He says / she says

Christy Manure · 08-10-2008 12:14pm

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

This is one of those threads that makes moderators weep.

Here it goes:

The OP is clearly a trolling muppet - one of those bored blokes who wanders into TLL every so often and makes sweeping statements about the entire female race in the hope of generating the sort of reaction you get if you let a fox into the henhouse. HOWEVER, he has initiated what is quite an interesting discussion on TV time and interruptability within a relationship, so I'm leaving this thread open.

What I would appreciate is if people don't continue to feed the troll. Please, by all means, continue your discussion about conversation etiquette in relationships, but don't bother taking offence at the OP's theories on women thriving on control and fantasy.

So let me get this straight. I bring up a topic and ask people to comment. I see the topic of as a symptom of a wider issue, and hope that the discussion of this one symptom might lead to the identification of other symptoms and then possibly a diagnosis of the underlying malaise.

Plenty of people comment and give their views, and I attempt to draw conculsions from their input with a view to approaching a diagnosis. While not yet at the point of being able to definitively identify the issue, it is clearly something to do with women having unrealistic expectations - of the men in their lives and, maybe, of life in general. The cause of these unrealistic expectations might then be identified - and addressed - if a free and open discussion is allowed to take place.

But it is not.

Because you step in, and decide that the discussion is to be limited to the one original symptom only. Because you are the only person who knows what is 'interesting' and what is not. TV time is an 'interesting' subject worth discussing. Women's expectations, and the question of how these are created and sustained, is not.

And then you say to disregard my theories on women thriving on control....

Why do you not trust your fellow posters/women to refute any theories they believe to be incorrect by themselves? Why do you believe they are unable to do so without your guidance? Unless this is actually a forum for preschool children, you appear to be thriving on control yourself.

P.S. There is no such race as the female race. You must have mixed up your cliches with your platitudes and your banalities.

CatLady1 · 08-10-2008 12:50pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

So let me get this straight. I bring up a topic and ask people to comment. I see the topic of as a symptom of a wider issue, and hope that the discussion of this one symptom might lead to the identification of other symptoms and then possibly a diagnosis of the underlying malaise.

Plenty of people comment and give their views, and I attempt to draw conculsions from their input with a view to approaching a diagnosis. While not yet at the point of being able to definitively identify the issue, it is clearly something to do with women having unrealistic expectations - of the men in their lives and, maybe, of life in general. The cause of these unrealistic expectations might then be identified - and addressed - if a free and open discussion is allowed to take place.

But it is not.

Because you step in, and decide that the discussion is to be limited to the one original symptom only. Because you are the only person who knows what is 'interesting' and what is not. TV time is an 'interesting' subject worth discussing. Women's expectations, and the question of how these are created and sustained, is not.

And then you say to disregard my theories on women thriving on control....

Why do you not trust your fellow posters/women to refute any theories they believe to be incorrect by themselves? Why do you believe they are unable to do so without your guidance? Unless this is actually a forum for preschool children, you appear to be thriving on control yourself.

P.S. There is no such race as the female race. You must have mixed up your cliches with your platitudes and your banalities.

You speak of women's unrealistic expectations, i'm sorry but i certainly see nothing unrealistic with expecting to be listened to and treated like an adult, also I think you are making far too much out of this. You OH suggested you visit this forum to try and understand or perhaps learn something, which you seem to be completey unreceptive to. Perhaps you are in the wrong place..

Dragan · 08-10-2008 1:01pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

it is clearly something to do with women having unrealistic expectations - of the men in their lives and, maybe, of life in general.

The majority of people have unrealistic expectations about things. Like you seem to about your girlfriend, or she does about you.

However, the mistake you are making is attaching your issue with your girlfriend to all women.

I've met one woman in my life who i would consider to have "thrived on control", thats about it. And i have been lucky enough to know a lot of women.

In short, i find your applying your own home experience to society as being almost laughable.

Actually, no, very laughable.

There is nothing wrong, or nothing constant ( other than a love for shoes ) about women. I find it funny that you have an issue with a use of the term "race", which normally encompasses some generalities when that appears to be all you deal in.

F.A. · 08-10-2008 1:34pm

Dragan wrote: »

There is nothing wrong, or nothing constant ( other than a love for shoes ) about women.

*slowly raises hand*

Hi, my name is F.A., I am a woman and I hate shoe shopping. I confess to owning no more than five pair of shoes and one set of boots, none of which have high heels. Most of them were bought 2+ years ago. I do look after them, though, so they don't look their age...

*looks around awkwardly and hopes for the earth to swallow her*

John Mason · 08-10-2008 1:37pm

sorry dragan, dont really do the shoe thing myself, actually is detest shoe shopping

OP, you and your moth seem to enjoy tormenting each. if this is what you are BOTH into well good luck to you.

if only one person likes it, its time to move on

Dragan · 08-10-2008 1:39pm

I hate you both!!

