Megan Helen

Hi Abraham, thank you for all of this, and especially for using the precise words you did in your first paragraph.

You wrote exactly what I mean about men needing to love and women needing to be loved. Of course, both men and women need to love and to feel loved, they are both giving and receiving. And yet they are different. My understanding is that the man is outwardly focused, and his need to provide is quite strong. When a woman is fully open to his love and receives it, this is her natural feminine way of loving him in return. My understanding is that between the man and woman, this is a form of polarity.

I appreciate what you said here about not suppressing emotions but enhancing others. I agree that all emotions are valuable and need to be felt. The example you used about recovering from anxiety on your own helps me put myself in the shoes of a man. That's really helpful. Thank you again.

Abraham Palma wrote:Love goes both ways. As someone said earlier, we men like to look outwards, and women like to look inwards, that's the biggest difference. If you demand attention and I give it to you, we are both loving, since you are accepting my attention. It's a give and accept matter. Love between friends is like that. Love between lovers is giving attention and intimacy.

I don't agree that men do not express emotions. We just do not want to show anything perceived as weakness. Anger and joy can be expressed freely. Fear and pain, only when it is safe to do so. If you have to face a wild animal and you show it fear, you are in more danger than if you keep calm. We can feel fear as long as we control it and do not panic. Fear keeps us alive, it would be stupid to not feel it, while panic may save us in certain cases, but it puts us in risk too.
So maybe what sets you back was the manifestation of uncontrolled emotions. That's typical for teenagers and some young people, not for adults. A man who cannot control himself is dangerous.

It is fashionable these days to say that it is ok to have these meltdowns, as you put it, But I see this to be similar to an illness. You can caught a flu, and it is OK, everyone catches a flu now and then, but you are not OK, you are sick, and need to recover. So if I ever crumble from anxiety (which comes to visit me sometimes), I try not to blame myself for being weak, but it is not a state I want to be. I've learned how to recover on my own, so I try not to show it when I am through a crisis. I want my family to think I am there for them so they do not have to worry. My family being worried would be counterproductive for my recovery, you know? I need discussions and laughs and even pain, so my worries can fade to a degree where I can face the problems one by one and take action.

In this sense, our emotions are like our gut bacterias. We need them all, but sometimes one of them becomes dominant and it causes problems. The solution is not to suppress the dominant bacteria, but to enhance the others.

Sorry for the walkaround.

Haha! Thank you, Jim. I'm looking forward to some interesting conversations.

Jim Fry wrote:Well now, welcome home, Megan. When you posted this, I didn't realize it was you. Now you've traveled all the way across the country, from Ariz. to Ohio, just to stay at Stone Garden Farm. Now I don't have to write a long, windy reply to the question. We can just talk about it over tea by the fire. ~~And anybody else who also wants to talk about polarities and relationships (and community), come on down. We have more tea.

I was taking my time in responding, wanting to have something insightful to share. But I have been traveling am my brain feels tired. All I can say at the moment is that I'm really grateful for the conversation about respect. I'm spending a lot of time thinking about it. I can only speak for myself, but somehow I did not get passed a copy of "How to Respect Men."  ;)

Jim Veteto wrote: "The modern masculine woman is sort of trying to have her cake and eat it too.  For well raised guys beating her is off the table and as long as she doesn't raise the consequences to being worth terminating her she can throw her weight around without consequences that even the normal guys would face interacting with other men."

What C. Letellier is saying here is absolutely correct from my perspective. Cake and eating it too indeed. I had come to this conclusion myself previously but forgot to mention it in the post. If you are a decent man, the woman knows you aren't going to strike her. She takes advantage of this and & acts with impunity in ways that would get a dude's you-know-what kicked. This is a very unfortunate dynamic that was less likely to occur in the past. There is no chance for positive male-female dynamics with this sort of interaction going on unless the guy is totally passive, which usually ends up not being what the woman really wants anyway. As C pointed out, the basic issue is respect, and that's a street that has to run both ways.

