FamilyLife Forums

chaz345:

formerlyalpha:

So that's why boys are so uncommunicative!

This may seem nitpicky but the explanation says nothing about why males are uncommunicative. It explains that they are uncommunicative ABOUT EMOTIONS.  There is a difference.  Leaving the statement as uncommunicative in general can imply an inferiority rather than a difference.

I'll have to take it a step further:

The statement is given authoritatively, as though it were already confirmed as fact, and should be accepted as such:  I disagree.  American men do not communicate in words about emotions as much as American women do--now thats a generalization that doesn't bother me a bit!  Nor do they launch communication from a purely emotional platform as much as the American women do.  What's not being said?  "That is O.K." "That is acceptable"......much less..........."That is good".  Only one form of communication is lauded as being worthy of praise and acceptance.  That definitely contributes to some of the inactivity that some wives complain about.

 

formerlyalpha:

If it be true that we don't, or can't, understand a woman, it may be important to recognise that.

I realize this is only a small point in the whole topic but it's an important one.

We hear much about how men can't or choose not to try to understand women.It 's almost accepted as fact.

 I submit, based on continuing and ongoing misinterpretations of what's said here, that women can't or choose not to try to understand men, just as often.  And I'd also suggest that this idea would be pretty soundly rejected by most women.

---

Chaz345

The comment about boys being uncommunicative was made by the magazine interviewer, no doubt as a response to what Leonard Sax had just said. I haven't included everything in the interview because it would be too long, and would not always add something significant to the thread.
I guess the interviewer saw what had been said as linking with the well-known male adolescent's tendency to grunt in mono-syllables around home.
It's not entirely a conscious choice, he's that way without having worked out what drives him.

This predilection for few words was typified in the main character in the old Western movie genre. Here's some review comments about a recent Western which tapped into all the old stereotypes.
They were set in
 "a time when men said little and buried their emotions deep, ... going about their business with few words .... most reclusive heroes of the old-time Westerns tended to operate at a distance from the audience, standing tall and proud as one-dimensional men of principal."
"Silence has always been essential to the great Westerns."
Men "look at one another and gesture at what they're thinking. They finish each other's sentences, and know what the other is thinking without having to say a word."

The Western's popularity waned by about the 1960's. That's when men were expected to show different traits. By the 1980's the S.N.A.G. ( sensitive new age guy) had replaced the earlier model of the ideal male.
Yet the man of few words must have had some basis. Even if it was in part a caricature, an exaggerated approximation,  there was a reality behind it. And that basis lies in the different way the male brain is wired. So it's not entirely a choice. It is a trait founded on that innate difference.

Further to the FotF interview on gender differences as heard a couple of weeks ago.
James Dobson continues his intro remarks before Walt and Barb  Larimore speak, who co-authored "His Brain, Her Brain".

J Dobson. In the 1970's the "new" ideas about gender were sweeping the world.
The university system was ablaze with it, including  medicine and psychology and public education and even the churches.
Much of what that movement espoused  was politically motivated, and had no basis in scientific fact. That's not just my perspective, I think that can be documented by the literature.
One of the notions that was bandied about at that time , and vigorously promoted, was the assertion that males and females were identical, except for their reproductive functions.
Dr Larimore, do you remember that era?

W  Larimore. Yes, I remember those days Jim, and they're not gone. As recently as 2005, the President of Harvard, Larry Summers, was essentially fired for daring to suggest at a closed Faculty meeting, that there may be some innate difference between men and women, boys and girls. And that as teachers and professors they should look into that.The faculty went crazy.

J D. One of the primary ways those views have been discredited is in the development of medical technology that allowed us to examine the brain without opening the skull.
Along came MRI's and Cat Scans etc, and all of a sudden you see the differences.

W L. Stunning differences.
 The male brain when it's scanned, really does look like a chest of drawers. It's got these  different drawers, and different functions show up in different areas of the brain, and at different times. And they work independently on one side of the brain, and only one thing at one time. Whereas the female brain on these scans almost looks like a ball of yarn, with every part of the brain connected to every other part, and they all are talking back and forth and never stopping, even during nighttime sleep.
But the guy is just in his drawer.

J D. And the rest of them are empty!

W L. He has  a nothing drawer.
 
Barb Larimore. And that was one of the most amazing things that I came across as we were doing this research.
I can ask Walt, "What are you thinking?" and he will say "Nothing!". and I'm like, "You've got to be joking, you must be thinking something".
He's in his nothing draw, and my brain, it never shuts off.
 

formerlyalpha:

Men "look at one another and gesture at what they're thinking. They finish each other's sentences, and know what the other is thinking without having to say a word."

Which to me describes not a lack of communication but a different way of communicating.

Using the term uncommunicative or similar carries negative connotations, many of which are, in many cases, entirely intentional.

