Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I guess I have said enough carrier limiting things here. I think my
    next jobs gonna be in some mail room. :) But to make light of it all. I
    think that understanding women as men was best said by Criss Loyd in
    Back to the Future III. "Now that I have concored time travel, I will
    devote my life to the worlds oldest mistery, women."
    
    I think that women have it tuff as much as anyone else in the world.
    Sometimes even tuffer. What can I say. I think that many of todays
    women face a real problem of traditional values and the non traditional
    type. They sit on a fence that gets unconfortable to rest upon. Hanging
    their feet on one side then the other of values. Then they get to
    straddling it and get lost because their value set, was/may have been,
    traditional. Men, well were still in a slower flux than women. We are
    understanding each other today in the high tech world, via the notes. 
    Gotta say it everyone. I have learned much from all of you. Even though
    we do not always agree on whats-what in the value set game. We do 
    have an understanding of such. 
    
    I know that we are all changing and re-a-ranging. But I guess the time
    spent with good company is and will be always the best parts of our
    lives. Best for they are so short, so breif, in a world that is
    stuffing change down our throats. Change, in sales, brings forth
    opertiites to grow, and become enlightened to a differnt way. But, in
    the words from "Fiddler on The Roof", where would man be without
    traditions? As shakey as a fiddler on the roof!"

    No.
    
    That is, difference in sex no more leads to difference in "wavelength"
    than does difference in upbringing, experience, politics, interests,
    etc. And, of course, all of these are related.
    
    Kit 

re: .0
    
> Do any of the rest of you ever feel that men and women are just on different
>wavelengths, that fundamentally there exists a chasm between our realities
>that cannot be successfully bridged except, perhaps, for short periods?

    We do have different realities, yes.  But with energy and a strong
    desire, these can be both seen simultaneously.  They DO NOT merge or
    become one, but it is possible to see the hazy outlines of both.  As
    with most things, yagottawanna!
    
    
>simply dreaming the impossible dream. Is it really possible for men and
>women to truly understand each other, for significant high and low level
>communication to occur naturally?

    Naturally?  meaning without energy expenditure?  no.  But when it is
    encouraged by energy and a strong desire on both sides, it can occur
    more frequently with less and less work.  Becoming familiar with the
    nomenclature of both realities is part and parcel to this happening.
    
>If I say this, will she suddenly be offended and react in a bizzare manner?
>Will she misinterpret my intentions? Can I bare my soul to her? Will she
>divulge my deepest secrets during casual conversation among cackling
>acquaintances, to get a laugh or two during a cigarette break?

 

    You mean, can you trust her with yourself.  I suppose there are some
    men I trust, and some men I do not.  However, I've done a remarkable
    amount of disclosure of myself to men and, by and large, they
    understand what I'm investing in them, and they appreciate it, except
    where there is a *misunderstanding* about my view on what I'm sharing. 
    If I tell them this is serious, and it's important to me, then if they
    are friends they will value that.  There are not necessarily shared
    realities but there are definitely counterparts, analogs, where we are
    congruent and corresponding.  And it is sometimes so easy to say "well,
    one person of the opposite sex betrayed me - will they all?".  It's a
    valid question, particularly if you were caused tremendous hurt!  But
    this is where the "us and them" thoughts creep in.  
    
>intimacy leads us down the same path. If by letting down my guard I'm going
>to make a friend become distant, is there any value to bothering?
    
    I don't think that's always the case.  But sometimes you have to "ping"
    the other party and see what's going on - it takes two people to make a
    friendship/relationship, and it takes two people to let it go.  If they
    truly care, they will not become distant.  It is up to both people to
    share what they truly think - to walk through the fear of the unknown
    and divulge what, in your heart, you truly think and feel.  I know when
    sharing what I feel I sometimes think to myself "this is going to sound
    totally whacko to them" (this occurred to me when I was sharing with
    Wil in topic 601).  But I find that if I can successfully
    communicate what I'm feeling, that's one less thing they don't know
    about me, and often if they see the patterns that form me, they can
    learn to intuit other things about me that I may not be able to put
    into words.
    