Wow, thank you for your candor, C. I've now read your post three or four times and I've been contemplating what you wrote here. I wouldn't have understood your viewpoint a year ago, but I'm understanding it now. Your example of the woman at church was really helpful. It sounded like a rather innocent, insignificant thing, and yet I understand how her action was disrespectful and will alter what you might share with her in future interactions. Though I wouldn't have thought to frame it as disrespectful, it makes sense and I, too, might take care around her in the future.

Thank you for writing more about emotions and vulnerability. There is so much I could write and so many questions I would like to ask about this. Much of what I'm curious about is how men experience emotion and what causes communicating emotion to feel so challenging between men and women.

What you say about women losing trust and respect for a man after he's shown emotion is true. I watched the Brene Brown short and nearly cried. I have had the experience of losing attraction to and respect for partners who express emotion in certain ways. These experiences do not include a man telling me what emotion he's feeling or crying a bit. It has been the result of having witnessed what I had perceived as emotional meltdowns. But even so, it has been a confusing, disheartening, and disconcerting experience. When that has happened I haven't known what is happening within me. I experience it as an emotional shift over which I have no control. It is not a conscious choice to view the man differently.

I am reflecting on what I've been learning about the biological needs of men and women, and I'm wondering if this response in women is biologically based. I may be completely wrong on this, but this is my feeling. According to what I've learned, women need to be loved, protected, and provided for. And men need to love, protect, and provide.

On a basic level it makes some sense that seeing men express a lot of emotion causes women to feel they can't trust a man to protect or provide for them, in which case, no, they would not feel safe in submitting. I know as a woman that I need a man to demonstrate what I view as good judgment nearly all of the time. Everyone makes mistakes. But if I am going to trust a man as deeply as I want to, I need to perceive that his judgment is at least as good as mine.

Right now I'm wondering . . .

Is it actually more natural for men to suppress emotion rather than to express it?

When it comes to women losing respect and trust for a man, is it more in HOW he's expressing emotion, than that he is expressing emotion at all? For example, if he is more childlike about it than mature?

I know I'm basically directing these questions toward you, but I'm mostly just including them in the conversation. I have no expectation for you to answer them. Though I wouldn't refuse answers either, if you so choose to provide them.

C. Letellier wrote:Jim has done a nice job of starting the conversation on respect.  Guys give a lot of ground to avoid fights.  Why?  Because the consequences are so bad.  Kill or be killed possibly.  Women are afraid more of the time and historically have given ground differently because of the size differential.  The modern masculine woman is sort of trying to have her cake and eat it too.  For well raised guys beating her is off the table and as long as she doesn't raise the consequences to being worth terminating her she can throw her weight around without consequences that even the normal guys would face interacting with other guys.  Well most guys are going to object being put in that sort of situation where they can't socially fight back(because their tool kit doesn't include the tools women learned), can't physically fight back as the male answer.  A well raised guy just doesn't do certain things.  And the modern feminist is taking advantage of that to get her way often.  Well do you really think the guy is going to want that?

Historically and what the guy is looking for is for the lady to at least publicly be his biggest supporter most of the time and in private to at least fight fair.  There is more to it than that but I would sum it up as a feminine respect.  And the lady doesn't have to behave against the grain very often for the guy to lose the ability to trust her and begin taking action to protect himself.   Most women fail to recognize that most guys only truly have respect and love for what they do.  Women are given inherent value for just existing but guys only get that value by earning it.  So when the woman is "stealing" that she is basically saying he is worthless.  Is the guy going to want to be there?