---

Chaz345

My purpose in this thread was to alert the married to be aware of why there can be so much misunderstanding in marriage. And hopefully to set in motion a pathway to better harmony in marriages

 In fact, I would say that most of the marriage problems that get posted on these forums can be traced to, or at least compounded by, a failure to grasp the significance of these differences. Not that a bit of knowledge on it's own will be the cure-all.

I can only speculate that this understanding is not being taught to some at least, or maybe even many of those entering marriage. So it can also be helpful for those still contemplating marriage. I certainly did not know this stuff, in part because the conclusive research findings were not available then. But also because the whole of society was, as James Dobson said, "awash" with the unisex ideas.

Take a typical marriage scene.
 Husband comes home from work and relaxes, maybe watching TV. ( This is not just confined to his arrival at home from work, it can happen at any other time.) His brain is in that "nothing drawer" phase. In that mode he is  unaware of  the needs of his wife, or even of the housework waiting to be done. He is just not thinking.
But his wife has her brain literally buzzing, and she can't switch it off, even if she wanted to. She is wanting emotional affirmation from him, which may come from a meaningful conversation, a gentle touch, and a willingness to pitch into the housework. But he is oblivious. Of course that is no excuse. Likely he does not realise just how differently a female functions.

And she resents that he is unaware of what she is thinking and needing from him, and even interprets his aloofness as a lack of love and concern. She then gets angry. She wants to retaliate. She plans to return that aloofness favour when they get to bed, by being less than enthusiastic about his advances. He may then feel that he is being rejected. That in turn sets a whole other train of reactions in him. And the seesaw is underway. Both are blaming the other, but never openly talking about it. It goes underground, dictating their emotional responses. This goes on for years, neither knowing just why, but making ill-informed guesses that implicate their spouse as the culprit.
Eventually, they come on these forums, presenting a near impossible situation, or they seek counseling or worse.

And the evidence supports the view that it is more challenging for a man to understand a women, rather than the other way, because her brain activity is more constant and complex, at least in those areas that impact relationships. Which is why wives are a mystery to their husbands, and wives also keep misinterpreting them.
As an example here is an excerpt from David Hawkins book "Men Just Don't Get It; But they Can". I haven't had time today to read this article , but I do have the book. From a quick glance it seems to parallel the hypothetical situation I depicted above.

formerlyalpha:

And the evidence supports the view that it is more challenging for a man to understand a women, rather than the other way, because her brain activity is more constant and complex, at least in those areas that impact relationships.

I don't agree. Most women simply can't grasp the concept of the "nothing box" let alone begin to understand that her husband's need to spend time there is every bit as important and valid as her need to emotionally connect.

I agree completely with the scenario that you lay out being fairly typical, I don't agree with the (probably unintended by you) value judgements about the validity of each person's actions that it contains.  I guarantee that 9 out of 10 people reading that, including men, would initially react with negative feelings toward the man and his actions, even though what he's doing is every bit as important to him as what she does is to her.   Certainly time in the "nothing box" can become excessive.  But here's another example of how there are value judgements attached to the differences between men and women. While nearly everyone would agree with the idea that "nothing" time can become excessive, I think there's a lot of people who would look at you like you were from another planet if you were to try to float the idea of a woman's verbal processing, or emotional connection being excessive.

---

Chaz345

NEED EDIT BUTTON:

I understand that your point in this thread is to look at differences between genders and I completely agree that communication differences that are caused by those differences can be a HUGE problem. All I'm getting at is that value judgements that are assigned to those differences(probably often unintentionally) certainly don't help the situation either.

---

Chaz345

Chaz, I don't know what you mean by "value judgments about the validity of each person's actions that it contains." Maybe I'm too dense, so you will have to put it more simply for me.

I would suggest that the reason for your belief that 9 out of 10  "would initially react with negative feelings toward the man and his actions," if he were relaxing, is due to the constant harping on the sins of the male that has taken place in the recent past.
And it may  also be that your involvement in these forums and your own experience in counseling it has made you aware of that. But a generation ago, for example, it would never have crossed the minds of most men  to think that sitting around was in any way unhelpful to his spouse or marriage.

On 2nd thoughts, if by value judgment you meant how each spouse ascribes motives to the other, then that may well be the case. But they do that due to being unaware that each is operating according to the way their brain is differently configured. In that sense they don't have any sense that they can possibly be in the wrong. Hence the marriages going downhill.

But to expect couples to stop making those value judgments would be like asking them to stop being human.Unless they understand the extent of male/female differences, and that due to those differences they need to treat each by acknowledging the existence of those differences. My guess is that such an understanding has been largely absent from most marriages that have been in trouble.

Now this understanding is not the same as understanding a woman.It is understanding that she is different,  and walking in care and even awe of that difference. It means that when a wife has a reaction, the husband springs to attention to keep her happy, even if he can't get a handle on why she is as she is. That may sound like I'm going around in circles. Maybe that's the nature of the issue.

Btw, that web site I intended to give but didn't is:
www.marriagemissions.com/why-doesnt-my-husband-address-our-problem-directly/

By definition, those differences would prohibit each from ever truly knowing.  The best that can be hoped for it a basic acknowledgement that there are differences.  The problem comes when differences are perceived as defects.  Such is how mindreading and assignment of ill intent is begat.  Now it becomes a trust issue especially in the mind of the recalitrant spouse who develops the belief that the other is duplicitous in all things.

(There is an evolution of thought and the relationship dynamics.  It may well begin with differences falsely perceived but it does not linger there.  Negative emotions come into play and foment a deeper discord as one or both become increasingly suspicous.)

Too, when that perception (differences perceived as defects) is seen as the premise for all that follows, one can begin to understand how the other wouldn't care to truly understand; after all, the other believes they already possess an understanding so why seek that which they already have?  (A false understanding supercedes a true understanding and serves to truncate a desire to develop a deeper understanding.)  Here is that peculiar dynamic where the relationship stops maturing but no such arrest applies to the growth of negative perceptions.  Too, one may resist being known by way of vaguity and elusiveness.  In other words, they are mentally and emotionally leaving the relationship and why?  Because they feel it isn't worth it, nor can it become any greater.  So hope is diminished as the attendent emotions grow more persistent.  Fact surplanted by emotion.

Alpha, with respect to the typical marriage scenario you presented, how significant would it be if the gender roles were reversed?  Other than the "bedroom revenge", what you describe is exactly of my marriage but with the typical gender roles reversed.

I may have made a quantum leap in equating the "nothing" sector of the male brain with sitting around in an idle state. In doing so I may have inadvertently erred and brought discredit to the research facts that show the male/female brain difference.

There may be no link between that 'nothing drawer" and just sitting watching TV, because any man or woman can sit around. But no woman can alter her brain to match that "nothing drawer" that Walt Larimore described in the male brain. Nor can a man match a woman's brain.
Further, sitting around may be a choice, but the brain differences are not a matter of choice. It's the capacity for the mind to be unocupied. I suppose a wife may find her husband not taking something as seriously as she thinks he should. He may just be in that nothing drawer at that point in time. But he gets lambasted for it.

My reference to D Hawkins book about men being nonplussed over how to relate to their wives, is I imagine, in part due to the brain. There is also the matter of upbringing and nurture, but even that is affected by the same brain factor.

My guess is that for a man to understand exactly what makes a woman tick is too hard an ask. But, and this is the important "but", he needs to know that she is different, significantly different. To know she is different is where it's at. Many men, I suspect are trying to do marriage thinking their wives can handle life as they do, especially at an emotional level. That's the dominant cultural milieu in which we have lived these past few decades. And it has ill prepared us for marriage.

Having cleared up that, here is more from that interview. What is also clear, according to the Larimores, is that those brain differences do have an outworking in behaviour.
James Dobson asks Walt and Barb Larimore about hormones.

JD.  From a medical perspective, talk about oxytocin.
BL. It's the love hormone, the cuddle hormone

WL. It's one of a number of hormonal differences between male and female.The oxytocin hormone has dramatic effects on the brain. The scans show that a woman's emotional handling systems, are much larger than a male's. And are very richly connected, not only on both sides of her brain, but to every section of the brain, especially her verbal centers.
So when a woman encounters something that generates that oxytocin hormone, like a touch or a compliment, or a hold or a hug, it boosts that hormone, then she feels connection, she feels trust, she feels love, loyalty.

It's one of the things that we've learned in our marriage, how important it is for me to connect with Barb with very gentle touches. Guys are kinda like  knock them on the shoulder etc, because our pain perception is completely different. A woman's skin is much much more sensitive, so a man needs to learn how to touch a woman, whether it's his spouse or his child. We men touch different, we emote different and it all goes back to this brain difference.

JD The truth is God made us this way for a purpose, and when we work together it is a beautiful thing. And when we don't you got problems.

WL. One of the most surprising pieces of research was the impact of oxytocin on the male. We talked about how oxytocin is that emotional hormone for a female.
We don't see oxytocin in men, with one exception. It's after sexual intercourse. His oxytocin level will soar. It's his time of softness, of talking, of listening, of emotional connection.

formerlyalpha:

Chaz, I don't know what you mean by "value judgments about the validity of each person's actions that it contains." Maybe I'm too dense, so you will have to put it more simply for me.

I would suggest that the reason for your belief that 9 out of 10  "would initially react with negative feelings toward the man and his actions," if he were relaxing, is due to the constant harping on the sins of the male that has taken place in the recent past.

I would tend to agree with this. But it gets circular since the constant harping is itself, or is a manifestation of negative value judgements aimed at men.

Another example of a negative judgement(although not necessarily one of value) was when you suggested that it is easier and more likely for a woman to understand a man because the woman's emotional brain functioning is more complex.  You probably didn't mean it this way but many would take that to mean that in terms of emotional relating, she is superior.

Making value judgements in an individual situation, the sort of ones that go"this is how I see it so I'm right and you're wrong" (vast oversimplification) is of course always going to happen and is, like you say human nature.  But that's entirely different than what I'm talking about where, in a general conversation like this, there is an implication(and like I said, probably not even intended by you) that there is anything other than a difference, that the differences involve a superior/inferior relationship.

To use the example that got me going on this, to say that because a woman's brain function is more complex, that means she would have an easier time understanding a man than the other way around implies that complex = superior.  Like I said, the simple way in which a man's brain functions is every bit as mystery to her, and is every bit as difficult for her to understand. And that lack of understanding causes as many marriage difficulties as his inability to understand her.    Just look at how the typical situation is portrayed and talked about. It's always "he's not even trying to understand me" and "she's the one who's noticed that there is a problem" .

---

Chaz345

Chaz, the intended meaning of my comment was that if you have two exhibits, one simple and one complicated, the latter is going to be more difficult to understand.

Since those who study human nature tell us that the woman is more emotionally/psychologically complex than the man, the conclusion I draw is that it is therefore easier for women to understand  (the more simple) men than the other way. That is an important matter, because the health of a marriage is dependent on the husband recognising that.

In a past era, it was accepted that men and women were different. But due to the fact that the human race suffers from sin, it's likely that the demarcation became distorted by sin, and some of the accepted cultural norms were discriminatory of women. And in some cases that discrimination was the effect of sin in the human race.
But in attempting to redress those, the relevant movement in the late 20th century went so far as to minimise those differences. That was to ensure that their point got well and truly made.
Marriage was a casualty of that movement, for the reasons being explored in this thread - namely that the ensuing ignorance of differences set up many husbands and wives  for relational failure.

James Dobson referred to Freud. I don't normally give any kudos to Freud - except when it suits my purpose!!  What Freud said - and Dobson quoted in part - was ""The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my 30 years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'."

Some of the comic strip cartoons of the early/mid 20th century featured married couples. It was an assumed stance in some of  those cartoons to have as it's theme a depiction of husbands and wives at cross purposes, with the last piece of the daily cartoon showing the husband in a state of bewilderment at something his wife had said or done.
As we know, humor springs from reality, even if it is overdrawn for effect. But all of that has long since been consigned to history.
Although it was humor, it was educational humor, and everyone knew that it was a window on gender realities.

The unisex political correctness of the present era prohibits any depiction of men being flummoxed by a wife's behavior. Because that would be demeaning of women, and present them as somehow being less rational than a man etc, or etc. In fact, all it would do is educate readers in the art of how to back off when you know you're beaten, and accept the inevitable.
That inevitability often appeared as a punch line in one comic strip as in the last sketch the husband exclaimed, "Yer can't win"!   That meant it was futile to persist in an argument you were going to lose anyway. So 'quit while you're ahead' was the unspoken lesson. Quit and preserve  your marriage.
And both men and boys got the message.

formerlyalpha:

Chaz, the intended meaning of my comment was that if you have two exhibits, one simple and one complicated, the latter is going to be more difficult to understand.

In a general sense this is true but I think this is different because what's trying to be understood is part of the mechanism that we use to understand.

formerlyalpha:

Since those who study human nature tell us that the woman is more emotionally/psychologically complex than the man, the conclusion I draw is that it is therefore easier for women to understand  (the more simple) men than the other way. That is an important matter, because the health of a marriage is dependent on the husband recognising that.

Let me try it this way. From completely  outside the situation yes, a+b=c is simpler to understand than   a*2+ b*a+c*c= 327*42d

But what women can't understand about men is how their emotional functioning can be as simple as it is. It's a completely  alien concept to them that is every bit as hard for them to grasp as the complexities of how they function is for us to grasp.  And their inability to understand or accept that simplicity is every bit as responsible for difficulties in marriage as our inability to grasp their complexities is.

Once they've grasped and accepted the simplicity then yes I'd agree that it is easier for them to understand than the other way around, but OTOH, many never even reach that point.

---

Chaz345

Then there's the problem that complex is so often considered to be better. We've got all sorts of things that are constantly telling us to try to understand women, to try to do it their way, and little to nothing telling women to do it our way. Sure their are "understand your man" types of things, but the huge majority of them talk about how to understand him enough to get him to communicate the way that women do.

---

Chaz345