Men, Women, Emotion and the 80/20 Rule

[stands2p]

One of my big issues with feminism is the idea that there are no fundamental differences between men and women beyond plumbing.  I think one of the fundamental differences between men and women is in their different needs for emotional support and the role of feelings in making decisions.

Within an existing relationship, when women expect husbands and boyfriends to take on the role of girlfriend and confidante or demands that a man "share" or "vent" there is conflict. 
When a man expects a woman to "cowboy up" and do what needs to be done or is too emotionally guarded about his own feelings, there is conflict.
When women or men try to convince themselves that they are acting from reason when they are actually seized by emotion, there is conflict.

When relationships are in trouble, many people try counseling.  As a man,  I think of a counselor as someone who is emotionally detached from my situation who can give me impartial advice.  I think some women see a counselor as someone who will become emotionally invested in her situation and tell her she is a good person and help her feel better about her situation rather than advising her on how to improve the situation.

Men, especially younger men who are caught in the C.S. system, need good advice on how to avoid being destroyed by a system that is biased against them.  Young men who haven't been caught by the system need to be aware of the dangers of the system and how they can avoid being trapped in it.   The few counseling services that are currently available to men are not geared towards men's needs and may do more harm than good.

The kinds of people who are drawn to counseling work tend to be people who want to listen to people emote and help them work through their feelings.  This is an important part of helping someone but I think there is a 80/20 rule that is opposite for men and women.  Women want and need to spend 80% of the counseling time talking about how they feel about the situation and 20% of the time talking about how to fix it.  Men want to spend minimal time talking about how they feel and more time looking for solutions. 

On those rare occasions where social services will provide counseling to a man, the counselor is probably going to be a woman and she is probably going to expect to spend most of the session talking about feelings.  Some men will take an invitation to emote at face value and begin talking about their feelings of anger and betrayal and frustration. The counselor will become frightened and refer the fellow to anger management classes.  Some men will get the message from all the talk about feelings that he has no options and should just accept the situation as it is. 

What would be more helpful to a man in conflict with the C.S. system would be to talk with someone, preferably a man, who can tell him that his feelings are understandable but also tell him about the range of constructive options available.

[stands2p]

There is an excellent example over on CNN right now.  A woman was rushing to the hospital because she heard her father was having a heart attack.  She was pulled over for speeding as she entered the hospital complex and the deputy took no interest in her story, assuming she was lying.  The woman drove off from the traffic stop, apparently not realizing that this is roughly equivalent in a law enforcement officer's mind to pulling a gun.  The deputy went into combat mode and arrested her with plenty of manhandling.

She assumed that her intense emotion would allow her to transcend all laws and limits.  A moment's thought would have told her that the fastest path to her father's bedside was "yes officer, of course officer, I'm sorry officer, thank you officer."  Or better yet, finding a friend to drive her to the hospital.

The deputy will get little criticism from me because some of my best friends are cops or ex-cops and they can't let their guard down in situations like that.  But, as is consistent with my 80/20 hypothesis, the deputy was operating from emotions of fear and anger when he was convinced he was operating from procedure.  In the calm and safe atmosphere of the incident review board, he will probably be severely reprimanded.

This same woman could easily have run over a child on her way to the hospital.  A more "sensitive" officer could easily have been murdered by a drug runner with a sob story and a concealed weapon.  The world is seeing one perspective of this event because it appeals to emotion.

[MacKenzie]

If this police officer had his dashboard camera and audio recorder ready, he has evidence in his favor concerning her irrational behavior.

[stands2p]

most of the video clip on cnn.com is from the dashcam.

[JackBauersPowerHour]

Here's my view on it.

Women know alot more intuitively than they let on sometimes.

A woman usually knows when you are interested in her. Conversely a woman generally knows when another woman is encroaching on her man or plans to very soon. They also know how far they can push a man given the circumstances.

I have rarely heard of an unmarried couple getting couples counseling. Why? The man can just leave with no penalty in most cases if he's not married to the woman (assuming shes not a single mother and he hasn't turned this situation into a common law marriage by default) The woman has no incentive to push the situation to a head where counseling is even an "option" because she has no yet secured a marriage yet.

