I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

140. Caring Man or Jerk - 5

Caring Man or Jerk - 5

This is about the difference in the purpose of communication

1.  In entry 20, I already described, what I consider constructive communication.    It is an efficient method to improve a relationship, when both are mature, intrinsically committed partners and they are capable and motivated to enhance the closeness and harmony.   Constructive communication is symmetrical between two egalitarian partners.

When such a couple experiences a conflict, it is mainly about some behavior or action and the consequences thereof.   The behavior is based upon values and attitudes.   As a bonded couple, they share the same basic values like equality.   Therefore a conflict can be solved by constructive communication.   The focus is upon the sequences of behavior, that can be analyzed and changed.    When one partner feels hurt, he tells the other, which behavior was the cause.  Then they can discuss it until they reach an agreement about the required change of this behavior.   This improves the relationship.  

2.  Conflicts between a jerk and a non-jerk are very different.  From my subjective point of view as a woman, I am talking about a male jerk and a woman.   Theoretically, this could also be between a jerkish woman and a non-jerkish man.   But most jerks are men.   Male jerks dominate in accordance to what they perceive as their natural role and what society defines as manly, while women dominate in defiance of the role given to them.

Those conflicts are caused by incompatible basic values, one of which is their disagreement between her right to be an equal partner and his entitlement delusion to dominate.   On the behavioral level, he attempts to coerce her to submit to his domination, while she resists.    Since their basic values of equality or of a hierarchy are mutually exclusive, their conflict cannot be solved, not even if he would participate in constructive communication.  

Therefore for him, communication serves an entirely different purpose, it is a part of his general power struggle to acquire and maintain his position above her in the hierarchy.    He uses his words as weapons to weaken the woman, so that he can feel strong, as a consequence of his need to feel superior.  The effect of the weapon of his words is enhanced by anger, aggression and intimidating tones.    Repeating statements, that are derogatory, demeaning, devaluing, insulting about his partner are a way of reassuring himself, that she is indeed inferior.  Repeating these claims seems to make them more true for him, and they serve as a justification to treat her as inferior.   He also believes that by repeating devaluing claims about her often enough, she would finally agree to his superiority.  

2.1.   The unfavorable claims are so vague and general, that they cannot be rationally refuted by evidence, precise information or logic.    They are claims, that the woman is flawed, defective, has blind spots and so on.   But she is not told, exactly which of her behavior is supposed to indicate her inferiority.  She has not chance to rationally defend herself against such claims.    Counter claims, that she is not flawed are futile, they have no effect.  
2.2.   For the jerk, it makes no difference, if her alleged flaws are only his delusion, or if she really has any flaws and weaknesses, and what they are.   He wants her to appear to have flaws, he wants to believe in her flaws being real, because this way he can justify his domination.   He does not want her to improve, because her improvement would diminish his superiority.   The only pseudo-improvement, that he wants, would be her acquiescence to be treated as inferior and give up all resistance.  
2.3.   If he does not find enough flaws to ascribe to her, he treats her badly and drives her into loosing her countenance.  Sometimes this provokes behavior from her, that she has to acknowledge herself as not her best.   In his perception this adds a few more flaws to those, that he has already ascribed to her.   He uses this as evidence to point out her flaws to her. 
2.4.   He does not see any need to work on conflicts by communicating about problematic behaviors.   He considers his own behavior as correct and not in need to be worked upon, and he considers her in need to submit in obedience to his guidance.    He believes that if she would, there were no conflicts.   He believes, that she creates all the conflicts by resisting his dominance and his superiority.
2.5.   For the jerk, communication is asymmetrical.   From his usurped higher position, he commands, demands, and instructs downwards.   Those below have nothing to say, so he is not bothered to listen.  

Such a jerk is not suitable for me.