From: taylor@hardy.u.washington.edu (Allen D. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Holly's theory about the conflict surroungind Ed
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:50:06 GMT

In article <BxoExz.6J7@twwells.com> anon-1370@twwells.com (Mary) writes:
>Holly (Enigma) posits the theory that the reason that so many people get
>irritated with Ed is because of socialized differences in communication 
>patterns and patterns of emotional expression in men and women.  Since my
>tenure on ASAR is a brief one, I really don't have a clue as to whether more
>men or women are irritated by Ed.  However, I do think that Enigma's theory
>has merit.  
>
>There are a lot of *general* differences in the way men and women deal with
>emotional expression, communication and conflict.  For example:
>
[... stuff deleted]
>
>All of these differences (as well as others that I have not listed) seem to 
>result in differing patterns of emotional expression and communication in
>males and females.  Subsequently, miscommunications, misunderstandings and 
>other problems in interacting are likely to result from these disparate
>styles of expression.  Which is not necessarily to say that one style is
>better than another (though I bet a poll of ASAR readers would find that
>females find their style superior and visa versa for males) - the styles are
>just different.
>

I really had to pause and meditate before replying to this post.  I
immediately felt a very large wave of anger come over me when I read this.
 Even though I have decided how I would feel comfortable responding to
this post,  I am tempted to flame away.  But I won't.  That is not how L
want to live my life.

Instead I will tell you WHY I feel anger at this post.

First is that I find the men vs women tone to be very confrontational and
condescending.  I did not read in this post (I acknowledge that my issues
may not have 'allowed me to see it) the idea that EVERYONE is different. 
In point of fact, my first wife was exactly like the way Holly describes
men in this post.  The whole reason our 17 year marriage finally ended was
that she refused to deal with issues confronting us.

The second, and probably most important reason this post angered me is
that I felt my efforts at recovery to be minimized by it.  I try very
hard to not behave as my first wife did.  Although I like to get issues
out in the open and discussed and dealt with, I do not have much
experience at doing it.  After all, for 17 years I wasn't allowed to.  So
Holly comes along and tells me how I, a man, behave.  Of course on
introspection I realized that Holly wasn't telling me how I behave, she
was expressing her personal experience with some number of men, even though
she didn't phrase it that way.  I also realized that I am in recovery for
me.  That I am the only one whose judgement of my recovery I care about. 
I have looked for too many years to others for my worth.  Holly's opinion
of my recovery (which is not what she offered but what I heard) is not
germane to me and my reality.

>Of course there are a lot of individual differences in expressiveness - and
>communication patterns are not stagnant.  I would like to see people on 
>this network try to remain constructive  (or at least diplomatic) in their
>responses to one another and to try to stay out of attack (flame) mode.  As I
>said the other day, conflict and anger can (and are) good.  But only when
>used appropriately - otherwise they can be destructive and may halt progress-
>both of the individual and the group. 
>
>

I heartily agree with this paragraph.

Thanks Holly, for the opportunity to explore myself and my recovery further.

--Allen

==============================================================================
Allen D. Taylor       University of Washington   taylor@cac.washington.edu
Information Systems   Seattle, Washington  USA   Human 1st - World Citizen 2nd
==============================================================================