Communication

[Created2Write]

No one's personal experience makes any generalization true or false. I don't mind at all if someone doesn't fit a generalization. The issue, from what I have seen, is not really people being bashed for not fitting into generalizations, but rather it's people who don't fit generalizations getting upset or insulted by those who simply wish to discuss them, and then insisting that we shouldn't discuss them. Which I, personally, think is unfair. Again, the only way a generalization can insult or harm an individual is if they allow it to. Discussing generalizations shouldn't be offensive or insulting, regardless of whether or not people fit them.

 

[McScribe]

No one's personal experience makes any generalization true or false. I don't mind at all if someone doesn't fit a generalization. The issue, from what I have seen, is not really people being bashed for not fitting into generalizations, but rather it's people who don't fit generalizations getting upset or insulted by those who simply wish to discuss them, and then insisting that we shouldn't discuss them. Which I, personally, think is unfair. Again, the only way a generalization can insult or harm an individual is if they allow it to. Discussing generalizations shouldn't be offensive or insulting, regardless of whether or not people fit them.

This is exactly how I see it. And it is unfair. And frankly poor communication comes of it when explanations are rejected.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I think there is a lot of resistance from both the people who do/don't want to talk about them.

Insisting on discussing anything from only one viewpoint is limiting and ineffective, IMO.

Balance is being able to get a conversation to flow while incorporating all POVs.

 

[McScribe]

I think there is a lot of resistance from both the people who do/don't want to talk about them.

Insisting on discussing anything from only one viewpoint is limiting and ineffective, IMO.

Balance is being able to get a conversation to flow while incorporating all POVs.

FAith, with the greatest respect, there is a huge difference between someone pointing out examples of how things may be generally but not universally true without taking offense at the mere idea of general principles, and being offended at the very start and refusing to accept explanations that it is not intended to offend or pigeonhole anyone. It never seems to be enough to say "Fair enough, you're not that way, but at the moment we are talking about those who are." that is not wrong or mean spirited, it's kind of like this.

Imagine we are talking about mammals with placenta and live young and all that in order to talk about similarities between dog and cat breeding. Someone wants to talk about platypus instead...not because they are interesting, but because they are ticked off that we said mammal and want to argue that the platypus is also a mammal, you know. And so someone says, "Thats great, yes they are...but we are not knocking them. It's just that we are talking about something else, that's all." the other person says, "What, you're saying platypus are NOT mammals?" and you say, "I didn't say that. I said that we were not trying to deny that, that we were just talking about an altogether different kind of mammals, of which the characteristics we spoke are generally true." but the other person, and their friends, are so offended that they start saying we are platypus haters.

Or take this biblical example. Let's say that I say "Generally it seems that there is a problem in North America with people reading about the Bible instead of reading the Bible itself." someone else angrily says, "Hang on, my whole family reads the Bible every minute of the day! Who are you to make sweeping generalizations?" and you say, "It's an observation I've made of many other Christians I've encountered and that a number of other pastors, ministers, priests and so on have had. It is generally something that appears to be true, regardless of what is true for your particular family." but the other person is offended.

I realize Faith that you don't see it that way, but what I am seeing is that some people are setting themselves up as arbiters of what a good generalization and a bad generalization are on a flimsy basis. To put it more simply, a bad generalization is one which is either provably scientifically inaccurate or which establishes a negative prejudice. The ones that have been talked about here are a general attempt at trying to get to the heart of communication issues. Attempts at doing so are derailed without anything resembling positive solutions offered.

 

[chaz345]

I do want you to note that the OP was not saying this was so, but was quoting someone else:

I know that. OP can also mean opening post and doesn't necessarily refer to the poster.

 

[chaz345]

But you have to agree that the men and women are given different advice. There are men here suggesting that neglected men should hire a prostitute/have an affair and/or divorce (but only when the kids are old enough so he doesn't have to pay child support for them). The wife is just "typical" - most wives are like that - and she is breaking her vows, and disobedient to the Bible.

A woman hears that her husband may be gay, may be having an affair, may be using porn, and anyway - is she overweight, and - lol, my favorite - is she "clean". I have never seen anyone suggest to a man that his wife may be gay, or having an affair or using porn - and yet she could quite clearly by gay, except it's never even mentioned, and I have never seen a man be asked if he is overweight or "clean". So evidently there are quite distinct gender lines when it comes to that question that are based upon assumptions that it's the wife's fault when her husband is neglectful, and the wife's fault, um, when she is neglectful.

I do think it is very limiting to put an individual in a box. Nowhere does the Bible say we are identical. While there are quite distinct differences between genders - there are many areas where we cross the line, and where a man has attributes that are considered to be female, and a woman has attributes that are considered to be male. I have never forgotten a former (female) coworker being shocked that my husband had gone to the store to pick out tablecloths for our kitchen table. I had thought nothing of it. My husband does have good taste (hey, maybe he is gay!) and was a SAHD at the time, and had more time for it than I did. Obviously his interest in "fabrics" was not something she considered to be manly. In fact, he has chosen every tablecloth since, with matching place mats too! What a guy. It's something that he's much, much better at than me.