    Is it valuable to attempt?  yes.  Is it a challenge?  yes.
    Is it worth it?  your mileage may vary.
    
    -Jody

> And forget physical attraction to friends entirely. That has to be the
>surest way to make ex-friends known to man. I'm just wondering if emotional
>intimacy leads us down the same path. If by letting down my guard I'm going
>to make a friend become distant, is there any value to bothering?
    
    Do you mean that if you have a female friend that being physically 
    attracted to her will kill the relationship?  I don't see why, unless
    you act on that attraction (and there's no reason you can't remain the
    friend of a person with whom you enter a physical relationship unless it
    complicates other relationships).  And I thought that the point in a close
    friendship was emotional intimacy, trust, sharing and caring.  It is
    true that to let your guard down with someone who is not interested in
    an intimate friendship, can drive them away.  But there's no other way
    to acquire a close friend.  Friendship comes in many flavors.  It is
    not always easy to determine the potential for closeness that exists 
    between you and another person.  You sometimes just have to take a
    chance.  Friendship between a man and a woman is complicated by the
    differences in communication style (see the book "You Just Don't 
    Understand") and by all the baggage of sex and romance.  
    
    					- Vick

>>If by letting down my guard I'm going
>>to make a friend become distant, is there any value to bothering?

Of course, there's value to bothering!

The thing is, the value doesn't lie in the response you might or might not get,
it lies in the *act* of opening up to communication (aka intimacy), being 
vulnerable and admitting that you're not perfect and it's OK for another 
person to see that, because you want to offer yourself.

And I submit that at that level, men and women aren't different at all.

;)
Lynn
                                                                             

>    Do you mean that if you have a female friend that being physically 
>    attracted to her will kill the relationship? 

 No. If you are already friends with a woman and you develop an attraction
for her (in the physical sense) and you act upon that attraction, the chance 
that you will become closer to her or maintain a close relationship with her
is miniscule (in my experience.) It's as if you've already been classified
as non-physical and that's that.

>It is
>    true that to let your guard down with someone who is not interested in
>    an intimate friendship, can drive them away.

 Maybe the problem is that I can't accurately gauge how intimate a friend
wants to become. Maybe I need to question what appears to be encouragement
more.

>Friendship between a man and a woman is complicated by the
>    differences in communication style (see the book "You Just Don't 
>    Understand") and by all the baggage of sex and romance.  

 Yes, yes, yes!

> No. If you are already friends with a woman and you develop an attraction
> for her (in the physical sense) and you act upon that attraction, the chance 
> that you will become closer to her or maintain a close relationship with her
> is miniscule (in my experience.) It's as if you've already been classified
> as non-physical and that's that.

Many things in life depend on timing.  My partner-in-crime and I were
friends for several years before we became romantically involved.  In
fact, she has reminded me that a few years ago I asked her out and she turned
me down.  When she got around to being interested in asking me out, I
was with someone else.  That someone else and I split a couple of years
ago.  She was with someone else at that time.  We saw each other socially
(we are both aviators) and were still friends.  When she broke up with
her last partner I asked her out.  This time she accepted.  I think that
being friends first makes the relationship much better.  We saw each other
at our worst as well as best before we got into a romantic relationship.
So we choose to be together with fewer illusions.

So don't burn any bridges or rule out any possibilities.  People and
circumstances change.  You never get an opportunity unless you ask.
And sometimes, if the circumstances change, you should ask again.

    Is this string going to be about gender communication from male
    perspectives ( if so I'm in ) or is the "what about women" crowd going
    to try and dominate ( in which case I won't bother ).
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

 This string is going to be what you make of it, Wayne, and if women have
anything to offer I sure hope they feel welcome enough to do so.

    A video I watched about understanding men and women in marriage by a
    well known marriage counsellor (forgot his name now) basically said
    that the difference  between men and women was this:
    
    "Men do data first." meaning that men want the facts, information, data first
    and above all.  Feelings about the conclusions made from the data
    follow, but may or may not come. Men can keep data as simply that and
    harbor no feelings about the data. Furthermore, men can shift their
    feelings very quickly.
    
