Emotional strongarm tactics used by women

Remove all ads!

Ditto. And to be honest, I would usually share some degree of culpabilty in the reason for it. Whoever said "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" was stupid. They can. If my wife does something I percieve as wrong and, in my anger, I rub her nose in it I am as much at fault for making her cry as she is. If I stay angry, that just makes me insensitive. If you love her you are usually not really trying to hurt her.....or, at least, you shouldn't be. Comforting my wife because my anger brought her to tears doesn't make me wrong about whatever we talk about. In the end, it earns me brownie points.......so that I'm not only more likely to win the argument, but also more likely to be, uh, rewarded later for my sensitivity.

 

Drew has delicious and well-crafted responses here. Huzzah, good sir!
In any case, I think that some folks are looking at the whole crying thing as a tactic...a mistake, in my opinion.
Crying is just a reaction to stress, like any other emotion. To think that someone is doing that as a manipulation tactic is very sad.
The aforementioned thought is either a sign of paranoia or a distrustful relationship. In either case, it's a bad sign that should be discussed between the couple to figure it out.
Although my relationships never get bad enough that people start crying, so I can stick my snobby nose in the air and laugh at y'all.

 

Okay, most of the time, crying is just that. But some women are manipulative to the extreme and can turn it on like a faucet to try to get whatever they want. I have encountered that kind of woman only twice. One was my ex-stepmother, and another was a girl my age. Being rather empathetic, I was always confounded by this girl crying (when it was clear to me that she wasn't upset), until I figured out what she was doing. The practice is reprehensible, and if I genuinely thought a woman was trying to do this, I would drop her so fast she'd hit the ground last week. Fortunately, most women aren't like that.

The other side of this is also understandable. It's rather frustrating as a man to have such a vulnerability to a crying woman. I think it is this frustration that the men here are expressing. Seeing her feel bad makes you feel bad, even if it was entirely her fault in the first place. On the other hand, this can serve a purpose. The crying can disarm an angry man, bringing him to a more accessible place, where the discussion can then continue from. I disagree that emotional solutions are no good. So long as the emotion is of love or compromise or another beneficial emotion, it can be a good thing.

 

Yes. Every now and then, I need to spend some healthy and regenerative time alone, and if I don't get it, my "social batteries" will eventually die down, and I become distant and aloof, and many a woman has mistook that for disinterest or reject, which is not the case. I make it a point to clearly state that perticular need I have, but not every woman seems to understand it when it DOES happen.

So now you know.

 

...Lucky me...

 

Well, you DID asked.

 

Fel I think you've helped me discover what I am. I don't like having my buttons pushed even if it's unintentional. If the girl cries I 'want' to comfort her but then I think a selfish thought "Wait a second, why am I apologising?" then it becomes an internal battle and anger is the result.

Angry at myself for being indecisive and annoyed at my girlfriend for placing me in this situation by crying.

On the more personal note my girlfriend and I cleared this stuff up rather quickly, in fact it was about 5 minutes after I made the origional post yet I still felt it was worth discussing. She wasn't trying to manipulate me, she was genually sorry about what she did and was upset that I was disappointed in her. All water under the bridge now and we're closer for it, actually.

 

Glad I could help.

Good news.

EDIT: @lizardpudding:
Indeed. And I despise those womanizing bastards even more than the manipulative women. (Anybody got a dagger? )

[ May 15, 2006, 08:44: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Felinoid, remember that men are just as manipulative as women...maybe more.

 

Yeah. And there's the other side of this: imagine their frustration when they see their actions bring you to anger. Then they are inclined to cry as much as you are to shout. Sometimes she may be inclined to shout and/or you to cry or at least do some male equivalent of crying... don't know, some melancholic menial activity with lots of repetitions.

From one of my exams: "The biggest problem with communication is the assumption of it." Women twist things a lot from our point of view, but they also seem to accuse us of twisting things quite a lot, as well. It's just differing perspectives. Guys often trust their logic and dismiss women's emotions and feelings. Women in turn sometimes even fear logic and reason as something male and unholy and trust their feelings instead, no matter what the facts are. Thing is, as "hearts" are fallible, brains also are, so we can get our facts and conclusions wrong as much as they can "misfeel" something.

