you don't even know without saying that you had good reason for it. Jesus.

 

I admitted I was wrong. Do you want me to fly over there and kiss her feet?

[Quiet Storm]

Do you guys think that a woman arguing or disagreeing with you is equivalent to "shaming" you?

 

I think that most men have fragile egos.

 

It has been my experience (as a woman), that many men do consider a woman arguing or disagreeing as shaming. And to go a step further, many take any kind of criticism as an attempt to shame them.

 

For most women, however, shaming is not their intent (but men don't see it this way).

 

I think this dynamic just highlights the different communication styles between the genders.

 

Most women, when we are unhappy about another person's actions, want to express that feeling and get some kind of resolution. Not to shame them, but to be helpful to that person. They also often feel better after expressing their feelings and are eager to work towards a compromise or agreement.

 

If a woman criticizes another woman, the other woman is often open to hearing about the problem and is willing to address the issue. Instead of seeing it as an attack, the other woman (even if she doesn't agree) will usually conclude that the criticizer just needed to get her feelings out or was just trying to be helpful. This is how many women work through their problems with each other, by talking it out.

 

The problem with men (in my experience) is that they often take any criticism as an attack on their competancy or intelligence, which automatically puts them in defense mode. They don't want to be helped. They don't want to know there is an easier way to do something. They don't want to be questioned. They don't want to be proven wrong. They don't want to be changed. "This is how I am, and it's not up for debate!"

 

In my experience, most men are not very open to self-improvement. They have an attitude of "this is me, take it or leave it", while women are more open to personal growth, which makes us more interested in other's opinions. We apply what we learn about others to our own life and situations. Men are usually much more set in their ways, and the strong opinions of others are not usually considered and applied to their own lives and situations. Strong opinions of others are seen more as "you are trying to change me and I don't like it". Instead of opening their minds, they dig in their heels.

 

If they don't ask for help, they don't want it. And if you offer it, they take it as "She think's I'm not good enough (or smart enough, or loving enough, or whatever)"

 

The woman, who is simply expressing her point of view and offering helpful opinions, will be seen by the man as saying "You are wrong!" and he will feel disrespected (or at least feel that she is trying to shame him, causing him to be defensive).

 

Men are often conditioned, as children, to be very sensitive to a woman's feelings. Their mom tells them "that's not nice!", their dad tells them that women are emotional and can't handle negativity. This causes them to hold their criticism's inside, which they often feel is showing respect for the woman (by protecting her emotons).

 

Because they have been conditioned to be sensitive to our emotions, and see that as being respectful...they expect us to do the same for them. And they see it as being disrespectful when we don't.

 

JMO.

[Taramere]

And it's how they learn how to respond differently to events that I'm interested in.

 

Sorry....I missed this earlier. You're asking how people learn to manage anger. I think normally the process of anger management begins from an early age. They'll learn that temper tantrums provoke discipline from their parents (which might result in a power struggle and possibly an accompanying sense of strong shame) and ridicule from peers (resulting in a sense of disempowerment and almost certainly a sense of strong shame).

 

Shame and anger are closely linked...so it's interesting to consider anger in a thread like this which is all about people feeling shamed by others. Here's an interesting article about a relevant book.

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Book-Review---Shame-and-Anger---The-Criticism-Connection-by-Brock-Hansen,-LCSW&id=573505

 

 

Healthful shame instills conscience. Toxic shame, on the other hand, sets up a complex cycle of anger, self-loathing, fear and distrust, and accompanying negative behaviors that draw social censure and still more shame. Toxic shame is often caused by abuse, neglect, dysfunctional family relationships, or trauma. Many who experience toxic shame strive for an impossible level of perfection in an effort to eradicate feelings of unworthiness. The most common symptom of toxic shame is depression, often triggered by perceived loss of status or perceived emotional abandonment.

 

If somebody is complaining a lot about feeling shamed by others, what does that tell us? The person feeling shamed will say it tells us nothing about them and everything about the person doing the shaming. The person being held as shamer will likewise direct blame and criticism towards the person who feels shamed. The blaming and shaming on both sides continues.

 

 

in every generation of humankind, confident individuals have exhibited a response to criticism that minimizes shame and anger and gives them the best chance of learning from the critical feedback of others. A very few seem to be able to react patiently even when attacked with malicious and unjustified scorn. They appear to have learned that their own internal responses are potentially more damaging than the words of the critic. By calming their internal responses, they maintain their balance in the situation and can judge for themselves the truth or value of the criticism

 

I think this relates to developing a filter for criticism whereby you are able to recognise possible truths in even the most ill-intended criticisms, without feeling unduly shamed by them....but, rather, making changes where possible.