    "Women do feelings first."  Data may often be irrelevant. A woman's
    impression/feeling about anything is paramount. Thus, a woman keeps
    turning something over and over to explore her feelings about it.
    
    He told a humorous and typical situation, which goes like this:
    
    Man: (coming home from work, seeing wife in bad mood) Hi, honey. Gee,
    you look upset.  What happened?
    
    Woman: (very upset over something) I don't want to talk about it.
    Man:  OK.  (goes off to read newspaper)
    
    He's doing data; she's doing feeling and the last thing she wants to do
    is NOT to talk about it.  But his data antenna are simply responding to
    his first impluse - information.
    
    On another note: someone once said that in communication men want to
    get to closure and conclusions whereas women keep communicating because
    they want to explore the problem/situation from different angles.
    
    Having been married about 20 years now, I still don't fully understand
    mmy wife's responses to situations when the data for the situation does
    not support the emotional response arrived at. 
    
    As the French say:  Vive la difference!
    
    Paul 

Even before birth we start gathering experiences that influence how we
behave and think.  A young Orthodox Jewish boy will be taught that Pork is
'bad'.  A young farm girl from Iowa will be taught that Pork is 'good'.  If
these two happen to cross paths they might label the other 'anti-semantic'
and 'red neck'.  If they can go a little deeper and understand WHY the
other person feels the way they do they will have a basis of understanding,
if not they may have just added to their lifes bias.  We are taught certain
things and then go around trying to prove them correct.

I have a very close female friend who was brutally raped and sodomized by
five black men when she was 13 years old.  They were all aquitted because
she was depicted as a 'tramp' even though she was a virgin and 13 years
old.  She was 5'2" and 105 pounds at the time.  A year later she weighed
over 200 pounds.  If you didn't know what had happened to her you might
just think she was a slob.  But by understanding her lifes experiences you
would be much more sympathetic.

As men we cannot hope to see the world exactly as a woman would.  The
effects of estrogen are much different than testostorone.  We'll never know
PMS or child birth.  We'll never know what it feels like not to be asked to
dance, but if you take that step, and realize that it will probably
challenge you emotionally and spiritually, you can explore the world of
Yin.  You will never know this world like the natives (women) do, you will
never quite master the language or customs or norms.  The taboos will seem
silly or strange but if you stick it out you will be rewarded more than you
ever dreamed because let's face it guys, we're the minority here and if you
want to know what the majority of the country knows you will have to get
your butt out there and try.

You'll encounter women who will want you out of their space.  You will meet
women who will want to wound you because they're been wounded.  You will
meet women who want to mother you because they've been mothered.  But if
you stick it out you'll learn a lot about yourself because you can't
completely understand yourself as a man unless you understand the feminine
aspects of yourself as well.

patrick

    I see the "what about women" crowd has taken over. Could have been a
    nice string. Bye.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Brian,
    
    		I really really really really don't care what you think.
    
    
    			DHAND
    			Wayne

    No George, to have a shootout you need a worthy opponent. 



    			HAND
    			Wayne

George, please take your cliche behind the barn and shoot it.  You need a new
one.  I might suggest "Shields up, Mr. Sulu!", but that too is a bit
overused.  Maybe instead you should just not say anything if you don't have
something positive to contribute.

Wayne, if you really don't care what other people think, and if you can't
accept a discussion of the differences between how men think and how women
think in a topic dedicated to that subject, then why do you bother to write
at all?  Or do you think anyone else cares that you don't care? 


I've heard a lot of good recommendations for "You Just Don't Understand," 
I haven't gotten around to reading it.  I've been told by a number of men
that it's a real eye-opener.

				Steve

.0> Do any of the rest of you ever feel that men and women are just on different
.0> wavelengths, that fundamentally there exists a chasm between our realities
.0> that cannot be successfully bridged except, perhaps, for short periods?

If you need to cross a chasm which already has a bridge do you assume the bridge
is safe?  Don't you first try to establish TRUST that the bridge will hold up as
you traverse it so that you will not come to any harm?  Was the bridge built by 
the Matriarchy Bridge Building Company or the Patriarchy Bridge Building 
Company?  Perhaps a consortium of both...  How do Men and Women establish TRUST
these days?  Do they really want to...