And it is other small things too.  Lets take one of mine from the last couple months.  About 2 months ago we got a new family at church.  Another guy and I stopped to check on them and visit one Sunday after they moved in.  The lady was intelligent, wide ranging interests and very friendly.  Enjoyed the visit.  Now one of the things learned from her because she flat out said it was she had no filter.  Advance a few weeks and we are doing a broadcast out at the church and I am in charge of setting maintaining the equipment for that.  First day the lady is in with her kids because the TV stuff isn't set up at home yet.  Second day a gal from the other section of the church we share the building with and non member friend show up for the broadcast.  The first gal comes in late and hearing her kids coming in I go out to see what is going on.  She asks who else is there and I tell her about the gal and her friend.  Problem is that suddenly I can't think of the gal's name.  So I embarrassed tell her that.  So she proceeds to go in and introduce herself using the fact that I couldn't remember the gals name as her opening.  Now that is a public embarrassment for me.(minor I will admit)  But that means I know the fact that the gal has no filter means I will NEVER trust her with similar information again.  If this were in dating that just raised a road block because I know I have to filter everything I say to her.(it isn't dating because she is married)  But it is a small disrespect of me.  Instead of protecting me she chose to minorly embarrass me thus indirectly saying I have no value.  She could just as easily just said "Hi, my name is ...." without using me as her social lever for introductions.    It is thru these small actions showing the guy that the lady honors him and values him.  

Now another piece of this is all the women talking about EQ(emotional quotient) and wanting guys to share.  The trouble is while women say this is what they want very few women can handle this properly.  Many will use the guy's weaknesses as a weapon.  And most of the rest will lose respect for the guy.   Here is short Brene Brown video that explains it well.  [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RC1919tTab0[/youtube].

A different video provided a nice alternate answer on vulnerability.  Their argument was that women were asking for this sharing but explained why they didn't deal with it well.  The conclusion the speakers for this video gave was that what women were looking for was totally guaranteed emotional support of themselves and thought reciprocity on this issue would give it to them.  But it goes against their natural instinct.  Women want the guy who is strong because if they are trust the guy they want the guy with no weaknesses.  So by the guy sharing the guy showing weakness is showing he can't be trusted to always be strong so then she can't submit safely.

Ah, I understand why some people might feel confused about this post. I started this post for my own edification, as I intentionally learn about and experiment with the co-creatiom of a particular kind of dynamic in a man/woman relationship, involving traditional gender roles.

I specifically focus on a man/woman relationship simply because that's what I'm interested in. I have started studying the man/woman relationship from a mostly biological perspective, which is why I used much of the language I did in my original post.

I have intended this post to be quite narrow in scope, which supports depth. I have not intended it to broadly cover relationships or love in general, or to be "inclusive".

I can say that as a woman, love is important to me in an intimate relationship, but I view love as one of many necessarycomponents. I've been learning about the biological differences in men and women (mentioned in my original post and in some comments throughout the thread) that are helping me understand that men and women think and feel and perceive life quite differently. So I chose to ask men for their thoughts. It's incredibly valuable to me to learn about their needs and experiences directly from them. One thing I'm hearing from some of them is that they want/need to feel respected more than loved, and what respect does/does not look/feel like to them.

It seems to me that men and women are speaking different languages, and this post is all about understanding those differences. The men are leading the direction of this thread with their responses, and that is precisely what I was hoping for.

Judith Browning wrote: Megan, no profound wisdom from me other than stay flexible and broad thinking and don't get hung up with expectations...reassess often and don't fear a change in direction.

Love each other...that really is the answer....if words and actions come out of love all else falls into place.

And I'm curious how the high expectations I'm hearing from several here are working in long term relationships?

Edit to add that I think there is someone for everyone...of any gender combination.

I'm not hearing much mention of love as a basis for a relationship in this conversation?

Judith, thank you for kind words! I'm finding this thread quite amazing, too. I feel astounded by the answers men are providing. I felt more than a little embarrassed posting my thoughts and questions here, but I knew I wouldn't be the only one who found value in this conversation.

I imagine you have much wisdom from your experience of having been married for 50 years. If you feel inspired to share any of it here, I would love to read it.

Judith Browning wrote:Megan,

This thread is pretty amazing...and that is coming from a 73 year old woman who will next year be married a wonderful, adventurous and happy 50 years .
Although our long term 'success' was due to only a few of the views expressed here I am always glad to read and learn.

Thank you for approaching a sensitive subject so calmly and methodically.

I'm grateful for your honesty about women's behaviors that you've found frustrating, and that have caused you pain.