Some men also read into stuff a lot. For example, I do, which is because I don't believe in small isolated things for the sake of it. I think it's silly to cripple your perception just to be a nice guy, so I tend to think for a moment rather than taking singular things singularly, so to say. I always want a bigger picture and rarely believe there's none.

No matter how good you are in fact, some people will always call you bad. It takes a community of good people to consider a good guy good unanimously. Or at least a good guy who manages not to be a thorn in anyone bad's eye. Who cares about labels people throw? Do what you will and your reputation will overcome those silly labels. Above all, don't be pushed into doing things or prevent from doing them for fear of labels. In this case, don't give in to the woman whenever she starts crying just because you don't want to feel like a bad guy and don't close yourself to her tears just so you don't appear a softy. The real douchebag is one who fears to be called one.

@Lizarpudding:

Some men, some women, wouldn't really frame a principle out of that. But yeah, men can be as manipulative and sometimes more. Guys seem oblivious to the fact that just as women's emotional tricks don't seem manipulative to them, so our own don't seem manipulative to us (expressions of anger and disappointment for one).

Myself, I think I could outmanipulate any woman. But what for? If you find out she's consciously manipulating you, dump her. If she subconsciously keeps playing that game without realising much, confront her and make her seek therapy and dump her if it doesn't work. You don't owe anyone submission to his manipulation.

 

Whoa boy, chev. I sure hope you brought your flame suit. There are many women on this board that will really take exception to that comment. If I had to place odds, I'd say Rally would probably be the most likely to bust out the whuppin' stick for this one.

In general, I'd have to agree with most of what Fel stated. I also agree that for 99% of all women, they don't cry in an effort to manipulate men, although often times men do soften up when they cry. I think it's more of an issue that the effect is not the same as the intent.

In the three years I've been married, I've only brought my wife to tears once, and technically that was before we even got married. I find that now that I'm married I'm much less likely to get pissed off over things. It's just not worth it to start an arguement over. I'll let her know how I feel, but I won't get angry about it any more. As HB rightly points out, you've got to pick your battles, and most of them aren't worth fighting.

 

Thanks for the credit, AFI, but I'm gonna pass. If there's one thing that I've learned as a parent, it's that some battles aren't worth the energy of fighting. Chev is one of those battles.

/me holds out the whuppin' stick, "Next?"

 

No, she wouldn't. And, well, didn't. I must say, however, I expected a different reaction from calling me unworthy of a waste of energy. I was merely pointing out what I've seen first-hand and if refusing to pretend I don't see it makes me look bad, then I don't care. I won't lie to myself just to look good. But mind you I also said that men would often claim a monopoly on logic but screw it badly, at the same time. So if I'm going to be flamed, I'll be flamed by both women and men, I guess. And I have to reiterate: men are more likely to trust logic than women are per average, while also less "in tune with their emotions". The good side is that we can be no-nonsense and calm normally and control our emotions, but when we do screw up, we screw up badly. With women, the good side is that they don't normally consider themselves geniuses of reason and best thinkers ever, but there is the bad side that sometimes they won't listen to a logical argument. It's not like guys always will. However, with women, the heart prevails over the mind more often than with men. The most extreme example is refusing to listen to anything more complex than a factual observation (e.g. to an inference with conclusion reached after more than one or two stages, or the more subtle preclusions, dichotomies etc) on the grounds that it's manipulation. I'll grant that it's rare and that guys aren't totally free of it, but it strikes me as a female thing from my experience. Women also tend to be more empathic, sympathetic, emotional or whatever you call it with their opinions, meaning it's harder to convince them with logic alone, such as arguments, facts, examples, because they need some emotional stimulus to go with it. That attitude is actually not as unreasonable as it appears at first glance. This is because emotions have much to do with intuition and intuition is often quite proper inference from premises eluding your conscious perception or using methods which aren't perfectly clear but still yield good results... and brains are fallible -- if we had such loads of untapped power to handle logic and reason, we wouldn't need calculators for academic maths, whereas nowadays half the kids in primary school already use them. However, it can be huuuugely annoying at times.

Of course, I'm aware of exceptions, but let's not make rules of them. And especially not against our experiences for the sake of political correctness. It stays a fact that emotions are more of a female thing than a male one, while rationality is more of a male one than female. Except when it comes to controlling agression or our egos. That's when they stay painfully rational while we're being emo.

But of course, I agree, maybe just making it less than 99%, but I won't say that men don't do that stuff, either. But I've already said this a couple of times in this thread. Besides, there are many more effective methods of emotional blackmail than just crying. The really manipulative types will go to words and make sure you get the right impression and all.

So, yeah, 99% women don't consciously manipulate the man with emotions 99% of the time. But most have done it more than just once (not like men haven't) and subconscious manipulation isn't unheard of, either. Some apparent strongarm emotional tactics are merely obsessive desires or fears, often justified. It's just the type of reaction men don't understand -- but one they also resort to, in their own, different ways.

Mind also that men are physically stronger, bigger, more in the fighter direction. Thefore, combat is their field and physical confrontation in open field without situational factors tends to be their forte (think about all the many bullies expecting you to fight fair even though they attack you out of malice, being twice bigger or stronger than you are ). Women in turn, are more of the caretaker type, economical household managers, diplomats and mediators between men. Also, less strong and less suited for physical combat. As such, they can't really confront a man openly and be aggressive about it, but rather they have more subtle ways, which aren't twisted, evil or dishonourable.

In D&D categories, knights will call barbarians dishonourable cheating scum for hit and run tactics and surprising raids, and disrespect rogues for their sneak attacks, remaining completely ignorant of the advantage their steel, training and strong frames give them, while barbarians will disdain knights for metal armour and despise rogues for their sneaky ways, thinking their humongous muscles and unhuman strength are no unfair advantage at all. Rogues in turn will laugh at brutish barbarians and roll eyes at knights who are only good in metal armour and with a big sword they've been trained in using since their privileged birth, and will lean towards believing any method is good because their strength is in being resourceful. So, in conclusion, everyone wants to fight on his own ground and terms. And everyone is free to flame me for that.

 

Women aren't illogical as a rule, Chev. For some stupid reason, men view women as more emotional and less logical when it isn't even remotely true. When we get emotional, society has conditioned us to respond with anger in an effort to cover it up. Women, on the other hand, have been conditioned by society to react honestly. Why is it "less emotional" to seeth, yell, break things, or walk out of the room in disgust than it is to cry? It isn't. The only difference from where I'm sitting is that men aren't honest with themselves and others about their feelings. Women are. It doesn't make them illogical or more emotional.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing men continue to repeat baseless, stupid 1950's stereotypes about women. It's time to let them go, guys.

 

I'm going to go with Chev here and agree with him. Although yes there are exceptions to the rule like pretty much every statement someone makes about a demographic of people there are certain trends and genralisations that do hold credit. Women are more emotional than men on average. If you've ever had an argument with a woman (not on SP) you'll see this plain as day. Women can get into a state that facts and figures do not affect them in any way when a man's emotions can be controlled by facts and figures.

I'm just speaking from personal experience as well. This is how I've seen things and as chev said I won't let the sake of being politically correct change my views on the matter.

 

In my experience, men's "facts" and "logic" often aren't. Resorting to stereotypes like "women are emotional and afraid of logic with no research to back it up" hardly strikes me as a sterling example logical behaviour stemming from real facts.

In my experience both men and women are equally irrational. Resorting to stereotyping, like many of you men are doing in this thread, is a prime example of men being illogical and irrational. The ladies, to their credit, seem to be staying out of this one......since arguing with someone who is ignoring factual data and relying on falacious logic to make sweeping generalisations is generally not only pointless, but stupid.

 

So personal experience isn't factual data? I can't possibly date/meet every girl on the earth so there are bound to be exceptions to what I assume but as far as I know women in general are more emotional than men.

Not trying to take a personal stab here Drew but you're basing your evidence mostly on your wife, one woman, yet I'm basing mine on the, well, many girlfriends and friends that are female - including family members - that I have encountered. Surprisingly all are far more emotional than all my male friends.

Obviously we're at odds here on the matter Drew but I'll never consider my opinion to be based on emotions when I'm simply speaking from experience.

