Entry 8: Men-versus-Women Theories

Dr. Deng commented on my so-called "theory" that agreement is a positive phenomenon, but it doesn't imply that disagreement is a negative phenomenon. I added that under certain circumstances, agreement can be a bad thing and disagreement can be a good thing. Dr. Deng claimed that this is a great observation on my part, and I was extremely honoured to hear it. I like to make theories because honestly, everyone has their own theories. Either, they just choose not to voice them, or they simply want to be politically correct and tell themselves not to be judgemental. Here's my statement: People are actually naturally biased; it's just a question of how biased they are on certain things.


This seminar, I'd say, is the most entertaining I've ever had throughout my NUS life because we deal with the perpetual research on the differences in communication between males and females. Everyone deep inside knows that men and women talk differently (Admit it, people. We don't always talk on the same wavelength), but how are they different? Many researches have been done to observe and you know, I want to continue making my own "visceral theories" that either support or rebuke any previous researches and findings.


DISCLAIMER: These are just half-assed theories with some truth in them. Like all cultural studies, culture isn't about absolution, it's all about relativity. If you don't believe my theories, take them to real life and test them. In fact, please challenge my theories. And everyone, you don't be so politically correct all the time; otherwise, life is just boring.


Theory #1: Frequency varies between men and women.

The above diagram illustrates how men and women talk between themselves. The upper graph shows how men talk to each other, the lower graph shows how women talk to each other. Men take less frequent turns to talk compared to women within a given time length. Why? We men have a "know-it-all-ism/informative conversation". For example, when Man A and Man B are talking and it's Man A's turn to speak, Man A is likely to speak as much as he knows. The same goes for Man B. We feel good talking when we look back at the conversation and think that we've gained a lot of cerebral insight. When we talk about football, we talk in a cocky tone because we are contributing to each other's brains. The more tangible content we share, the better. That's why in a guy talk, the dude who says the least is seen as the sissy. When lions feast on a carcass, the one who doesn't fight a lot loses out. It's the same for men.


This is also why when men are together, there are moments of "dead air". Those "dead air" moments are necessary and in fact, because we have this, we sometimes think women are talkative. When two men have nothing to say to each other, we just don't say anything. It won't hurt our friendship, anyway. Why do you think we male friends can sit together on the bus and stay quiet for a number of moments? For women, it's different; when they meet, they feel the need to talk because well, they're friends. They think: "How can we NOT talk? We're friends!" Talking is relationship for women, but not for men. At least, most of the time. 


Women on the other hand, talk different. When Woman A and Woman B are talking, they take turns more frequently. For women, it's about "feel-each-other-ism/relational conversation". Unlike men, women talk but it's not all about the content. Rather, it's about everything other than the content. That's why they make a lot of turns talking (i.e. overlapping). That's why we men think they talk A LOT.


This brings to one topic I believe explains differences in communication styles between men and women. Women adopt "relational conversation" because they tend to collaborate and work together, hence opting to overlapping their conversational responses more than the men. The men challenges each other and that's why they don't somewhat help out with each other on the conversational responses.

Theory #2: Men are stupid; women are complicated. Really.

This theory usually applies to cross-gender conversations. We men judge based on what is being said. Explicitly. If something is not said, we judge that nothing has happened. Yes, we are kinda dumb. But the thing is, this is how we think: If you didn't say it, then why should we make assumptions that maybe the other party have hidden agendas? For women, it's the opposite. In many times, especially between couples, it's not about what the women say. What they didn't say is actually MORE important. Women see this as mutual/shared understanding: they don't say everything because the men are supposed to know the things she didn't say.

We men talk explicitly. When we talk, we exchange all information directly. It's like sharing gifts: we don't gift-wrap them, we just hand each other gifts bare. Women talk implicitly. When they talk, they exchange most information directly. In sharing gifts, they gift-wrap their messages to us men. Most of the time, we men may like the thought but the problem remains: sometimes, we men don't see the tied ribbon, or the women tied the ribbon too tightly. 

Theory #3: What people think and what people say are two COMPLETELY different things.

For men, it's a variation of Renee Descartes' adage: "We think, therefore we say." Seriously, if we think about something in a particular way, we say it accordingly. I said that men are dumb, and this is why we are dumb. Comedian Russell Peters thinks so too. More formally, thinking and saying are commonly thought to be one and the same. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Thinking and saying are just COMPLEMENTARY, but they're two completely different things.


Women however, treat the two entities differently. Just because they think something doesn't mean they would say the same thing accordingly. For men, saying IS thinking.  If we don't say, we don't think. Women however, think even when they don't say anything. Just watch Peters' joke here and tell me whether he's telling the truth.


Theory #4: Humans = monkeys, especially on the way men and women talk together.

Charles Darwin said that we humans were monkeys. I'd think that there's some truth in what he said. You see, when monkeys of different genders get together, the male monkeys instinctively try to outdo each other in the presence of the female ones. Truthfully, this isn't restricted to monkeys; it applies to all types of animals. The female monkeys however, stay quieter than the male ones. It's the same for human beings: Researches have shown that men indeed talk more in mixed-sex conversations. Males have inborn instincts to be more dominant than females in any species.


It's the same in classroom settings. In my Japanese classes, the men make more noise than the women. We male students in Japanese classes like to make noise periodically, that's how we make our presence felt. Women don't always see the point in doing this but to us men, making your presence means everything. Are the men doing this basically to impress the women for some reason? Maybe we do.