I think the reasons why 'modern' women emasculate men is complex. My basic understanding is that women are being conditioned from every direction to be more masculine. That's combined with a lack of female role models who know how to behave as queens and treat their men like kings. And it's reinforced by their interactions with 'modern' men, many of whom who are as you described in your previous reply.

Now that I have apparently reached my emotional pain threshold for relationships, I am learning from books how to respect men and co-create more loving, respectful relationships. And from men online who are willing to have these conversations. :)

I have never called myself a feminist and I have never disliked men but I have been ignorant of the 'rules' you mentioned. And even though I am not aware of ever having egregiously violated the rules, such as spontaneously emasculating a man in permies, I am now aware that there are many seemingly small ways to emasculate men, which over time cut them down and make them small, slowly eroding the relationship, and ultimately harming myself as well. Women cannot weaken men without also weakening themselves.

Jim Veteto wrote: I'll share one thing that has been immensely frustrating to me as a man, as women have become more forward and aggressive in our society and exhibit more behaviors traditionally associated with men (although good men try to avoid these types of behavior as well, particularly as they mature in life). As women's behaviors have become more male-like, they lack the proper training to understand the rules. Men (at least of my generation and culture) have certain unwritten rules to avoid violent confrontations. You have to have a certain type of courteous neutrality in dealing with other males. You have to give them their space (unless you want to end up in fisticuffs), both physically and verbally. In the south, this is often achieved either through humor or silence. Lighten the mood by cutting up, or just button your lip and keep to yourself. Do not come off as arrogant or insulting. A lot of modern women don't seem to understand these rules whatsoever. Which makes sense, since that are not men. I think one of the most disheartening things I have ever experienced in life is when women I have dated have rudely undercut me in public in front of other people. This had abruptly ended two relationships for me. For some reason, the male psyche (or at least mine) can't handle this very well. If you are having a problem with me, feel free to bring it up in personal conversation later, but do not confront me about issues you are having with me in front of other people in permies. It makes me feel abandoned and betrayed and all trust is gone. And it's not like I'm a very insecure person either. It just doesn't work for me. And I don't do it to women I am dating either. If I'm treating you like a queen, don't throw me out to the dogs. I think perhaps 'modern' and younger women are more prone to this, but I don't claim to properly know what is going on with that. On the flip side, I will say this to men who are prone to angry outbursts: avoid alcohol at all costs. Drink more tea.

C., thank you for elaborating. I don't think you worded anything wrong; I simply wanted further explanation.

I'm learning the hard way over and over again that when I'm likely to say something disrespectful, even just a little bit, it's best if I keep quiet and speak later. Practice makes better, and some day I'll be really good at that.

C. Letellier wrote:quote above is not working right and I don't see why.

So here is the post.

Maybe I worded that a bit wrong for explaining.  How about saying not delivered right but saying not delivered wrong.  Yelling, bossy, obnoxious, unkind etc are not good delivery methods.  Kind patient thoughtful delivery on the other hand will have better results.  Hit the guy with disrespect and likely he will get his back up and fight back instinctively.

Thanks for painting such a vivid picture. It really came alive in my mind as I read your description. What you wrote makes a lot of sense. (As an aside, I question how long humans have actually existed and I think it's possible we've existed much longer than we're told, but that's a different conversation.)

I felt sad as I read your second paragraph. It does indeed feel to me like chaos. It's helpful for me to remind myself of my locus of control. I don't get decide in what direction society goes. But I can keep de-conditioning myself, choosing to be embrace my femininity, and improving my relations with men. :)