The only reason I'd ever go to marriage counseling is if I was crazy enough to get married, knew I needed to divorce and needed a stalling tactic with my wife to prepare for my divorce. I'd play the perfect husband for a year, lay the groundwork and strike first with a divorce. If I had  to get to counseling, I'd assume my marriage was over, I mean if you can't communicate or get along without a third party involved, what is really the point? I'm a big fan of the idea that a good relationship shouldn't have to be "hard work" I mean you should work hard to maintain a good life and a good career and to have options, but I don't think having a mate where you struggle constantly to get along should be so difficult.

My system works pretty good for me. Women realize I have some businesses, have a little money, they want that. I tell them I'm not interested in marriage and kids. They assume privately they can change me on that front. They assume I don't realize that they plan to change me. They screw my brains out for a few years trying to change me. I still say I'm not interested in marriage and kids. They don't push too hard in the first year because they don't want to scare me or my wallet away. Then after about a year (which is about the best part of any relationship anyway) I go ahead and break up with them.

I personally feel relationships only have a shelf life of about 1-5 years. After that, I think relationships tend to die out. I think the best sex you'll get is the first 3-4 months. I think the best parts of a relationship are the first year. So I've decided to stay at that level. And it works out ok for me, I realize as long asI have money and my health, there's a endless supply of women who will think they can change me and will give me relatively bullshit free sex and companionship for a year.

Some people aren't meant to stay together. Some people aren't meant to even be together. But people don't want to face that truth. I think counseling is a plan to lose 99 percent of the time.

JBPH

[stands2p]

I think counseling is a plan to lose 99 percent of the time.

JBPH

Agreed,  counseling as it is practiced, is all about giving women what they want, meeting their emotional expectations.

Unfortunately, those demands are being translated into "rights" by the courts.

[Mr. X]

There is an excellent example over on CNN right now.  A woman was rushing to the hospital because she heard her father was having a heart attack.  She was pulled over for speeding as she entered the hospital complex and the deputy took no interest in her story, assuming she was lying.  The woman drove off from the traffic stop, apparently not realizing that this is roughly equivalent in a law enforcement officer's mind to pulling a gun.  The deputy went into combat mode and arrested her with plenty of manhandling.

She assumed that her intense emotion would allow her to transcend all laws and limits.  A moment's thought would have told her that the fastest path to her father's bedside was "yes officer, of course officer, I'm sorry officer, thank you officer."  Or better yet, finding a friend to drive her to the hospital.

The deputy will get little criticism from me because some of my best friends are cops or ex-cops and they can't let their guard down in situations like that.  But, as is consistent with my 80/20 hypothesis, the deputy was operating from emotions of fear and anger when he was convinced he was operating from procedure.  In the calm and safe atmosphere of the incident review board, he will probably be severely reprimanded.

This same woman could easily have run over a child on her way to the hospital.  A more "sensitive" officer could easily have been murdered by a drug runner with a sob story and a concealed weapon.  The world is seeing one perspective of this event because it appeals to emotion.

I've heard people defend the woman saying the cop already had her license plate number and could have just wrote her a ticket. My feeling is if it were me running from a cop I'd get my ass beat and no one would care. This obviously woman emotional priviledge at work. Yes, she could have been lying and she could have ahd a trunk full of coke. Or maybe she was stealing medical supplies from the hospital.

The cop treated her as an equal. If a man split, he'd be dog meat. BTW I serioulsy doubt a female cop would have let her off the hook and no female cop would listen to some guy's sob story.

This is the same as assuming white people never lie and arresting the black guy.

[MacKenzie]

Can I see a show of hands on how many of use believe that much of this 80 % chit-chat is encouraged as a source of guarranteed income for the therapists?

[stands2p]

I have been digging for statistics of female officers being killed, having weapons or vehicles stolen or otherwise being "compromised" in the line of duty.  I think there is some data showing a higher rate for female LEO's.  I have great respect for LE, male or female but I think there are legitimate concerns about the way women approach dangerous situations.

Some female officers try to over compensate for their perceived tendency to allow emotions into situations.  They can be more of a bully than some male officers.  The problem is that they try to use the same tactics male officers do.  A 225 lb male officer asking you if you've been to jail before will cause most suspects to settle down and listen up.  The same question from a 130 lb officer, delivered in a female voice will have the same suspect thinking he had better knock her down, take her weapon and drive off in her car.

Male or female, a more "sensitive" officer might have said something like "ma'am, I can see you are upset and worried but you have to drive safely.  I will walk you in to see your father and confirm your story but I will have to have your car towed and write you a ticket."

