9 thoughts on “Seeking high blood pressure?

  1. Oh for goodness sake.

    I _like_ talking to my girlfriend. We chat about what we’ve both been up to, interesting things we’ve read that day, plans, what quests we’re going to complete that night, etc. Still doing it. Still saying I love you. And this after two and a half years. If I wasn’t with someone I liked talking to, why would I be with them at all?

  2. “men don’t like small talk, but we like big talk even less”

    Basically, what he’s saying is men only like medium talk (e.g. not “how was your day?” or “how is your life?”, but “how was you week?” ?) Yet another case of the Goldilocks principle.

    [Just kidding. What he really seems to mean is that he only likes to talk about certain topics, at certain times, and with certain people… though he doesn’t hint at what these are, just what and who they’re not.]

  3. I suspect he wants to talk about Football and Beer.

    The attitude seems to be “I want to talk to Men about Manly Things. I talked to my girlfriend when I first met, so that she would have sex with me. Now that she has had sex with me I have lost interest in talking to her. Mmmm, beer.”

    Such people ought to come with warning tags.

  4. Most of those guys do come with their own warning label, Andrew. They’re no better with eye contact than they are with chit chat. He says “what’s your name?” he’s thinking “mm boobies,” and it’s reflected all over his optical poptitude.

    Unfortunately, women have to learn to read these things through trial&error without getting labelled a skank. That is the worst catch 22.

  5. yes, i think i like it, in a way, when men say such things. (i haven’t read the article. i’m not in the mood to be boiling mad tonight!) it is the very best warning label. whenever i hear a man talking about ‘what men like’ – as if all people with penises like the same things – i know he’s a boring neanderthal from whom i want to flee. (NB it took me about 30 years to figure this out.)

  6. Some people are Neanderthals, yes, but a lot of this has to do with how boys are raised in many, if not most, cultures. The emphasis is on self-sufficiency, lack of (certain kinds and expressions of) emotion, invulnerability, and these are not merely distinguished from what is considered feminine, but the feminine in any respect is explicitly negative. After a certain age, a boy’s having any interest whatsoever in what his mother does gets him the ‘mama’s boy’ label–and it’s made clear that this isn’t good!

    Of course, I don’t believe that the rejected are necessarily ‘feminine’ qualities, I think them the result of normal development, a recognition that we are vulnerable, needy, interdependent; human. The writer notes that this narcissistic emotional immaturity is the ‘trouble with men’ as he understands them, but somehow women not being similarly stunted is the trouble with women. Go figure.

  7. anon, true, fair enough. tho, i think some people are more wedded to this upbringing than others. -i mean, some people endorse it because they’re unreflective or ignorant, others because, upon reflection (and education), they still think it right and proper. ignorance, fine: not everyone has the privilege of of an enlightened education. unreflective, or reflective educated and still endorsing: neanderthal. not worth my (or any other right-thinking woman’s) time.

  8. haha I heard a joke about women on the radio. Basically it was about how men could never win an argument against women becuase men have a tendency to stick to logical thinking and therefore will be unable to follow the arguments of women

Comments are closed.