.0> Our perspectives on a multitude of things are so different, particularly
.0> on issues and incidents that span the gender gap. A man will look upon a
.0> comment as being flip and amusing and a woman will look upon the same thing
.0> as being dangerous and offensive.

Contingent upon where both are coming from I can see where this could be true.
We project our own thoughts and feelings during our communications and assume
that the recipient shares them.  Again, TRUST plays a big part.  If you are
TRUSTed by the recipient they will probably not take your comment as being
dangerous/offensive.

.0> It seems that we expend an awful lot of energy trying to reach consensus,
.0> trying to find commonality between the sexes. I sometimes wonder if we are
.0> simply dreaming the impossible dream. Is it really possible for men and
.0> women to truly understand each other, for significant high and low level
.0> communication to occur naturally?

I believe Men and Women CAN come to truly understand each other but that we
are not savvy to the techniques of making this happen.  One area of commonality
between the sexes (people in general) is that we really don't know how to 
"fight" one another...  We don't recognize the attributes of a "good fight"...
We don't know what we are "fighting" for...

My definitions: The "good fight" is one in which ALL participants "win", 
otherwise, it is just a brawl.  Ego must be checked at the door upon entering 
the arena.  You put on the trunks of Curiosity and lace up the gloves of
Insight.  The "fight" is over when TRUTH is splattered about the ring and in
some cases it may not be pretty.  When retrieving your Ego at the exit you may
find it doesn't fit and may need an alteration.  Because you are all "winners"
you will Respect (the seeds of TRUST) each other...

.0> And forget physical attraction to friends entirely. That has to be the
.0> surest way to make ex-friends known to man. I'm just wondering if emotional
.0> intimacy leads us down the same path. If by letting down my guard I'm going
.0> to make a friend become distant, is there any value to bothering?

TRUSTing another person requires that you TRUST yourself.

Getting back to .0 - Men and women will never have the same life experiences.
And I don't believe that it is entirely a product of socialization.  So we
will never look at things exactly the same way.  Which is OK.  Listening to,
and respecting other folks viewpoints is one of the things that makes life
interesting.  The key is listening.  And as far as unexpected reactions, well,
I assume that some of the time that I will be a jerk.  Its just part of the
animal.  Can't read other folks minds.  Nor intuit their previous experiences.
So if I offend someone I simply appologize and try not to do it again.  If the
other person, whatever their gender, has so little sense of humor that they
can't recover, then that's more their problem than mine.  I do my best not to
intentionally be a jerk.

There is a real danger in being too reasonable.  After all, if you spend
all of your time agonizing over your relationship to the folks around you,
you won't ever get around to interacting with and appreciating their
differences.  And its only common curtesy to ignore the occaisonal
faux paux.  So, at the risk of seeming too flip, you just have to do what
comes naturally.  The folks who you really fit with will stick around,
even if you are having a bad, foot-in-mouth kind of day.  The folks who
walk away because you commit one faux paux may not be the folks that you
want to be close to.  And that applies to both genders.

    Brian, 
    
    		I'm available if you want to take our discussion offline.
    
    
    
    			Wayne

The Doctah's question is sound, and it has both biological and sociological 
answers.  Since Kinsey we have amassed a mountain of evidence that men and 
women think and behave differently *on the whole*, and these modes arise from 
morphological differences in the brain which result from different prenatal 
development paths and are reinforced and expanded upon by acquired experience.

So, even ignoring deeper philosophical questions about how well one person 
can ever know another, the evidence overwhelmingly says that men and women 
are different at more than just at the secondary sexual characteristic level, 
and therefore any attempt to resolve the sorts of questions the Doctah asked 
must begin from this base.  It serves no useful purpose to do what the 
feminists did to Jack Money, a well known sex researcher.  He was their 
favourite in the early sixties when he thought that such differences did not 
exist.  When, over time and continued study he changed his mind, they dropped 
him like a hot potato, and he is now persona non gratis with them.