Theory #5: Men are defensive, women are protective.

defend: denotes warding off actual or threatened attack.

protect: denotes the use of something (as a covering) as a bar to the admission or impact of what may attack or injure.

Taken from Merriam-Webster, this can illustrate how men and women are indeed different in communication styles. What words would you normally associate with "mother"? What about "father"? Mother = protective; Father = defensive. When you think about it, it doesn't feel right to think fathers as protective, and mothers as defensive. Protective doesn't mean defensive, although they are closely intertwined in meaning. Why do you think all military bodies state that their purpose is to "DEFEND the country", not to "PROTECT the country"? Defending actually connotes attacking as well; that's why the US loves to hammer the Middle East and say that they're "defending the country".


Why am I talking about being defensive or protective? This illustrates how I think of former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher is often see as a strong (read: masculine) woman who fixed the UK during tumultuous times. Simply put, people say that she has male qualities. Here's my counter argument: Is she really masculine? Seriously? I don't necessarily think so; in fact, I'd say that she's more feminine than masculine. Women are inherently mothers in their own right, and they are naturally protective. Margaret Thatcher wasn't a masculine woman, she's a protective mother of her country. There's a subtle difference: If women see a strong need to protect something, they would do/say things that people may think as masculine (being firm on something). However, that doesn't mean they're masculine. If men don't fight back in the presence of something adverse, it would be the non-masculine way of doing things (you're not being righteously firm about yourself, which is the un-manly thing to do). Try using my theory for any other "masculine woman" you can think of: are they really masculine, or actually being protective of something that belongs to them?


Think about this: If a couple receives an offensive comment from a stranger about their child, who do you is likely to punch the stranger? Obviously, it's the man. Both the man and woman would naturally feel the need to look after their child's well-being, but their reactions may be different because of their natural instincts. The man would see punching the stranger as "defending his child". The mother would not do the same; she would make sure the child isn't hurt as a form of "protecting the child".


There's a grey area between being defensive and being protective, and this is reflected in how men and women generally talk differently. Men are indeed territorial both in action and words; this is why throughout history, men have waged more wars than women, and women just wouldn't understand why men like to... "fight". Fighting in words or action is a form of defending, not protecting.


Theory #6: Men and women both curse/swear, for different reasons.

Both men and women have their fair share of the use of probably every other expletive not found in the dictionary, and curses are not always used for bad purposes. Theory #6 is closely related to theory #5: women curse to protect; men curse to defend. Men curse each other and continue the cycle because we're challenging and defending our "turfs". For instance, if Man A curses Man B, chances are, Man A is trying to take Man B's territory. It's Man B's duty to defend his turf by exchanging curses too. This is applicable also in casual settings: When my friend curses me light-heartedly, he's poking at my territory. I'll just return the favour by poking his territory as well. This is why we men seem to curse a lot, sometimes to unnecessary extent, for communicative benefits. 


For women, they curse for a slightly different reason. They do so especially when they have something protect, both tangibly and intangibly. They don't curse as much as men do (arguable stance, perhaps) because they're protecting themselves and therefore, they see the need to curse less than the men especially when everything's fine the way it is. This is also why many men think it's undesirably masculine to see women curse when whatever they're protecting are not compromised (i.e. when their cursing are unjustified).


Theory #6: Men are more decisive than women, but not for all the right reasons.


Men are more decisive than women, and our communicative decisions seem brasher because of the fundamental rule: we are just more assertive/aggressive than women. It's being shown since the Stone Age. For instance, in mixed-groups in NUS, we men reach any decision more readily than the women. Why? It's possible related to my theory #3: women would deliberate rather than making any rash decisions. Men like to see things happen faster. That's why some people contend that men do make decisions quicker (and we make terrible decisions out of it too); women would take a step back and think more, thereby reaching to a decision slightly later. In fact, men are indeed stupid sometimes; we wouldn't even admit our terrible decision-making. This article, though somewhat unverified, has some truth in it on a neuro-scientific level too.


Theory #7: Men and women see "problems" differently.


Men and women both don't like problems; they make our lives less sweeter. The universal rule applies: regardless of sex, we talk about problems primarily as a form of venting frustration. It's not a good idea to bottle up your frustrations on problems to yourself; otherwise, you'll implode. Just watch Anger Management, which stars Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. 


The thing is, men see problems as challenges needed to be solved. That's why when men talk about problems between themselves, we are actually trying to look for solutions. That's it. Most of the time. You see, if we talk about problems alone, we feel that it's a big drag. Men who especially talks about problems all the time can be irritating to others; in fact, if men talk too much about their problems, they'll make themselves look very weak and it's a big blow to their manhood (in fact, this is also why in Japanese norm, men aren't supposed to do things to make themselves look weak, such as talking about personal problems for crying). This may apply to women too but it affects men on a greater scale.


For women, problems aren't necessarily meant to be solved. Problems can be seen as the common topic. Do you think that in a couple, when the woman is having a problem, the man should give her the solution or empathise her? If the man does the former, although he may have done a good thing, the woman feels like he doesn't understand her feelings. Women see problems as something that affect their feelings. Men see problems as something that affect their manhood.


So there you have it. These are my visceral theories that you may want to reflect on whenever you have spare time. Bear in mind that there's bound to be exceptions to my theories, but this doesn't completely negate my theories. It's the same if I say that Singaporeans are kiasu. You know that there are exceptions to this, but still you'd agree with this statement.


In the meantime, please make comments and in fact, flame me for my somewhat sexist theories. Speaking of which, sexism was one of the topic discussed in the seminar.