I agree that men and women are given different advice, I completely disagree with you as to what that advice typically is.

 

[JaneFW]

I agree that men and women are given different advice, I completely disagree with you as to what that advice typically is.

It's what I seen posted across a multitude of forums. Some of it given to me, some of it given to others.

 

[chaz345]

I think there is a lot of resistance from both the people who do/don't want to talk about them.

Insisting on discussing anything from only one viewpoint is limiting and ineffective, IMO.

Balance is being able to get a conversation to flow while incorporating all POVs.

But those of us with no problems with generalizations aren't insisting on only discussing things from one viewpoint. The ones who object are. Nothing that anyone who supports talking in generalizations has ever said has attempted to invalidate talking in specifics. However, single specific cases are used to try to invalidate generalities all the time.

 

[chaz345]

It's what I seen posted across a multitude of forums. Some of it given to me, some of it given to others.

And it's not at all what I see. So what's your point?

 

[JaneFW]

And it's not at all what I see. So what's your point?

I already posted my point.

 

[FaithPrevails]

FAith, with the greatest respect, there is a huge difference between someone pointing out examples of how things may be generally but not universally true without taking offense at the mere idea of general principles, and being offended at the very start and refusing to accept explanations that it is not intended to offend or pigeonhole anyone. It never seems to be enough to say "Fair enough, you're not that way, but at the moment we are talking about those who are." that is not wrong or mean spirited, it's kind of like this.

I didn't say it was wrong or mean spirited. But, it excludes a person who may not want to or be able to talk from that standpoint. That was the only point I was making, McScribe.

Honestly - this whole conversation has devolved once again into finger pointing and blaming without actually naming names. Threads like this are getting old, IMO.

Each "side" has to worry about their own responsibility for how they contribute instead of trying to point out how the "other side" is more wrong.

Imagine we are talking about mammals with placenta and live young and all that in order to talk about similarities between dog and cat breeding. Someone wants to talk about platypus instead...not because they are interesting, but because they are ticked off that we said mammal and want to argue that the platypus is also a mammal, you know. And so someone says, "Thats great, yes they are...but we are not knocking them. It's just that we are talking about something else, that's all." the other person says, "What, you're saying platypus are NOT mammals?" and you say, "I didn't say that. I said that we were not trying to deny that, that we were just talking about an altogether different kind of mammals, of which the characteristics we spoke are generally true." but the other person, and their friends, are so offended that they start saying we are platypus haters.

Or, maybe the person that doesn't want to talk about platypuses can just ignore the comment? It would certainly avoid a thread derail b/c commenting on something like that ALWAYS ends up in a thread derail b/c the argument ensues.

If acknowledging the post by saying, "that's not what we're talking about" isn't effective, then a different approach should be taken. If all else fails, posts can be reported for being OT or the request can be made to start their own thread about the beloved platypus.

Or take this biblical example. Let's say that I say "Generally it seems that there is a problem in North America with people reading about the Bible instead of reading the Bible itself." someone else angrily says, "Hang on, my whole family reads the Bible every minute of the day! Who are you to make sweeping generalizations?" and you say, "It's an observation I've made of many other Christians I've encountered and that a number of other pastors, ministers, priests and so on have had. It is generally something that appears to be true, regardless of what is true for your particular family." but the other person is offended.

I realize Faith that you don't see it that way, but what I am seeing is that some people are setting themselves up as arbiters of what a good generalization and a bad generalization are on a flimsy basis. To put it more simply, a bad generalization is one which is either provably scientifically inaccurate or which establishes a negative prejudice. The ones that have been talked about here are a general attempt at trying to get to the heart of communication issues. Attempts at doing so are derailed without anything resembling positive solutions offered.

Again, here in written word, we have a much better ability of acknowledging or avoiding comments than we do in RL conversations. Yet, off-the-wall comments get WAY more attention here on the forum than I have ever seen one get IRL. I just wonder why that is.

If people want to discuss the heart of communication issues, then they should do so and ignore the comments that they do not feel are relevant.

JMHO

 

[chaz345]

Rebel.

FWIW, I don't reject them, either. I just don't personally think that we can/should only ever talk from the 10,000 ft level. Saying, "well, my experience has been..." is not rejecting the generalization. It can sometimes be the only way a person can contribute to a conversation if they haven't experienced or fit into a particular generalization.

JMHO

No saying well my experience is different doesn't refute the generalization but "that's not true I know someone who' different...." does. And that is a lot more common than the "that's not my experience" type of statement, in my experience at least.

 

[FaithPrevails]

No saying well my experience is different doesn't refute the generalization but "that's not true I know someone who' different...." does. And that is a lot more common than the "that's not my experience" type of statement, in my experience at least.

It has been my experience that it has definitely been your experience that you experience it the way you said it way more than the way I experience it.

 

[chaz345]

I already posted my point.