Jim Veteto wrote: Some lines of theorizing in evolutionary anthropology explain this in the following way. I've always thought it was insightful. Current anthropological thinking has the human species as existing for about 200,000 years. Up until 5000 years ago, our primary mode of organization was in band-level or tribal societies. That's about 98.5% of our history as a species. Much of this experience has been as mobile foragers in small bands of around 30-50 individuals. Imagine you are a woman in such a band with several children and you need to move camps to a new foraging site that is several miles or tens or even a hundred miles away. Let's say those children are babies of less than three years old and you are also pregnant. You have two babies feeding off your body and one growing within it. This is going to make the journey difficult in a different way than say, your male partner, who is a strapping 20 something tribal male. It's very much more likely that he and other males are going to be scouting ahead, focusing on the path and the trail, hunting if needed. Making sure the way is safe for the women. There are likely other small foraging bands all around you, and some may be hostile. if there are climatic stresses, resources may be scarce, which may be why you are moving. The women will likely band together to help each other and the children and there will be a lot of multi-tasking to pack up the household and get the children moving, taking care of their needs, perhaps foraging medicinal herbs and small foodstuffs around the way. The female gaze will likely be on the immediacy of their environment, taking care of children and elders. The male gaze will be focused intently on the horizon and making sure the whole band gets from point A to point B alive and healthy. This does lead to different ways of thinking over time in an evolutionary sense, and our bodies back that up with different biological functions and chemical makeups.

Another insight from anthropology is if we have evolved for 98.5% of our human experience as band and tribal-level foragers, horticulturalists, and herders; the last 5000 years of civilization and especially the past 200 years since the onset of the Industrial Revolution has, from an evolutionary perspective, not allowed us enough time to adapt. We are evolutionary hard-wired in a certain way and modern development and technology has moved far too quickly for evolution of the species to catch up. This creates all sorts of problems. I can't speak for women, but for men, all the contrivances and distractions of modern life can really confuse our hardwiring for, as you say, focusing attention and screening out anything not pertinent to current projects. This can lead to a lot of malaise and apathy, lack of focus and concentration. In effect, because of the distractions of modernity, men start to think and behave more like women have traditionally, more diffuse and taking in more information (or having it fed to us by the digital overlords) from artificial environmental stimuli. This can lead toward tendencies of reversal of gender roles, as women try to take on more traditional male gender roles to balance things out. The problem is, our minds and bodies are not hardwired for this gender-role reversal and the result is much chaos.  

This is really helpful. Thank you for breaking that down for me. I can see where in the past there were times when my communication was direct, but the criticism wasn't necessarily considerate or especially constructive. But I think mostly what I've not understood is that sometimes a man is just going to feel angry about a situation, no matter how well I communicate. I can see how I've taken that personally and sought ways to prevent his anger, thereby attempting to control his emotions.

Thank you so much, Abraham!

Abraham Palma wrote:

Would you be willing to answer a another question? You said, "Now I also need her thought and input but delivered in the right way." Can you/will you tell me what the right way is?

I can answer that.

It's the same that I claimed as 'constructive criticism'.

Let's say I've placed a horrendous picture in the hall, because I felt like it. I asked permission and my wife granted it, but now that she is seeing that sick piece of art, she dislikes it. That is, after I took the work of putting the picture there.
She should not shut up for being afraid of bothering me, since this will be annoying her every time she goes to the hall. So, how can she communicate that she has changed her mind and doesn't want the picture there?
I am going to be pissed by the extra (unnecessary) work, but if she becomes annoyed, that would be even more detrimental.
Know that I am going to be pissed.

If she communicates it in a criptic way, like 'I don't know if this is the right place for the picture.' then I would not be sure if she hates it or is just making up her mind. When in doubt, I pick the option with less work. If she says 'Take that sheet out of my sight!', then it will become clear that she doesn't want it, but it will be unconsiderated, and I will feel hurt.
We are usually (with exceptions) pretty straighforward. We need her to say things explicitly. Something like 'I am sorry to say this, I know I said it was fine to have this picture here, but now that I see it, I cannot stand it being here. Please, remove it. Maybe in the corridor?'
Or if she is an expert with facial expression, she can say all the above with a hand touch (I am sorry) and a glance (but the picture must go away).

Neither bossy or ambiguous. Straight and considerated.


Also, by 'constructive criticism' I mean that, if I am learning to bake bread, instead of telling me that my bread is no good, that I should leave baking for bakers, tell me what went wrong and help me make it better next time.