Women like conflict, men like peace (in a relationship)

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
Could it be that women, being more wordy on the whole, are doing whatever it takes to communicate? Communication can be conveyed poorly and can sound like a disagreement when the person is truly just trying to talk to the other person but may not know how?

Verbal communication of any sort has its purpose in primitive culture and women ruled the roost even then when it came to talking thousands and thousands of years ago. It's really no different now. Women are known to run circles around men when it comes to arguments and how to argue. I believe it translates deep into culture and genetics as to why.

After all we were tending to babies and forced to communicate with other women in small groups while getting chores done. Women mastered the art of words because they had to.

As for why women are more likely to create an argument is an issue I can't even wrap my brain around. So many things can be the reason for that. There is always the fact that perception is reality and those who don't like to talk much, or debate or argue are going to dislike the idea and feel entirely out of place everytime those issues come up. The men are more likely to feel this way on the whole. But the truth, according to my reality, is that I can sometimes feel like I'm in the position of the male around females because I don't feel like fighting at that particular time.

Being unable to argue or debate doesn't really have to do with having balls or not (literally or figuratively) but it does have a lot to do with energy. Do I have the energy to do this right now is what I ask myself. Men who are often out working, combined with the lack of communication desire might just not have the energy to fight back but definitely the capability.

But then again there are only several personality types out there some that are more capable of keeping their ground in a conflict situation and those that can't. Whether or not they are male or female might be random but somehow I believe it's really not as random as we might imagine.

Whew, that was wordy. Anyone up for some conflict? ;)
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
maybe it a line drawn down by sex roles/gender roles. i mean the study was looking for two personality types, and they happened to focus on male vs. female.

the divide could be nurturer vs. provider, which have until the last half century or so been sex roles.

nurturers want security/assurance and stability. a place to get their nurture on. a need to know what they have today is what they're gonna have tomorrow. knowing they have a partner to count on. when the nurturer gets all stressed out their impulse is repaid/shore up the gaps. they need their partner the provider to be as invested in correcting and maintaining.

the provider has an urge to meet expectations. the provider find satisfaction/place by being able to make whatever ends meat. to be the wall of Jericho between his/her family/group and the world. when the provider sees nurturer upset the first reaction is i've failed. i'm inadequate. i'm losing value to my partner. so ya get a defensive/anxious ruffle of feathers.

with heaps of folks being single parents/on their own the roles kinda flip/flex as required. specifically with single mothers. the need to fill both roles, but most important for survival is taking on aspects of the provider role.

i've noticed more than few of the ladies who are saying the study doesn't represent them are also single/divorced Mom types. or were full grown ass folks when they hitched up.

okay.. enough rambling. is kinda/mostly what i have in my brain.
and yeth, there is a massive chance of me being full of poop/crazy/wrong.


eta: my redneck DNA says hunting as a pack/group takes communication. is maybe why ladies are more wordy, guys are more action-y. is not a lack of traits. is a different set of traits.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
maybe it a line drawn down by sex roles/gender roles. i mean the study was looking for two personality types, and they happened to focus on male vs. female.

the divide could be nurturer vs. provider, which have until the last half century or so been sex roles.


nurturers want security/assurance and stability. a place to get their nurture on. a need to know what they have today is what they're gonna have tomorrow. knowing they have a partner to count on. when the nurturer gets all stressed out their impulse is repaid/shore up the gaps. they need their partner the provider to be as invested in correcting and maintaining.

the provider has an urge to meet expectations. the provider find satisfaction/place by being able to make whatever ends meat. to be the wall of Jericho between his/her family/group and the world. when the provider sees nurturer upset the first reaction is i've failed. i'm inadequate. i'm losing value to my partner. so ya get a defensive/anxious ruffle of feathers.

with heaps of folks being single parents/on their own the roles kinda flip/flex as required. specifically with single mothers. the need to fill both roles, but most important for survival is taking on aspects of the provider role.

i've noticed more than few of the ladies who are saying the study doesn't represent them are also single/divorced Mom types. or were full grown ass folks when they hitched up.

okay.. enough rambling. is kinda/mostly what i have in my brain.
and yeth, there is a massive chance of me being full of poop/crazy/wrong.


eta: my redneck DNA says hunting as a pack/group takes communication. is maybe why ladies are more wordy, guys are more action-y. is not a lack of traits. is a different set of traits.

That's what I was trying to say but I said it in about 6 paragraphs instead of something more simple and easy to digest. I lurve ya!
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
yeah, but everyone understands what you meant.
i'm need a rosetta stone for clarity :tongue1:

randomly, i think we was typing replies about the same time.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
yeah, but everyone understands what you meant.
i'm need a rosetta stone for clarity :tongue1:

randomly, i think we was typing replies about the same time.

I didn't see it as random at all. Very serendipitous actually...
 

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
"Men’s relationship satisfaction was related to the ability to read their partners’ positive emotions accurately, whereas women’s relationship satisfaction was related to their partners’ ability to read women’s negative emotions accurately. Women’s ability to read their husbands’ negative emotions was positively linked to both men’s and women’s relationship satisfaction."

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/fam-ofp-cohen.pdf

That is quite a bit different from "seeing one's partner upset" or "making one's partner upset." It states that women's relationship satisfaction was related to her partner's ability to read her negative emotions. If I'm upset about something and my partner doesn't notice it, am I likely to be happy with him? Women's ability with men to read their negative emotions was also positively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

I'd say that's true.
 
Last edited:

D_Dick_S_Lapp

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Posts
934
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
I really doubt if any of these studies will ever get it right completely. There are 6,840,507,003 people on this planet. With 490,000 babies being born every day. (ya know...cause of the sexin)

I think it'd be a better idea to look toward our society for answers about men vs women. A lot of who we are and what we like was or currently is being determined by a set standard. One that gets re-enforced daily. Men are from mars and women are from venus. Men should blah blah while women should blah blah. Sure, things are changing but they haven't fully changed yet.
 

Unnamed

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Posts
434
Media
5
Likes
45
Points
113
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I didn't see it as random at all. Very serendipitous actually...

yeah, but everyone understands what you meant.
i'm need a rosetta stone for clarity :tongue1:

randomly, i think we was typing replies about the same time.

That's what I was trying to say but I said it in about 6 paragraphs instead of something more simple and easy to digest. I lurve ya!

what are you women talking about!!?? all this wordiness.

It states that women's relationship satisfaction was related to her partner's ability to read her negative emotions. If I'm upset about something and my partner doesn't notice it, am I likely to be happy with him? Women's ability with men to read their negative emotions was also positively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

men dont have emotions. what are you crazy?