 

Firstly, that's not what I said. I said women were less logical than men per average. This doesn't become "all women are illogical" when you are quoting me. Secondly, if you really had read what I had said, you would remember I said anger was as emotional a reaction as crying. And please don't pretend that only men yell, break things or walk out of the room. The women I've known have resorted to shouting or ignoring more often than the men I have known and I believe I'm not alone on this one. While I'm not saying men don't have quirks to offset that one (reacting with aggression much more often, for one), I refuse to play your game and deny experience of my own and other people's for the sake of avoiding your intimidating accusations of following some ancient unjust stereotypes. Also, your view on honesty is quite peculiar. Women have traditionally been allowed more leeway in showing emotion (though not all emotions, not always, not all women), but men have traditionally been given more training and emphasis on being verbally honest, saying things as they see them and calling them by names. You can call it lack of diplomacy, but there is some truth in it. Besides, hiding things may be dishonest, but talking about things while emotions are being controlled and not shown is not dishonest.

Yeah, it's time to let go of the old and embrace the new fashionable stereotype that we're basically the same, we just have different chests. Right? Wrong. The advantage of women in situations involving emotions, feelings, taking care, managing property; as well as men in combat-like situations, ones involving terrain assessment, strategy or risk-taking, has been proven by scientists, as if it weren't evident to anyone without a set of politically correct prejudices. Men and women have to be different in mind if only for the fact that female brains are smaller, while women aren't any bit less intelligent than men are -- it leads an obvious conclusion that something works in a different way. And yeah, they have better connections between what they have, giving them a nice offset in general and an advantage in many sitautions involving multitasking. There's not point bickering about who's better and who's worse, but denying differences and claiming we only differ in reproductive roles is equally stupid.

Firstly, in that part, I was talking about an extreme situation. You're talking about men yelling and breaking or throwing stuff, I'm talking about women turning impervious to facts and figures. As I'm not trying to make it sound like you're saying all men always break stuff, do me a favour and give up already on generalising what I said into what I didn't say. You don't like generalisations, do you? I also keep saying that men are more inclined to rely on the mind, while women on the heart, without really saying that women can't get their logic right. For one, men aren't more intelligent than women, which means they can't get their logic better by a surprisingly high difference. So yes, this means that men sometimes cling to what they see as logical while it isn't. As much as women will sometimes get a bit lost in their emotions and contradict them as much as men do logic. And no, this doesn't mean a woman can't develop an orderly logical pattern of thinking or a man a way of keeping in touch with his and other people's feelings. It's just that we normally have different priorities, which will sometimes lead to men dismissing feelings of their own or other people's, while women will sometimes ignore facts or figures because of clinging to a feeling, even if men and women wouldn't probably differ oh so much in their results in an academic course in logic or psychology -- real life is a bit different. If you want to keep sticking to your preconceived view and ignore this, feel free to, but it doesn't really make you look like the voice of reason.

Fearing generalisations and being obsessively afraid of stereotyping is not a sign of being very logical or rational, either. Personal experience, from dealing with common folks to reading scientific books, is perfectly valid data and the conclusion that if something repeats in the samples of a spieces you have, then it will likely repeat in other samples of the same species, or it hints towards a general quality of the species, is perfectly valid induction, giving results in the form of reliable probability, if not totally concrete facts, as some people will never believe in a generally quality of a species until they have surveyed all and they will stick to their idea that a rule with exceptions is not a rule.

How generous. Arguing with someone who sticks to a set of politically correct preconceived ideas denying what's obvious and a matter of common sense feels equally pointless at times but it isn't really, so here I am replying.

@Abomination:

Indeed. Inferring from one sample about the whole species is far more illogical than projecting a sample group on the whole species. I side with Abomination here.

Indeed. In fact, those preconceived wishful-thinking-based ideas that we're all the same are far more emotional than giving more credit than due to one's own experience.

 

Yep. Just like men, on average, are better than women at math. But before someone goes twisting that, let me remind you that the overlap looks something like this:

Code:

------------
   ------------

Now you can see that the women who are the best at math are way beyond the worst men, but the average is still firmly with the males. I believe the same goes for pretty much everything else involving the two sexes. There is no place where one gender will always out-perform another gender (except when it comes to biological functions that only one has, like childbirth), but on average, one may be better than the other.

 

Yeah, exactly, that's pretty much what I've been saying. It's not like some women aren't better than some or most men at logical, rational things, while some men in the emotional things, people smarts etc -- but this fact doesn't invalidate the average that one sex is better here and the other there.