If this had happened, we wouldn't be seeing the story of course.  

But officers can't get involved to that extent in every person's life.  They have to stay in control of situations and follow procedure.

[stands2p]

Can I see a show of hands on how many of use believe that much of this 80 % chit-chat is encouraged as a source of guarranteed income for the therapists?

Catering to women is as old as the hills.  The dangerous thing is that a person's feelings are beginning to have a standing in the court system.  A judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman because some woman he never met FELT that he was harrassing her via subtle messages during his television show.  There was obviously no evidence, the order was granted based on her feelings.

[JackBauersPowerHour]

I am not so sure counseling is always naturally biased towards the woman.

Here's the problem I have with it -

If they fix you (assuming they can...) then they stop getting paid.

This is why I intuitively know prenuptial agreements are almost always worthless. Would a lawyer draft a legal document that would prevent him from making himself more money later?

There is no incentive to "fix anything" in the counseling business. I hear alot about "making progress", but I rarely hear about a counselor who fixes you up then kicks you out.

The very nature of the business means it is more profitable to not help you even if they could. So I believe they just can't really help you period. In my mind, counseling becomes worthless. The framework of counseling is et up so they probably don't want to help you deep down, not to the point where you'd leave and go be happy, so counseling becomes worthless there too.

I don't think counseling attacks men because it's a systematic agenda to destroy men. I just think it stretches out the program the longest for the most profit.

"Ok Sally, you are a fucking raging bitch. You don't work and you nag Bob all the time. Cook him a steak once in a while and give him a blowjob once in a while and be thankful he provided you with a safe home and roses on Valentines Day"

Sally shuts up. Bob is ok with that because Bob just wants to get fed, get laid and have as little bullshit as possible to get those things.

"Ok Bob, you have some serious intimacy issues, we need to work on that, but you don't like to talk, so let's hear what Sally has to say"

Sally won't shut up. Bob won't talk much because guys don't talk much, Sally gets to keep talking and the counselor gets to keep billing.

Counselors side with women because most women can't shut the fuck up. Counselors don't side with men because men are staring at the clock and want to see results for their dollar.

This is just about money. Just like divorce. If you have a dirt poor man and rich woman together, I assure you, the rich woman is going to get hosed. It just happens so rarely that no one notices it because most rich women won't marry a dirt poor man. But some women, a rare few, get hosed just as badly as men in divorces. The system's greed knows no gender, it only hammers men so often because men tend to be the ones with most money in most divorces.

JBPH

[stands2p]

JBPH

Counselors side with women because most women can't shut the fuck up. Counselors don't side with men because men are staring at the clock and want to see results for their dollar.

Dead on.

A smart guy will never have need of emotional counseling.  The CS rolls tell me not every guy has been successful in this.  Some guys are sitting there, watching that clock, listening to Sally prattle on and wondering if the divorce might be the better deal after all.

If there is any saving grace, it is that some women will want to impress their counselor/therapist with their progress.  Some women tend to compete with each other to see who is the most skilled in matters of emotion.  If they come in week after week with more tales of woe, they are afraid their shrink will think they are emotionally incompetent.  If you ever are dragged into the dreaded marriage counselor's office , the light at the end of the tunnel comes when "Sally" begins to open each session with an example of how things are getting better.

As JBPH says, counseling can be a way to improve your position regarding potential divorce.  It helps to know what to expect.

[bachelor tom]

"They assume privately they can change me.... They assume I don't realize that they plan to change me."

If therapists could solve this problem I'd be thrilled - the fantasy of improving or saving your man (however hopeless) seems to be almost genetically programmed

[The Biscuit Queen]

The best therapist I had let me complain, talk, or vent for 5 minutes. That was it. Then it was on to work. I spent 3 months with him, and that was all I needed to start getting on track. I had spent 18 months with the last psycotherapist who really did very little for me but listen to me talk. The one I saw for 3 months gave me a whole box of tools and taught me to cope by myself.

[dr e]

A good therapist builds their practice by helping people solve the problems that brought them in.  Those folks go back out into the community and tell others about this person who helped them and did a good job.  More come in for help and more leave to tell others.  Seeing people for long periods is a thing of the past.  Insurance companies won't allow it.  No one stays in business by keeping people too long.  Businesses are built by success and the word of success spreads like wildfire breeding more success.