I think I’ve found a reason for why I clash with some types of women online. They may be expecting me to relate or write in a female-typical way, with female-typical values, and they get disappointed or upset when I don't. This may be because, like many gay men, I have some female-typical traits and mannerisms, but I still retain a pretty sex-typical approach to talking and writing.
I had an argument with a male friend once because he asked me to edit something he was writing. He compared having his email account hacked to rape by saying "I felt like I'd been raped." He thought that I objected on emotional grounds. I did, but only in the sense that he was going to make readers (nearly all women and any man who has been raped or helped someone deal with the atermath of rape) completely miss his larger point, which I thought was important, and focus only on the rape metaphor. This inadvertent self-sabotage is quite an easy thing to do when writing for an audience.
So I suppose that I think that it is easy for people who have good reasons to pre-defend to miss it when they're going to do something similar--harm their own ability to communicate. I have done it. I'm not sure if you have or not because I read you charitably, because we're friends. As long as a writer bears in mind this shooting-oneself-in-the-foot possibility, then a "fuck their feelings; I said what I said" approach seems right to me.
I vastly prefer what you'd call male-typical communication. It puts me at ease. "Say what you mean, mean what you say" clarity. Female-typical communication often makes me feel like I'm suffocating. The pussyfooting seems to go hand in hand with passive aggression and other crazymaking forms of indirectness and general chaos. Straightforwardness is a salve, and it doesn't preclude vulnerability, sensitivity, etc.
I agree. Women don't like to be confronted by things that make them, or the others they perceive as needing to be "protected", feel uncomfortable or "attacked". And these days, with words being violence... 🙄I love your blunt, direct approach.
I always preferred working in male dominated work teams - I was in the IT field oh-so-many years ago - because there was no drama with male colleagues. And if they got irritated with your work product, they said their piece and moved on. I much preferred male mentoring to female. Here's what needs to be done; this is how you need to approach it; consider x/y/z; let me know if you need any help.
Is it still that way in the workforce? I've been out of professional business environments since the early nineties, but from what I've read, I would not want to be a male in the workplace today. Talk about a minefield.
Not being a typical/traditional anything, woman included( I got plenty yang in my yin), I am not qualified to speak for “those types” of women, or men, wherever they may be found. I don’t know what “clashing online” looks like either. Flames, trollers? Not sure how that looks happens through a virtual setting without much opportunity for the free exchange of experience between boundaried individuals (grounded, centered, mindful, unique individuals with unique life experiences, that have something of value to exchange.) To me its been more of a place where gratification of instincts through projection and acting out reigns. The same lack of organic boundaries the natural world provides when people encounter each other, make it super easy for avatars/profile names to become “whatever you need them to be”, so you can be “whatever you need to be” (the opposite of whatever you think “they” are), through projection, splitting, and denial. Especially at the expense of genuine relating that actually allows discovery of each other. Its a vanity project on steroids. I only participate on Substack because the maturity level reminds me of the old days, when people were glad to meet new people thru online forums, to expand local horizons. Remember that? See how I’m an explainer. A communicate with, not at, type. Why? I don’t expect anyone to get my meaning unless they know me. And if I share something, better believe it matters to me. So I try to do it right. Otherwise, I’d rather go hiking with my dog. But at the end of the day, I am only responsible for my part. If who I communicate with isn’t interested in my perspective that’s not my problem. I offer the invite only.
Re the gay variable, I did have an experience with a rather large group of gay guys. We all belonged to an even larger group. A good percentage of the gays were what I called “bitches”. Meaning they acted like female bitches we all know: the catty, jealous, competitive ones that hate women. They surround themselves with the weak, follower, butt kiss types. Bitches who instantly regard strong women, with obvious assets, like smarts, beauty, confidence, etc, like rivals. So I don’t see it as a gay thing but as an insecure thing. Insecure people can’t appreciate others strengths because, in part, they haven’t accepted their own weaknesses. Weaknesses and strengths are 2 sides of the same coin. Can’t have one without the other. But instead of appreciating others strengths, and being curious, they get threatened by their own sense of inadequacy that gets triggered, so they get “bitchy” to try and drive out the threats and maintain the grip on their sycophants. That’s been my experience anyway and the only way I know to relate to the question.