 

You mentioned being bullied by a boy who had been abused by his father. Bullying will tend to leave its mark of shame and anger...and the difficulty is that unlike criticism there's not necessarily a valuable lesson to be learned about yourself from it. Which makes it harder to reach a sense of resolution about it.

[A O]

Do you guys think that a woman arguing or disagreeing with you is equivalent to "shaming" you?

Shaming is an indirect insult, example(s) - betcha he's a mommas boy - betcha he hasn't been laid in years. Its used mostly by women as a means to express dissatisfaction without actually appearing to rock the boat (to come across in a similar negative manner to those they're chastising).

 

Contrast this to men, many of whom are extremely blunt and over the top in manner. This has a highly polarizing affect that the other approach tends to largely escape. Men, overall, still have a long way to go to match the verbal robustness of women.

 

.

[A O]

I think that most men have fragile egos.

This is why we rarely see women get upset when some men paint them in a negative light! On a more accurate note, we've all got egos but like so many aspects of this type of debate - the negative side of men is oft talked about thus well known. The negative side of women (that they actually have an ego in this case), well....lets keep that one under wraps shall we....

 

 

.

[fishtaco]

If a woman criticizes another woman, the other woman is often open to hearing about the problem and is willing to address the issue. Instead of seeing it as an attack, the other woman (even if she doesn't agree) will usually conclude that the criticizer just needed to get her feelings out or was just trying to be helpful. This is how many women work through their problems with each other, by talking it out.

 

I have to say that's a very interesting observation.

[A O]

I have to say that's a very interesting observation.

Actually, that type of thinking is one of the reasons so many men become disillusioned with women. The implication of that statement is that women are some how, better behaved than men. That is just a snippet of so many examples/situations where men are often sold/fed a similar line. But it is just a facade. Truth is we're all little different from each other, behavioral wise. We may express things slightly differently at times, bit the intent is still the same.

 

 

.

[fishtaco]

Actually, that type of thinking is one of the reasons so many men become disillusioned with women. The implication of that statement is that women are some how, better behaved than men. That is just a snippet of so many examples/situations where men are often sold/fed a similar line. But it is just a facade. Truth is we're all little different from each other, behavioral wise. We may express things slightly differently at times, bit the intent is still the same.

 

 

.

 

Oh I know. I was pointing that out because, well, I would say only a minority of people, men and women, can take open criticism that well.

 

Maybe Quiet Storm hangs out with cross dressing Tibetan monks.

[A O]

Maybe Quiet Storm hangs out with cross dressing Tibetan monks.

What an honor and a privileged that would be.

 

.

[dasein]

If a woman criticizes another woman, the other woman is often open to hearing about the problem and is willing to address the issue.

 

The above is completely counter to my own experience, IRL and especially as a poster on LS. For proof pull up any old "endless drama" thread posted by a couple of female posters here on LS, and note the utter lack of being "open to hearing about the problem and willing to address the issue," not just from those particular OPs but all the intrathread squabbling, defensiveness and character assassinations that go on mostly between female posters. Women are no better than men in this respect, probably much worse.

 

Instead of seeing it as an attack, the other woman (even if she doesn't agree) will usually conclude that the criticizer just needed to get her feelings out or was just trying to be helpful.

 

See above and any number of threads, I can't cite many of them because so many get deleted due to all the endless catfights and drama. Will admit, though, that IRL, women do talk issues to death, no argument there, and when a man is dragged into that trap, we do tend to do anything, chew our legs and arms off if necessary, to escape it.

 

The problem with men (in my experience) is that they often take any criticism as an attack on their competancy or intelligence

 

... or respond to crass manipulation in a predictable way. Many, if not most men grow up playing team sports, where constructive criticism is daily and must be accepted for improvement, we get it constantly throughout the education process via grades, yet somehow can't take it from women in relationships? Wonder why? Could it be that a vast majority of the criticism men receive from their GFs and wives is not constructive at all, but rather merely window dressing on her agenda and her estimate of his compliance with it? I think so.

 

, which automatically puts them in defense mode. They don't want to be helped. They don't want to know there is an easier way to do something. They don't want to be questioned. They don't want to be proven wrong. They don't want to be changed.

 

Something about the above quote engenders a large TV screen with a Big Brother image on it, a gulag reeducation program, or the Borg, at least that's how the "benevolent changing" process usually occurs in my own dealings with women. "You will be assimilated!"