Reku · 08-10-2008 1:45pm

F.A. wrote: »

*slowly raises hand*

Hi, my name is F.A., I am a woman and I hate shoe shopping. I confess to owning no more than five pair of shoes and one set of boots, none of which have high heels. Most of them were bought 2+ years ago. I do look after them, though, so they don't look their age...

*looks around awkwardly and hopes for the earth to swallow her*

5?!?!:eek:
*gasps*
You hussy, you!:p

One of the great things about being a bloke is that there's no expectation by society for me to go to much effort to match my footwear to my outfit, a single pair of shoes and a pair of runners suffices.:)
In fact how often do you actually note a male's choice of footwear? I've known lads to go the entire day wearing mismatching shoes; one black & one brown!

Have to say I've yet to meet a control freek type female though I've met quite a few males with this personality flaw. Have female friends who claim to know other females who are rather controlling, but that's about it. Possibly again that society tends to expect women to be less aggressive and domineering than men so this is more a male condition?
Or maybe I'm just repressing some horrible memories...:D

KrazeeEyezKilla · 08-10-2008 1:47pm

F.A. wrote: »

*slowly raises hand*

Hi, my name is F.A., I am a woman and I hate shoe shopping. I confess to owning no more than five pair of shoes and one set of boots, none of which have high heels. Most of them were bought 2+ years ago. I do look after them, though, so they don't look their age...

*looks around awkwardly and hopes for the earth to swallow her*

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

sorry dragan, dont really do the shoe thing myself, actually is detest shoe shopping.

Thank god. It's good to know there are at least some women who hate it.

Reku · 08-10-2008 1:49pm

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote: »

Thank god. It's good to know there are at least some women who hate it.

I actually know some who hate clothes shopping too!:eek:

Nevyn · 08-10-2008 2:09pm

F.A. wrote: »

*slowly raises hand*

Hi, my name is F.A., I am a woman and I hate shoe shopping. I confess to owning no more than five pair of shoes and one set of boots, none of which have high heels. Most of them were bought 2+ years ago. I do look after them, though, so they don't look their age...

*looks around awkwardly and hopes for the earth to swallow her*

and here's your sister.

I also hate shoe shopping, I have two pair of 'shoes' one black, one brown both with less then a 3 inch heel and the rest of my foot wear is, work boots, hiking boots, flat ankle boots, flat sandles ( alll black ) and a pair of slippers.

Lil' Smiler · 08-10-2008 2:58pm

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I am the girlfriend.

No I AM!!!

We can share this irresistible stud if you like!?!

MayMay · 08-10-2008 3:06pm

I too hate shoe shopping! Anyway OP at first I kind of agreed with you but now you're just coming across as very unlikeable. Good luck to your girlfriend, you're a real catch!:rolleyes:

St Bill · 08-10-2008 4:18pm

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I am the girlfriend.

God I'll have to apologise to the OP, I thought his girlfriend was inflatable

KateF · 08-10-2008 4:23pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

Her side of things was that I should have known that she wanted to have a conversation and should have abandoned watching the tv and given my attention to her.

lol. I seriously doubt that was her side of things. Clearly, she was feeling a bit insecure or whatever and maybe thought you found the tv more interesting than her. Which I'm sure isn't a nice thought for your girlfriend!
But I found your ranting very amusing. I would say she overreacted. But so did you. There maybe could have been better way of dealing with it. Maybe its just me, but maybe you should have just gave her a cuddle and she's have shut up and sat contently watching whatever crap you were watching. I know I would have. Sounds like she just needed comforting, unless she's naturally just annyong, in which case, you wouldn't be going out if you thought that! So...

MJOR · 08-10-2008 5:44pm

Right firstly you make YOURSELF look like an A hole when you say that your girlfriend is inferior to something you were watching.

While i see your point with the whole you rewound it and listened to what was obviously incessant babbling to you....

heres the thing..... either you want to listen to her or you don't. It's not really up to her to fit into your schedule of appropriate "chat times".

You are responsible for yourself and at the end of the day if you didn't want to be led around by the hand for the day you should have OPENED YOUR GOB and said so.

Its simple communication is key!

Christy Manure · 08-10-2008 5:52pm

Dragan wrote: »

The majority of people have unrealistic expectations about things. Like you seem to about your girlfriend, or she does about you.

However, the mistake you are making is attaching your issue with your girlfriend to all women.

I've met one woman in my life who i would consider to have "thrived on control", thats about it. And i have been lucky enough to know a lot of women.

In short, i find your applying your own home experience to society as being almost laughable.