    Doc,

    It's all reduced to nature...

    

		    "Boy's have a penis.  Girls have a vagina."

    					- From "Kindergarten Cop"

    
    .10, .11, .12
    
    good notes; I got a lot out of them.

    I'm wondering if the problem isn't more generically "Understanding
    people." For straight men, the person they spend their life not
    understanding happens to be female. Would any of you gay men care to
    comment on your success understanding your partners? Is it really a
    matter of gender, or is it simply that familiarity breeds confusion?

    	I once read an interesting article about the basic difference in
    the manner in which men and women think.
    
    	Women have the ability to think with both halves of their brain,
    making them "think spherically". They tend to see more into something
    then men. They have a keener sense of smell. They have what is known as
    "Women's Intuition". 
    
    	Men think with only one half of their brain at a time. This is
    known as "thinking logically". It is often thought to be the reason
    that men tend to score higher in math and physics as a whole than
    women.
    
    	Men often don't understand what women are even talking about. A
    wife/girlfriend may turn to her male partner and say, "She just said
    that I was fat and ugly!" The male will in turn respond, "No she
    didn't, she said that your dress is cute." The difference is that women
    actually speak a woman's language that is totally foreign to men. It
    would be very much like someone who didn't watch baseball coming into
    the middle of a statistical discussion by two stat nuts.
    
    	The word 'understanding' is a misnomer. In today's society,
    understand is to accept that women want more than equality, they
    want equality plus one with an ounce of revenge. Understanding has
    given way to "my way or the highway". I really think that we are headed
    for a gender war that could be pretty horrible. Men are not going to
    willingly give up much more. We have given up privacy by allowing women
    in the locker room, we've given up social bonding by allowing women
    into 'men only' clubs because they felt they were at a disadvantage in
    business. 
    	Men are publicly charged with rape and must prove their innocence
    rather than having their guilt proven. Men are automatically arrested
    in Massachusetts upon complaint by a wife that he is abusive, and that
    without any proof, physical or other.....
    
    	Ken 

    Want to talk about not understanding women?  I once worked in a group
    made up of 7 women, 3 men and a female manager.  We would have l-o-n-g
    meetings (2 and 3 days) where all we did was discuss.  At break times
    the 3 men would cloister in the bathroom and try figure out what the
    heck was going on or being achieved.  Meanwhile, the women thought the
    meeting was fruitful and productive. As a man in such a group, I felt
    totally estranged, without a clue of what was going on or how to
    respond/participate.  It would seem that there was this unspoken,
    silent communication that vibrated on the air that the women could
    somehow plug into and understand and deduce the correct conclusion. 
    The men only saw the whole process as a waste of time.
    
    A strange time, but it sure was an eye opener.
    
    Paul
    
    Paul

    
    Many women value processing and connecting (not that men don't or that
    all women do.  note the modifier.)
    
    I discovered that when tackling projects with all female groups, that
    in addition to just "doing what we were doing" and getting the task
    done, it was important to reach consensus, understand how we felt, work
    through discomforts or uneasiness, and the task would get accomplished
    in a little more time, but we would all be more satisfied.  We also
    found we worked less well when we did not acknowledge who we were and
    how we felt *while* working on the project or doing the tasks.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .29  (Hoyt)

    I don't have any long term experience to draw on, but I can tell you that 
    communication styles among (gay) men vary widely and that if my 
    assumptions about the "emotional style" typically assigned to women are 
    at all accurate, I'd have a heck of a time trying to live with a member of 
    the opposite sex :-)

    Actually, I know too many women with whom I communicate easily to buy into 
    the stereotypes.

    How about an anecdote?

    I had the experience of dating a man who's communication style differed
    from mine to such an extent that at times I was completely stunned by
    his comments and behavior!