You don't see "well are you loving her like you should be" advice given to men? You don't see "well he better shape up or you should leave" advice given to women? Because to be totally honest, while I do see occasional advice that lines up with what you say, the bulk of what I see is much more like what I just said.

In any case that's all totally beside the point that different genders are given different advice and that can be based on only one thing, generalities. And for the most part, while maybe not 100% applicable to each and every situation, they are true more often than not and as long as the possibility that it's off base is kept open, there's absolutely nothing wrong or harmful about them. The alternative is that we'd need each and every last possible detail from both people involved before we could begin to offer advice.

 

[McScribe]

You know, this is why a lot of guys don't bother to talk at all. Why bother? Nothing you say is accepted for what it is anyway. The platypus example and the response is a perfect case. You are trying to explain why something was not intended for offense, and then after that your character is attacked. Jesus refuted character attacks against himself. Sometimes harshly. When i have done so harshly I have apologized. I do not apologize for doing so when I have done so more gently and politely.

 

[Cookieboo]

The OP of this thread is a good example though of a generalization turned into a negative judgement. It is plain and simply undeniably true that in general, men are not as good as women at communicating emotionally. I've got no problem with that at all. Where the problem comes in is in saying that that fact is responsible for most maritial communication problems.

Actually, I find it interesting that people are finding this "generalization" a negative. It was not said to me in a negative manner, more in a "I am a male and acknowledge and am aware of what can be a shortcoming." This friend of mine is very secure in who he is, who his wife is and how he wants his wife and himself to feel in their relationship - valued, heard and respected. It seems to me that some people are taking this as a personal affront to their man/womanhood. Like most things said by a counselor, you need to take what resonates with you, what makes things clear and leave the rest. I, personally, looking back from a 20 year old marriage, see some merit in this comment but not in a disparaging way. Men and women are meant to mirror to each other and make up the lack in the other. God is amazing in how he built us inside and out. Peace to you all and blessings from Abba

 

[dallasapple]

You know, this is why a lot of guys don't bother to talk at all. Why bother? Nothing you say is accepted for what it is anyway. The platypus example and the response is a perfect case. You are trying to explain why something was not intended for offense, and then after that your character is attacked. Jesus refuted character attacks against himself. Sometimes harshly. When i have done so harshly I have apologized. I do not apologize for doing so when I have done so more gently and politely.

The one who questions "why bother" is the only one that can answer that question for themselves..why they are bothering..You cant ask someone else why you bother..Dr.Phil however would say because you want to.(if you were to ask him why you bother)E.T.A one thing for sure doesnt make sense(as far as communication).. is to continue to do something over and over you have concluded isnt worth the bother..then keep asking other people why you keep doing it..how are they supposed to know?

Dallas

 

[JaneFW]

The one who questions "why bother" is the only one that can answer that question for themselves..why they are bothering..You cant ask someone else why you bother..Dr.Phil however would say because you want to.(if you were to ask him why you bother)E.T.A one thing for sure doesnt make sense(as far as communication).. is to continue to do something over and over you have concluded isnt worth the bother..then keep asking other people why you keep doing it..how are they supposed to know?

Dallas

It comes back to that old saying - if you keep on doing what you do, you'll get what you always got.

.. I think that's right?? It looks weird now.

 

[JaneFW]

Actually, I find it interesting that people are finding this "generalization" a negative. It was not said to me in a negative manner, more in a "I am a male and acknowledge and am aware of what can be a shortcoming." This friend of mine is very secure in who he is, who his wife is and how he wants his wife and himself to feel in their relationship - valued, heard and respected. It seems to me that some people are taking this as a personal affront to their man/womanhood. Like most things said by a counselor, you need to take what resonates with you, what makes things clear and leave the rest. I, personally, looking back from a 20 year old marriage, see some merit in this comment but not in a disparaging way. Men and women are meant to mirror to each other and make up the lack in the other. God is amazing in how he built us inside and out. Peace to you all and blessings from Abba

Exactly!!! And if we have other attributes, if some women and men are different to the norm, that's in God's plan too.

 

[chaz345]

Actually, I find it interesting that people are finding this "generalization" a negative. It was not said to me in a negative manner, more in a "I am a male and acknowledge and am aware of what can be a shortcoming." This friend of mine is very secure in who he is, who his wife is and how he wants his wife and himself to feel in their relationship - valued, heard and respected. It seems to me that some people are taking this as a personal affront to their man/womanhood. Like most things said by a counselor, you need to take what resonates with you, what makes things clear and leave the rest. I, personally, looking back from a 20 year old marriage, see some merit in this comment but not in a disparaging way. Men and women are meant to mirror to each other and make up the lack in the other. God is amazing in how he built us inside and out. Peace to you all and blessings from Abba

It is a negative though to lay 90% of all marriage communication problems on the man. Not to mention it's completely untrue. Well actually given the wrong expectations that have been built, that women's way of communicating is inherently better, it is true, it's just wrong. There are just as many marriage communcation problems caused by the woman's inability to think/speak/communicate factually as there are caused by a man's inability to think/speak/communicate emotionally.