Actually, no, very laughable.

There is nothing wrong, or nothing constant ( other than a love for shoes ) about women. I find it funny that you have an issue with a use of the term "race", which normally encompasses some generalities when that appears to be all you deal in.

My issue was with the misuse of the word (not term) race. Females are not a race, but a sex.

Your thought processes strike me as very similar to this other woman's. Instead of a brain, your mind is constructed like two rummage bins that you find in a discount store. One is marked "Good" and the other "Bad." You have but a dim understanding of what is in them, because you just stuffed them full of whatever you thought other people would approve of. But I can enlighten you as to their contents: neither contains any original thoughts, or conclusions that you arrived at independently. Each contains a confused mish-mash of second-hand opinions that you reach for in every situation because you are looking for agreement and approval from the majority of people.

And you always get it. But all you are really getting is them shouting, SNAP!, because they have spotted the same piece of half-chewed, recycled junk in their own minds.

Above, I have drawn some inferences about you from your posts. You have drawn some inferences about me from mine. Just like I have drawn some inferences about women from the interaction I have had with them throughout my life. This is known as inductive reasoning, and while it does not give rise to absolute, scientific truth, it is how humans form opinions about other humans. We don't have any alternative, because it is impossible to verify all of our beliefs by surveying all 6+ billion people on the planet.

So generalisations, or extrapolations from the particular to the universal, are how human beings operate. In the area of human behaviour, pointing out a generalsation is not an argument and proves absolutely nothing, but you seem to think it is some kind of trump card that wins you every debate. Well, it doesn't. Your argument is like challenging the findings of an opinion poll by pointing out that not every single person in the world was asked, or contesting the TV viewing numbers because nobody asked you. While you are technically correct, you are also revealing your total failure to grasp the point of such an exercise.

You would probably be quite useful as some kind of product tester, where your eye for detail and exceptions might be of some use, but you are too low-level to make a meaningful contribution to any kind of debate.

dfx- · 08-10-2008 6:01pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

So let me get this straight. I bring up a topic and ask people to comment. I see the topic of as a symptom of a wider issue, and hope that the discussion of this one symptom might lead to the identification of other symptoms and then possibly a diagnosis of the underlying malaise.

Plenty of people comment and give their views, and I attempt to draw conculsions from their input with a view to approaching a diagnosis. While not yet at the point of being able to definitively identify the issue, it is clearly something to do with women having unrealistic expectations - of the men in their lives and, maybe, of life in general. The cause of these unrealistic expectations might then be identified - and addressed - if a free and open discussion is allowed to take place.

But it is not.

Because you step in, and decide that the discussion is to be limited to the one original symptom only. Because you are the only person who knows what is 'interesting' and what is not. TV time is an 'interesting' subject worth discussing. Women's expectations, and the question of how these are created and sustained, is not.

And then you say to disregard my theories on women thriving on control....

Why do you not trust your fellow posters/women to refute any theories they believe to be incorrect by themselves? Why do you believe they are unable to do so without your guidance? Unless this is actually a forum for preschool children, you appear to be thriving on control yourself.

P.S. There is no such race as the female race. You must have mixed up your cliches with your platitudes and your banalities.

By far your best post except the generalisations and use of 'malaise'.

It's not a malaise, because there's not a problem, but as to who gets to decide what is interesting or not, I fully agree.

otwb · 08-10-2008 6:41pm

Clare Bear wrote: »

I know I'm one of few probably taking his side here (and apologies in advance to the regular Lady in question) but while she just wanted to chat with you and I understand that, you needed your relaxing time after a stressful day. Her converstation wasn't an important one, it could have waited. If it was me personally I would have gotten the hint and just left it until it was over.

....and had his slippers and pipe ready when he got home from a long days work....and dinner on the table.....

Its nice to talk, also nice to take 10mins out of your day to see how the day was for your OH before tuning out and watching TV for the night. Not nice to come in from work and be ignored....you can live on your own and talk to the wall, I'd expect some conversation from the person that I live with.

ali.c · 08-10-2008 6:42pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

My issue was with the misuse of the word (not term) race. Females are not a race, but a sex.

Your thought processes strike me as very similar to this other woman's. Instead of a brain, your mind is constructed like two rummage bins that you find in a discount store. One is marked "Good" and the other "Bad." You have but a dim understanding of what is in them, because you just stuffed them full of whatever you thought other people would approve of. But I can enlighten you as to their contents: neither contains any original thoughts, or conclusions that you arrived at independently. Each contains a confused mish-mash of second-hand opinions that you reach for in every situation because you are looking for agreement and approval from the majority of people.

And you always get it. But all you are really getting is them shouting, SNAP!, because they have spotted the same piece of half-chewed, recycled junk in their own minds.

