Dating, Online, Offline, Relating, and the Lack Thereof

Looking at other Hub posts in this category of dating and relationship advice, this one caught my attention,

Understanding men in relationships

The original hub post offered 3 points of advice to understand men better in relationships. When reading it, I couldn't help but feel like if someone applied those points to me in any situation, whether man or women, I would feel completely misunderstood. This kind of advice damages trust, emotional connectivity, and any kind of real bond between two people because it assumes the inner workings of another person's thoughts at all times in all situations. Our thoughts vary, or sometimes we do not think at all and relax quietly in the present.

To launch into explanations when we feel the need to have some kind of mental control over an unknown variable, specifically when we receive little to no verbal feedback from our romantic partner is speculation and in a way, rejects them. It rejects the realistic nature we all share, that we often change our minds, and that our moods and thoughts vary beyond simplistic explanations that seem psychologically valid within the tone of this new wave of Sex and the City induced mental superiority over the simple, reptile minds of men.

The 3 examples of situations where the author assumes women cannot understand mysterious male behavior read as follows:

Example one: "He says he loves me, and finds me attractive, but he never compliments me."

Example two: "When I ask him what he is thinking, he either does not answer, says "nothing", or makes up something stupid."

Example three: "When we get in a fight, he pulls away."

Let's jump right into where I left off on example 2.

Example two: "When I ask him what he is thinking, he either does not answer, says "nothing", or makes up something stupid."

Instead, let's change this advice to something more constructive and realistic.

Revision one: "If I do not feel secure without knowing someone's thoughts even after asking them, I will not make things up and try to tag that person with my made-up thoughts to fill in the blanks, and therefore feel better having some control over the situation."

I notice the same formulaic reasoning on the author's part when providing answers to these questions about understanding men. We ask someone something, their behavior seems odd to us, therefore we interpret this behavior and offer explanations. Specifically, we explain their thought processes and motives to make ourselves feel better about not having control over an unknown variable. We seek to relate and to understand to feel some security, truth, and love. But when we look closer, this kind of belief might sound something like this, the less unknowns in a situation, the more in control I am of my emotional safety, and therefore these explanations will be true because I feel better now that I've identified the real thoughts inside the mind of my partner.

If you want the truth, go to the source. Making things up to fill in the blanks under the guise of "understanding" is anything but. Silence in the partner does not necessarily equate to trouble. After getting to know someone sometimes we can observe behaviors that seem consistent and predictable, but remember to always make room for exceptions because we do change our minds and our moods vary. To recognize and understand your partner better, offer a safe environment where they can express themselves without fear of being interpreted or judged before they even open their mouths.

The original example explains right away the motives behind all male behavior. Although the author does not seem to be overtly generalizing and I'm fairly certain they would agree with the point that generalizations typically harm the understanding process of our unique partner. Yet, the points that answer question number 2 imply a man is too base and crude to understand the refined process of self-reflection that, from the sagacious female vantage point, the poor thing can only utter the word "nothing" lest it troubles him to undertake understanding himself almost as well as you understand him. The author writes,

"She sees the communication and sharing of thoughts as an intimate act. For a man, he often is not clear on his thoughts, or has strange, embarrassing, or personal thoughts that he does not want to share. It has nothing to do with you, or his liking you, but with his not wanting to share."

If only men could evolve to a means of communication that facilitated the process of understanding that women naturally participate in... Right. This is radical-reverse-feminism in the sense that it is the same kind of narrow-minded gender assumption that men constantly fall under attack for. Because of its subtlety and feminism's history of overcoming the tyranny of all things male in the name of equal treatment, it treats men just as unequally as women by assuming these gender based characteristics to be true across the board. Exceptions are the rule when it comes to our thoughts and moods, you can't throw a blanket explanation over our most private inner workings and call that understanding, or worse, a guide to improving communication in a relationship.

Revision two: Listen, as in really listen this time without thinking about what he's "really thinking" while listening.

"Other times he may not share because he does not think he can do it without you interrupting him, so it is easier to just say, "Nothing." It keeps the peace, and leaves him feeling much better about you. So, if he says "Nothing" take it as a compliment or a respect to you that he does not want to offend you, get frustrated with you, or he just does not know."

Then it seems men will choose to remain quiet because they fear rejection in the form of their partner interrupting them with their two cents on what they believe to be the real truth behind his words. Thus, men once again choose the path of silence. That is true, that when you ask someone what they think, then offer an alternative interpretation of what they might be thinking, you're rejecting them. That's incredibly invasive, rude, sends a clear message you're rejecting their expressions; it rejects their candor, and forces your control on their way of thinking without acknowledging that's exactly what interjecting on someone's thoughts is - but you blow it off as if it were just offering your opinion on what he's thinking, so there's no reason to get upset. Right? Either way, you're starting out assuming knowledge about someone's inner workings on a level beyond their own reflective capabilities. That promotes behavior in a partner that in reality is disconnecting, unloving, and unsafe to open up to.

Opting to remain quiet in the face of this kind of communication barrier implies that men cannot articulate themselves or represent themselves with the same clarity as women, or if they do, that some women who do have a voice and speak up in the name of equality in relationships, will intimidate the timid creature, man. Scared, alone, and without the ability to properly articulate his real thoughts, we must console him, that poor, poor, thing. It almost seems like the author suggested in a patronizing way that a man's simple mind cannot participate in something that comes naturally and effortlessly for females.

"What are you thinking" You ask? I'm not thinking. Well, I am now. Before this I was focusing on how relaxed my body feels, enjoying how easy my breathing is, no mind activity, just being present. In other words, psychologically balanced, healthy, and not living in an internal illusion of mental activity that I mistake for reality around me.

That's what some of us are, or rather, are not thinking.

Tip 3: Get out of your head and into reality.

This merits more discussion and unfortunately I must get to sleep before addressing the rest of the article.