 

Who are you to "change" anyone? Who am I to? I certainly don't navigate my relationships by the amount of "helping," "showing an easier way," "questioning," "proving wrong," and "changing," and contend that approaching any relationship in terms of such is unhealthy. But sure, if someone is trying to do something you know about and they plainly don't, it's fine to offer help; somehow I don't think that's the actual process being discussed here. Interesting that in the above, "helping," "changing," etc. could all be replaced by the word "manipulating."

 

In my experience, most men are not very open to self-improvement.

 

I suppose we deserve this absurdity for agreeing with statements that women's reasoning capacity has atrophied of late, so fair enough. The ratio of men to women in my gym remains 80/20 though.

 

while women are more open to personal growth, which makes us more interested in other's opinions.

 

"Honey, do you think I'm getting fat?" "Honey does this dress make my ass look fat?" "Honey do thes jeans make me look fat?" Is that the kind of interest in other's opinions you are talking about? I'll remember that next time and will report the results back to you. Can I come sleep on your couch afterwards?

 

"personal growth" indeed.

 

We apply what we learn about others to our own life and situations. Men are usually much more set in their ways, and the strong opinions of others are not usually considered and applied to their own lives and situations.

 

This explains why men are so bad at science, we simply can't approach the world in a scientific way and draw valid conclusions from experience of actual reality, preferring instead to create a favorable reality in our minds and then try to talk that false reality into existence via rationalization.

 

The woman, who is simply expressing her point of view and offering helpful opinions, will be seen by the man as saying "You are wrong!" and he will feel disrespected (or at least feel that she is trying to shame him, causing him to be defensive).

 

I can agree with this. My ex used to offer me dozens if not hundreds or thousands of "helpful opinions" each and every day of the god's everlasting world on a truly staggering variety of topics. Perhaps I should have appreciated that omniscient fountain of ultimate cosmic knowledge more while I had access to it. Had I been wise and recorded it all, I could have compiled "The Book of All Human Knowledge" from only a couple of months spent with her. What a shame my fragile male ego foreclosed this chance for such a gift to the world.

Edited November 9, 2011 by dasein

[joystickd]

I think that most men have fragile egos.

 

It has been my experience (as a woman), that many men do consider a woman arguing or disagreeing as shaming. And to go a step further, many take any kind of criticism as an attempt to shame them.

 

For most women, however, shaming is not their intent (but men don't see it this way).

 

I think this dynamic just highlights the different communication styles between the genders.

 

Most women, when we are unhappy about another person's actions, want to express that feeling and get some kind of resolution. Not to shame them, but to be helpful to that person. They also often feel better after expressing their feelings and are eager to work towards a compromise or agreement.

 

If a woman criticizes another woman, the other woman is often open to hearing about the problem and is willing to address the issue. Instead of seeing it as an attack, the other woman (even if she doesn't agree) will usually conclude that the criticizer just needed to get her feelings out or was just trying to be helpful. This is how many women work through their problems with each other, by talking it out.

 

The problem with men (in my experience) is that they often take any criticism as an attack on their competancy or intelligence, which automatically puts them in defense mode. They don't want to be helped. They don't want to know there is an easier way to do something. They don't want to be questioned. They don't want to be proven wrong. They don't want to be changed. "This is how I am, and it's not up for debate!"

 

In my experience, most men are not very open to self-improvement. They have an attitude of "this is me, take it or leave it", while women are more open to personal growth, which makes us more interested in other's opinions. We apply what we learn about others to our own life and situations. Men are usually much more set in their ways, and the strong opinions of others are not usually considered and applied to their own lives and situations. Strong opinions of others are seen more as "you are trying to change me and I don't like it". Instead of opening their minds, they dig in their heels.

 

If they don't ask for help, they don't want it. And if you offer it, they take it as "She think's I'm not good enough (or smart enough, or loving enough, or whatever)"

 

The woman, who is simply expressing her point of view and offering helpful opinions, will be seen by the man as saying "You are wrong!" and he will feel disrespected (or at least feel that she is trying to shame him, causing him to be defensive).

 

Men are often conditioned, as children, to be very sensitive to a woman's feelings. Their mom tells them "that's not nice!", their dad tells them that women are emotional and can't handle negativity. This causes them to hold their criticism's inside, which they often feel is showing respect for the woman (by protecting her emotons).

 

Because they have been conditioned to be sensitive to our emotions, and see that as being respectful...they expect us to do the same for them. And they see it as being disrespectful when we don't.

 

JMO.