    I remember we were on vacation in August.  We had just arrived in
    Washington DC and, though it was hot and muggy, I was all ready to head 
    into the city to do some site seeing.   We got to the hotel room, put
    our stuff away, sat for a few minutes to get our bearings, and then I
    said "Ok - ready to go?"  He didn't complain or anything, he just said 
    "yup" and off we went.  After dinner, we were looking at some of the local 
    newspapers while seated at a sidewalk cafe.  He got up and said he wanted 
    to stretch his legs.  I moved to join him but he said it was Ok if I
    wanted to sit a while longer and maybe finish looking at the paper.  So he 
    went off and took a walk around the block.  When he got back, he seemed 
    fine - I even asked him if everything was Ok and he said yes.

    I should say at this point that I had most of this trip planned when I 
    asked him if he'd like to join me.  He was happy to let me organize things 
    and was content to be the expert on art when we visited museums, and to 
    work in a side trip to visit his brother on the way home.  I did ask for 
    input on the itinerary and he gave me some and I used it, but overall he 
    left the details up to me.
    
    It wasn't until the next day, late in the afternoon after we had spent 
    hours and hours on the road, that he got very upset and told me I had 
    angered him back at the hotel in Washington.  I still don't understand 
    exactly what it was all about.  Something to do with not "checking in with 
    him" to see if he was enjoying himself, to see if he wanted to rest a 
    while or something before going into the city.   

    Needless to say, I was amazed when he told me how he had felt the day
    before.  I had NO CLUE that he was upset.   He went for that walk 
    after dinner because he was *pissed* at me!  Yet we laughed and joked
    in the car about "Bouffant Circle" (aka Dupont Circle) and commented on 
    the landmarks around the Mall and generally had a very entertaining
    evening.   ???????   

    We had a lengthy conversation and the bottom line was that I promised
    I'd try harder to figure out "how he was doing" but that I needed some 
    pro-active input from him.   

    The rest of that 10 day trip went pretty well, though the relationship 
    eventually ended (and not for completely unrelated reasons).

    I mentioned this to someone a while ago and he said it sounded just like
    his girlfriend.  It was kind of funny.  I know some guys might read
    this and it will re-inforce a stereotypical image they have of gay men.
    Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with men who are effeminate,
    buy the guy in the story above isn't.   He is an artist (a very good
    one IMO), but that is as far as the stereotype goes.  If you were to
    meet him you'd believe he was just a regular kinda guy - and he is for
    the most part.  I wasn't prepared for his.....way of thinking?  Maybe
    it has/had more to do with his "artistic sensibility" than his gender 
    (or gender orientation for that matter).

    I don't know if this helps, Hoyt or just makes things more confusing...

    /Greg

    RE.10
    This is true.
    
    Not long ago I was involved in a marriage enrichment seminar.The
    speaker was Gary Smalley.He explained the very same fact (.10).
    The reason for the onesided thought process that we men suffer 
    from is when we are concieved ,the female body determines the
    gender of the baby and causes a secretion of male hormon to flow
    through the body of male babies.This hormon causes stronger bones,
    bigger muscles,thicker sculls(ha,ha)etc. It also severs nerve 
    connectors between the two sides of our grey matter. thus we are 
    unable to use but oe side at a time. Ladies, we can't help the way
    we are.
    This seminar has made a world of difference in my marriage. 
    This is all part of God's master plan. It is the most beneficial 
    and productive partnership that could be.
    We men are problem solvers. As .10 said, we deal in facts so we can
    resolve problems. Our mates (if they happen to be women) are designed
    to deal with emotions(women's intuition).Women are nurturers by
    design. They are designed and intended by God to birth babies and
    be more tuned in to things that us men may not see any hard evidence
    of.Believe me this is a fact.My wife can ,and has ,kept me out of
    many uncomfortable situations just by being able to pick up on things
    that I totally ignored. We were at a local mall recently.As we walked 
    through a clothing store, an employee came over to us to offer assis-
    tance.She said , "Good Morning, may I help you?" I reply,"No thanks,
    we're just looking." When the employee walked away , my wife told me 
    that I was rude to the lady. I was shocked that I might have been 
    thought of as being rude by saying "No thanks, we're just looking".
    After all,those words are not offensive.If I had wanted to be
    offensive,I could have.Having learned to use my wife as a resource
    in reading people, I walked over to the employee and offered an 
    apology. To my surprise, she had inteed been slightly offended,and
    gladly accepted my apology. This situation is just an example of how
    women are able to pick up on things that we cannot.This isn't to say
    that we can't learn,(or as my wife says"trained")to be more tuned in
    to things like that.
     I feel that a male/female partnership is the best possible
    arrangement.We can benefit from their intuition and sensitivity,and
    they can benefit from our strength and problem solving abilities.This
    the way it is meant to be.No, I don't understand everything that comes
    from her mouth,far from it,but I do respect her for what I know to be
    an ability that she was born with and something that I will have to 
    try to develope.
    
