In a recent thread, I was addressing my concerns relating to a quote another member made. However, had I known that the quote was made by another woman, I would have addressed slightly different (and perhaps that would have made a bit of difference).
Here's my point: men and women (in general) tend to 'hear' or 'read' things differently, especially when they may be a reflection on themselves. For example, take a group of guys:
They're humor tends to be more disaffected, perhaps being seen as gruff or having a little more of an edge. They tend to bond when one of them is a little weaker in an area (kind of like the comediene and the "straight guy").
Now, in general, tend to want to see each other more or less as equals. Competition is not merely a sport for them, but kind of more like equals, or at least, this is how they bond. Any gruffness or disaffected like speech is seen as a lack of sensitivity. (The acception to this, of course, would be when two women already know each other well enough to not feel the other is being condescending.)
Maybe I'm way off base by saying this, but this is just my observation. Women want proof first from other women that they can be trusted before they criticize them. Women (in general) tend to take things more personally. This is, based on my observations, is sometimes due to inculturation based on experiences with other women growing up, and/or based on women trying to establish hierarchy. Men tend to be more diplomatic in their approach, taking the best attributes of each man, and allowing that to contribute to the group. An example of this is in sports. Incidentally, I find that trait in women who grew up playing sports, too.
OK. There ARE exceptions to this. I've known men who act more like women in this way. These are the same men that will bear grudges easily over small provocations, overly concern themselves with human respect, and take small criticisms of their speech or behavior as an affront to their entire person. They respond as if their ego has been assaulted. And, there are even a few (but fewer) women that will behave more like men (either knowingly or by habit), who will veritably arm wrestle points into debates, perceiving it to be nothing more than a debate --- while the other woman or women see it as a direct affront. Also, there are some women that perceive any other woman disagreeing with them on a public forum (even if that forum is on the internet) as an affront to their online popularity.
Below is a summary of some further observations I have made on interpersonal, internet communications, which apply to both men and women:
1.) Most people have pseudonyms, or for that matter, even first names, that do not lend to their sex. (see above for concerns with this aspect)
2.) Familiarity tends to be very, very superficial (on the internet forums). People will feel convinced, that to some vague degree, that they 'know' a person, simply because they conversed with them via the internet or responded to their posts, or they have merely read many of their posts, blogs, etc. What these people are really only getting is merely some of a person's view points, but from that, they get a false sense of 'knowing' the person that is, really, misapprorpiated.
Many people who tend to gravitate towards internet forums do so out of one or two reasons (either or both):
a.) The general or specific topic of the forum is one that gives opportunity for discussion. Often people are looking for others to share ideas who have similar points of view.
b.) They are looking for friends of similar minds. While the pursuit of friendship is a good thing, in every friendship, it is necessary that the persons entered therein have realistic expectations of those friends based on the depth of that relationship. People often tend to lose persepctive of the depth (or rather, the lack their of) of a regular social interaction on the internet with someone they deem as a friend confusing frequency of communications as a sign of depth of that relationship. They get a false sense of feeling that they understand one another as a person, when in reality, true understanding that extends to what is traditionally considered as "friendship" has an understanding of each other's backgrounds, and their person as a whole (not merely a 2-dimensional aspect that they perceive from online communications).
3.) Most people tend to have internet personas. While the use of avatars and pseudonyms are examples of creating their online persona, the largest contributor to an internet persona is how and what a person writes. While writing is, infact, a form of expression, one can express himself in different ways that really do not necessarily have to do with who they are. (e.g., In an Oscar speech several years ago, actress Emma Thomson received her award thanked her supporters in the style of Jane Austin. Emma Thompson does not normally speak like Jane Austin nor does she live her life according to the wiles of a Jane Austin novel.) This is not to suggest that most people give a fake persona, but that most people on the internet feel the freedom to express themselves with more liberality. In doing so, there are some that take this liberality to the extent that they form a super-ego of themselves, or at least, how they would like to be perceived. Some, infact, express themselves naturally quite differently in writing, than they would in person, as the internet allows one to let down common interpersonal guards that are common in face to face conversations (e.g., Someone who doesn't wish to draw attention to themselves because of their looks, either because of shyness, modesty, and all sorts of other reasons).
When it comes to Traditional circles, people are already see themselves, to a degree, as socially isolated as compared to the world. And, the more they uphold traditional (Catholic) values in thier standards of living, (obviously) the more isolated they may be in this area. (Side note: This is why it is sooo important to belong to a congregation that has a pastor/chaplain that is more interested in his people becoming HOLY than in being right. Anything less, and to that degree that it is weak in this regard, will be a recipe for a spirit of bitterness, yet usually perceived falsely as 'zeal'.)
So what do people think about some of these thoughts? Any suggestions on how to remedy some of the misperceptions and false expectations we have of one another online?
And for a little humor on the same:
This is (often) me (on left) ----> :plant:
A guy's debate (in reality) --->
(note smile on left)
(In many cases) A woman's mind in reading another woman's post with whom she is unfamiliar or disagrees with in general, or is a possible threat to their image ---> :furtive:
A man (in general, and some women, myself included) pontificating in a trad forum ----> :boxer:
The natural response from most women when the person above disagrees with something they wrote ----> :nunchaku:
The end result of two men having debated online ---> :cheers:
The end result of two women having debated online ----> :argue: (it rarely ends)
The natural-born pontificator ---> :judge:
ChantCD coming to the rescue ----> :baby: