Likewise, the wise ones come round and round - the Irate Scotsman offered me some advice on women (his advice on other things has been good so far) and I considered it all generally good, with a few caveats, which I shall mention here.
1. These are not true of all women. Especially the empathy one. Some just plain aren’t empathic. At least not by choice and not in a way that they are at peace with.
2. These are not true of all women. That thinking about past stuff? I do that more than any girlfriend I’ve ever been with. But maybe that’s just me.
3. I think this is true for humans in general.
4. I wish this were true for humans in general.
5. True or not, it should be true for humans in general.
6. This is all fine and good - but if you’re lacking in the spontaneity department, it is difficult to show that you’ve demonstrated thought and emotional investment - because something not spontaneous can be misconstrued as something that didn’t involve a lot of thought.
7. I don’t care who blames who. I just care that people talk about the problems. Letting them sulk is bad. It reminds me of something I was going to put on a “describe your ideal partner” form on an on-line dating site. (I guess this applies to 3 as well.)
8. I’m all fine with this. But again, it doesn’t seem to be true of all women, IMHO.
9. Now here’s the oddity: I don’t have a lot of male “friends” . I’ve generally detested the company of males. Drunken lewd brutes that grunt and don’t know how to respect anyone, let alone women. So yeah, women make nice friends. I know that. Tell me something new.
10. This is something that might be true in general - but I really don’t think they all feel this way. I’m going to stop right now lest this turn into a rant against an ex-.
I’ve got a few comments about the closing remarks that the Irate Scotsman makes, but these will have to wait for another post.
I’d like, however, to take a few moments to summarize some common themes I see in those ten points that the Irate Scotsman makes.
A. Communication. Found in 1 (communicating emotions - at least it is allegedly easier to communicate them to her than we might imagine), 2 (that is, what was communicated is important), 4, 5, 6 (all three of those involve communication), 9 (friendship necessarily involves communication).
B. (Self-)Confidence. Found in 3 (by definition).
C. (Self-)Judgementalism. Found in 7 and 8.
D. Importance. Found in 10.
So, B, C, and D are things that are largely internal - there’s not a lot one can do about them. So I’d hope to not have someone with excessive problem 7, but if so, hopefully a healthy dose of A can take care of that. In fact, I think that B and C are related too, but in ways I won’t try to delve into right now.
Speaking of A, I am reminded of the theme of two-way communication ever found present in Richard’s weblog especially his recent novel (which I’m still working my way through - reading for fun, in as much as time permits, when I’m not trying to work on my dissertation (and I often try) or engage in other seemingly more urgent tasks).
Richard posits that it is important to focus on the story - that is, the ideas and topics. This is part of the communication - the “what is sent”. And presumably he wants to imagine that they are important things, so we’ve got a healthy dose of D in there. But to make it real communication, it needs to be two-way, and that’s what A is.
So it is really only part “what is sent”. It is also part “who is it sent to” as well as “what feedback comes back”. The so-called A-list bloggers can confer a lot of numbers of “who is it sent to”, but there’s no guarrantee that it is quality people that it is sent to. What matters is the “what feedback comes back”, and to that end, I’d contend that getting linked to by A-list bloggers is of limited value. So, to that end, meaningful communication doesn’t need traffic - it just needs healthy doses of A, B, C, and D.
I began with a link to Greg’s post, and I’d like to “end” with an edited version of Greg’s comment that had prompted me to post in response to, and that post was the impetus for the post of Greg that I linked to at the beginning.
… exposes a need for validation. You want to be accepted. … You want to know that you’re worthy: of respect, of admiration. You want someone to choose *you* because of the human being that you are.
Of course, all of this is true of just about everyone
I think the reasons we love and the reasons we blog aren’t so different, regardless of whether we’re male or female, with large groups (of lovers or readers) or small, and so on and so forth.
So this post began and “ended” (reached this point, that is) with Greg, on a topic I knew well already (but occasionally need to be reminded about - being true to one’s self), and touched upon the re-introduction of a fellow who has engaged in quality conversation with me before - the wise (albeit irate) scotsman, and mentioned a number of the other folks that have been here more regularly recently (such as Richard). I’m sorry to have been unable to include a variety of other people who have engaged in conversation with me here previously - I’d start to try to list them, but it is getting quite late, and I really should try to sleep so that I may get a healthy amount of work done on my dissertation research tomorrow.
Part of what I like is the sense of community that the blogosphere helps develop. I might tie all manner of bizarre things together in off-the-wall ways that we’d never imagined previously had anything to do with each other (such as “women” and “two-way communication” and “being true to yourself”) but to me they do all have something to do with each other. Maybe it is all about D, I don’t know. But to me, the knitting together of the tapestry of ideas from the threads that I pick up from both my own life as well as the lives/blogs of others - this knitting is how I build both crazy ideas as well as attempt to build community. It’s not “all about” ideas or community or love or communication or being true to yourself or anything - it’s about all of those all together and more.20ba