 

Women also have a problem with criticism. It goes both ways. The thing is handling criticism depends on the person. Kind of like these guys on here that have problems with women. A woman offers a suggestion or says something then these guys get angry because the reason for their bitterness. I know working at a job where the male is the minority I stay silent when subjects like dating come up I stay silent because honestly women can't handle some real honesty. I get bothered when conversations become man bashing.

[Quiet Storm]

There are some marriage counselors that advise women to not talk to their man about their problems. They say it just makes things worse. That nothing ever gets resolved and it just puts a spot light on everything that's wrong with the relationship, taking the focus off the good things.

 

The thought process is that women want to talk about their relationship issues to RELIEVE stress, but talking about relationship problems actually INCREASES stress in men.

 

I don't agree totally, but can see how this would make a relationship go more smoothly.

 

Some marriage counselors have found that if women talk to other women about their relationship issues, such as their friends and family, that getting their feelings out was all that they really needed.

 

They say that throughout history, women have looked to other women to feel emotionally heard, and that women who look to their men for this rarely feel "heard", which causes stress.

 

Actually, that type of thinking is one of the reasons so many men become disillusioned with women. The implication of that statement is that women are some how, better behaved than men. That is just a snippet of so many examples/situations where men are often sold/fed a similar line. But it is just a facade. Truth is we're all little different from each other, behavioral wise. We may express things slightly differently at times, bit the intent is still the same.

 

I am not trying to imply that women are better behaved than men, just that they communicate differently. Both sexes often expect the other to communciate like they do, which leads to unmet expectations and disappointment.

 

In fact, I would say the opposite and that men are often seen as "better behaved" because they are conditioned to control and suppress their emotions (anger, fear, sadness) while it is more acceptable for women to express them.

 

For example, say the boss gives a promotion to a co-worker when another employee was expecting it. A man that started crying would be ridiculed, but a woman that cried would be just being "emotional".

 

My take on this issue is that we would all be better off accepting others for who they are, and not what we want them to be.

 

It's okay that men and women are different. It's okay if we want different things from relationships. One way is not better or worse, just different.

[Quiet Storm]

Who are you to "change" anyone? Who am I to? I certainly don't navigate my relationships by the amount of "helping," "showing an easier way," "questioning," "proving wrong," and "changing," and contend that approaching any relationship in terms of such is unhealthy. But sure, if someone is trying to do something you know about and they plainly don't, it's fine to offer help; somehow I don't think that's the actual process being discussed here. Interesting that in the above, "helping," "changing," etc. could all be replaced by the word "manipulating."

 

Look, I am not saying I agree with that approach. After 20 years, I am able to tell when my husband wants my help (and that's usually when he asks for it) and when he want's to figure it out on his own.

 

I see that he wants to feel admired respected, so I find things about him to admire and respect.

 

But early in our relationship, I didn't know that. I had to learn. And he had to learn what annoys me and what makes me feel happy and content.

 

What I see on this forum, is lots of men and women that just don't get each other.

 

And they don't even want to try. They just have these idea's of what men and women are supposed to be...and then get disappointed when they aren't that way.

[A O]

I am not trying to imply that women are better behaved than men, just that they communicate differently. Both sexes often expect the other to communciate like they do, which leads to unmet expectations and disappointment.

The implication (that women are somehow better behaved, better communicators than men) is the conclusion one can easily form from all the differences stated.

 

.

[dasein]

If somebody is complaining a lot about feeling shamed by others...

 

You are mistaking, conveniently I imagine, a description of the feeling of shame internally with the motive to instill that feeling. Calling attention to the bad and fallacious shaming tactics of others has nothing to do with the actual internal characteristic of feeling shame or complaining of feeling shame. Identifying a thief doesn't require having been stolen from.

 

"Shaming" with respect to this thread is substituting an unfavorable character assessment or personal attack in place of a reasoned response for the purpose of manipulation. Shaming is what someone does instead of having an actual discussion or expressing a legitimate opinion.

[Quiet Storm]

I know working at a job where the male is the minority I stay silent when subjects like dating come up I stay silent because honestly women can't handle some real honesty.

 

I agree with this. I think many women are conditioned to expect men to be a certain way because of Disney and romance movies. I think fathers could be very helpful to their daughters if they were honest about men, instead of protecting them from the harsh realities of male behavior.

 

I'm not saying that men's motivations are wrong, just misunderstood.

 

I remember one friend of mine being totally shocked when I told her that men expect sex in a marriage.

 

Both genders have incorrect expectations of the other, IMO. Sometimes misunderstandings are just that...and not manipulations.