I do want to say your August 5th “Mind Matters” interview was fascinating. Listening to it for the second time right now.
I had an argument with a male friend once because he asked me to edit something he was writing. He compared having his email account hacked to rape by saying "I felt like I'd been raped." He thought that I objected on emotional grounds. I did, but only in the sense that he was going to make readers (nearly all women and any man who has been raped or helped someone deal with the atermath of rape) completely miss his larger point, which I thought was important, and focus only on the rape metaphor. This inadvertent self-sabotage is quite an easy thing to do when writing for an audience.
So I suppose that I think that it is easy for people who have good reasons to pre-defend to miss it when they're going to do something similar--harm their own ability to communicate. I have done it. I'm not sure if you have or not because I read you charitably, because we're friends. As long as a writer bears in mind this shooting-oneself-in-the-foot possibility, then a "fuck their feelings; I said what I said" approach seems right to me.
I vastly prefer what you'd call male-typical communication. It puts me at ease. "Say what you mean, mean what you say" clarity. Female-typical communication often makes me feel like I'm suffocating. The pussyfooting seems to go hand in hand with passive aggression and other crazymaking forms of indirectness and general chaos. Straightforwardness is a salve, and it doesn't preclude vulnerability, sensitivity, etc.
One of the reasons I enjoy your media content is you come across as completely honest and self-aware, never pandering or insincere.
I agree. Women don't like to be confronted by things that make them, or the others they perceive as needing to be "protected", feel uncomfortable or "attacked". And these days, with words being violence... 🙄I love your blunt, direct approach.
I always preferred working in male dominated work teams - I was in the IT field oh-so-many years ago - because there was no drama with male colleagues. And if they got irritated with your work product, they said their piece and moved on. I much preferred male mentoring to female. Here's what needs to be done; this is how you need to approach it; consider x/y/z; let me know if you need any help.
Is it still that way in the workforce? I've been out of professional business environments since the early nineties, but from what I've read, I would not want to be a male in the workplace today. Talk about a minefield.
Not being a typical/traditional anything, woman included( I got plenty yang in my yin), I am not qualified to speak for “those types” of women, or men, wherever they may be found. I don’t know what “clashing online” looks like either. Flames, trollers? Not sure how that looks happens through a virtual setting without much opportunity for the free exchange of experience between boundaried individuals (grounded, centered, mindful, unique individuals with unique life experiences, that have something of value to exchange.) To me its been more of a place where gratification of instincts through projection and acting out reigns. The same lack of organic boundaries the natural world provides when people encounter each other, make it super easy for avatars/profile names to become “whatever you need them to be”, so you can be “whatever you need to be” (the opposite of whatever you think “they” are), through projection, splitting, and denial. Especially at the expense of genuine relating that actually allows discovery of each other. Its a vanity project on steroids. I only participate on Substack because the maturity level reminds me of the old days, when people were glad to meet new people thru online forums, to expand local horizons. Remember that? See how I’m an explainer. A communicate with, not at, type. Why? I don’t expect anyone to get my meaning unless they know me. And if I share something, better believe it matters to me. So I try to do it right. Otherwise, I’d rather go hiking with my dog. But at the end of the day, I am only responsible for my part. If who I communicate with isn’t interested in my perspective that’s not my problem. I offer the invite only.
Re the gay variable, I did have an experience with a rather large group of gay guys. We all belonged to an even larger group. A good percentage of the gays were what I called “bitches”. Meaning they acted like female bitches we all know: the catty, jealous, competitive ones that hate women. They surround themselves with the weak, follower, butt kiss types. Bitches who instantly regard strong women, with obvious assets, like smarts, beauty, confidence, etc, like rivals. So I don’t see it as a gay thing but as an insecure thing. Insecure people can’t appreciate others strengths because, in part, they haven’t accepted their own weaknesses. Weaknesses and strengths are 2 sides of the same coin. Can’t have one without the other. But instead of appreciating others strengths, and being curious, they get threatened by their own sense of inadequacy that gets triggered, so they get “bitchy” to try and drive out the threats and maintain the grip on their sycophants. That’s been my experience anyway and the only way I know to relate to the question.
What Dorothy Unleashed so eloquently said...