Above, I have drawn some inferences about you from your posts. You have drawn some inferences about me from mine. Just like I have drawn some inferences about women from the interaction I have had with them throughout my life. This is known as inductive reasoning, and while it does not give rise to absolute, scientific truth, it is how humans form opinions about other humans. We don't have any alternative, because it is impossible to verify all of our beliefs by surveying all 6+ billion people on the planet.

So generalisations, or extrapolations from the particular to the universal, are how human beings operate. In the area of human behaviour, pointing out a generalsation is not an argument and proves absolutely nothing, but you seem to think it is some kind of trump card that wins you every debate. Well, it doesn't. Your argument is like challenging the findings of an opinion poll by pointing out that not every single person in the world was asked, or contesting the TV viewing numbers because nobody asked you. While you are technically correct, you are also revealing your total failure to grasp the point of such an exercise.

You would probably be quite useful as some kind of product tester, where your eye for detail and exceptions might be of some use, but you are too low-level to make a meaningful contribution to any kind of debate.

For the record, opinion polls and other stat techniques are based on a predefined sample size that is designed to allow for the representation of specific groups.

I seriously doubt that you have dated an adequate sample of woment to extrapolate accurately your control and fantasy conclusions. Your sample size is already biased by your own personal perference and social conditioning- if you are finding yourself with women who you judge to be controlling you are extrapolating " all women want to be in control" when just as accurately it could be extrapolated that "you are attracted to controlling women*" it comes down to interpretation your values and how in touch you are with the how these influence your life choices.
If you routinely have the same problems with multiple people you know chances are the problem is with you!

*Or indeed the case as it seems to be "Me being a twat pisses of my OH, therefore she has the issue"

Crash · 08-10-2008 7:01pm

Do you actually like your girlfriend mate? I mean honestly. Cus it really doesn't seem that you do, in fact your posts come across like you're about two steps away from proper contempt.

F.A. · 08-10-2008 9:14pm

farohar wrote: »

I actually know some who hate clothes shopping too!:eek:

I didn't know we had met!

Elle Victorine · 08-10-2008 10:07pm

Manure you actually sound like your own biggest fan. If you removed a few ribs I imagine you'd see your OH as essentially redundant.

I can imagine the scene now. He strides into the sitting room after a long day of thwarting the objectionable blips. He clutches the control and turns on the television beaming with pride and justification. A sweet solace. In ambles his OH. Tensions mount. This is it!!!!!!

~ So do you see why I was angry with you?
~*rewinds*

Oh yes a mighty victory. I'm sure you'll probably care when she eventually f*cks the television out the window and you along with it:rolleyes:

But seriously lads. Have either of you resolved this situation or are you just ignoring eachother or what? Has either apologised or are ye just stubornly waiting for the other to cave cos I gotta say girl if you're waitin you'll be waitin a long time. I mean...is he like this in real life or just for show?

Madame Razz · 08-10-2008 10:13pm

Wow, reading posts like the OPs make me soooooooo glad to be single.

Your girlf has my expressed sympathy.

bealbocht · 08-10-2008 11:38pm

Christy.. you are blinding yourself with you own logic(much of which looks more like contempt for the fairer sex, than logic but what would I know), you cant see the wood for the trees man..

So the missus starts yap yap yapping at you when you are watching something.. , big swing of the gonads.. perhaps it was an insidious attempt to cloud your mind with banalities to obscure your purpose in life and thereby forge another link in your chain of servitude and obedience, or maybe she wanted to know who the guy with the black hair and the funny coat was.. , I dunno, maybe a little of both..

what ya gonna do ..

Actually.. what are you going to do..

quietobserver · 09-10-2008 12:10am

reading all this bla bla bla he said she said, ahh having a camomille tea, feeling like a fly on the wall watching this initial conversation unfold.
Realising im so grateful to be single. I reckon both people in this argument need to watch the following link and take the advice:)

*** NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXGoQSzmms NSFW *** just take it out of the context of australia. There you go another problem solved

Alessandra · 09-10-2008 12:47am

Fair enough she was irritating you, but the way you talk about your partner is rather derogatory and leads me to believe she should cut her losses with a man who places higher value on what is on the telly than spending time with her.

quietobserver · 09-10-2008 12:54am

Alessandra wrote: »

Fair enough she was irritating you, but the way you talk about your partner is rather derogatory and leads me to believe she should cut her losses with a man who places higher value on what is on the telly than spending time with her.

spot on alessandra, couldnt agree more

The Sweeper · 09-10-2008 5:10am

Locked.

Bored.

I'd love to give you all a proper reason, but I'm too stupid to organise my rummage bins properly.

He says / she says

Comments