[Taramere]

You are mistaking, conveniently I imagine, a description of the feeling of shame internally with the motive to instill that feeling. Calling attention to the bad and fallacious shaming tactics of others has nothing to do with the actual internal characteristic of feeling shame or complaining of feeling shame. Identifying a thief doesn't require having been stolen from.

 

"Shaming" with respect to this thread is substituting an unfavorable character assessment or personal attack in place of a reasoned response for the purpose of manipulation. Shaming is what someone does instead of having an actual discussion or expressing a legitimate opinion.

 

Your use of the word "conveniently" suggests that despite me having good intentions (towards betterdeal) in the post you quoted from, you perceive some sort of ill intent in the post you quoted from.

 

I was addressing betterdeal who seemed to be inviting an opinion on how people learn to manage anger. I linked to and quoted from an article about a book dealing with what seemed to be a relevant subject. One I thought might be of interest to him.

 

You'll perhaps note that I respected your request further back in the thread to end discussion of a different subject. I don't mind debating with people, but when it gets to the point where a person is construing anything and everything I say as having some ill intent, I don't see any purpose in continuing to engage with them.

[Metis]

While I don't agree that being an a-hole is the solution, a lot of what The Fourth Planet mentions in his post is correct.

 

I really do hate to bring this up again (trust me, I do, because I realize that my message got distorted), but he makes a good point about any thread on here regarding who pays on a date. I made the point that a man being expected to pay for a woman's expenses on a date when you barely know her and when she has not displayed any degree of commitment (or at least continued interest) is draconian and disadvantageous to men, and also had the potential to be demeaning towards women. I then shared a very loose "method" of being able to spend time with and attract women without going through any of the typical dating process. What happened in that thread? I think two or three women agreed with me.

 

The rest accused me of being cheap, poor, classless, "un-gentlemanly," and manipulative. The latter was the most hilarious accusation because (heaven forbid!) I found a way to romantically interact with women of all economic backgrounds without paying for much of anything, even women who may have been used to being paid for in the past. The fact that I was trying to share my experiences clearly threatened a large contingent of LS ladies. They could not logically refute anything I said, and when it became clear that appeals to emotion wouldn't cut it either, they starting insulting me.

 

Look, that people react that way is perfectly understandable -- getting freebies and letting the other party do the heavy lifting is awesome, if society allows you to do it without imposing much opprobrium. The problem is -- it's simply human behavior. Men do it to women as well, and how. Whether most people realize this or not, women pay a very heavy price for having a few months of so-called "chivalry" and a couple of salads thrown our way, or at least expected to. In marriage or marriage-type relationships, women do the lion's share of the child care and most of the household chores. It is women who usually let their career take a back seat for the sake of their men's convenience, women who flush their hard-won accomplishments and years of hard work down the toilet in order to do more cleaning, cooking and unpaid, thankless secretarial work. That ends up costing a woman quite a bit, and far more than what it costs a man to court a woman into a long-term relationship. Much, much more. And that's just money I'm talking about, not mentioning the cost in self-esteem and the sad waste of one's intellectual gifts. And yet, the same men who complain about having to pay the woman's way on a date usually have no problem whatsoever with most sacrifices in a long-term relationship -- including financial sacrifices -- being made by the woman. In fact, they expect relationships to revolve around them and their needs, even if the woman paid for her own expenses during dating. Once we touch on the subject of marriage, these guys do an about-face and start prattling about women needing to be "feminine" (read: submissive) and "nurturing" (read: servile and never doing anything for themselves).

 

So here is how I see it: yes, I think the expenses of dating should be split roughly down the middle. This, with the caveat, though, that ordinary rules of hospitality apply: if I am having people over, I wouldn't think of charging them for the food and drink they consume, or for the wear-and-tear of the furniture they use, and the same guideline should apply to dating. If you don't like doing things for the other person, you shouldn't date her; if you don't like doing nice things for any member of the opposite sex, on principle, then you just shouldn't date. I just think women should do more in the way of taking men out (and men not thinking this is weird or "desperate") and show men a good time in ways besides sex, spending liberally to the extent that individual incomes allow. That's always been the approach I've taken to my own dating life (and many a man claimed to have been "insulted" by my desire to pay for dates and stuff). By the same token, I also want men to do roughly half the childcare and roughly half the household chores, and I'm talking about repetitive, dirty household chores that have to be done day-to-day -- without men bitching about it being some kind of a big favor to the nagging wife. I also want men to take -- again, graciously -- roughly half the rimming career-wise on account of having kids or promoting the interests of their partner. I see one as inseparable from the other. I just can't imagine our resident "hurt men" accepting equality across the board.