    CZ

 Does anybody else feel that to women, underlying emotions and process is
more important than "just the facts, ma'am"? I often get the feeling that
to many women, the facts of a certain incident are almost incidental; how
they feel about one thing or another is more important. This leads to 
considerable strife; you can be "right" and still get greif. I hate when that
happens. It's difficult to deal with. I never seem to be sure of what set of
rules apply.

    Much to my amazement,all of he rules seem to apply.Nobody ever said
    that dealing with women would be simple. I can only imagine how
    dificult it is dealing with men.After all,we go through life with
    a brain that is only half operable.
    
    CZ

BRAIN DOMINANCE INVENTORY

DIRECTIONS: For each of the items listed below, circle the letter of the 
            alternative that sounds most like you.  These are "forced-choice"
            questions; you must choose one of them in order for the inventory to
            be meaningful to you, even if it is a matter of choosing the one 
            that is least unlike you.  Complete the inventory quickly - your
            first response is likely to be the truest description of who you
            are, not as how you would like to be.


 1. (a) I tend to worry about getting things right.  I feel tense and nervous 
        more often than most people.

    (b) I am relaxed and easy going.  I give it my best shot and then let the
        chips fall where they may.  I tend to roll with the punches.

 2. (a) My mood swings fairly often - sometimes I am up, sometimes down - and
        I can really feel the difference.

    (b) I am fairly even-tempered; rarely do I feel any real intense emotion.
        I am on an even keel just about all the time.

 3. (a) In listening to music, I find that the melody itself, or the time, is
        what catches my attention.

    (b) When I listen to music, I find myself responding immediately to the
        beat.

 4. (a) When I am learning something that is new to me, I first want to research
        the topic, usually by doing some reading and/or hearing an authority
        lecture on it.

    (b) When I am faced with learning something new, I try to find some way to 
        plunge right into it, like a field trip, workshop, or apprenticeship.

 5. (a) If I were a math major, I would excel in Geometry.

    (b) Algebra would be my forte, if I were a math major.

 6. (a) In high school (or college) science, I most enjoyed Chemistry.

    (b) I enjoyed Physics best, out of all my high school (college) science
        courses.

 7. (a) I would rather play Scrabble.

    (b) I would rather play Checkers.

 8. (a) I buy things on impulse, even when I know I should not.  If I see
        something that is "me", or if it speaks to me, I usually have to have 
        it.

    (b) I am a deliberate shopper.  I decide what I want before I go looking for
        it.  I do not just shop for the sake of shopping.  Sometimes I 
        deliberate for so long that what I want is gone by the time I go to buy
        it.  I often talk myself out of things I might have an impulse to buy.



 9. (a) I am often unsure of my choice and use of words.

    (b) I rarely feel awkward about my grammar and sentence construction.

10. (a) When I learn something new, I flounder around until suddenly a light
        goes on and I "get it".  Understanding floods in all at once, as though
        a door has been opened or a curtain lifted.

    (b) When I learn something new, I begin at the beginning and do my best to
        proceed sequentially from task to task.  Understanding dawns slowly and
        methodically until I feel I have mastered the new procedure or concept.

11. (a) If I had a choice, I would be more entertained by a crossword puzzle
        than by a jigsaw puzzle.

    (b) I would enjoy myself more if I were working on a jigsaw puzzle as
        opposed to a crossword puzzle.

12. (a) I frequently have hunches.

    (b) I think things through methodically.

13. (a) I would prefer to read a book over seeing a movie.

    (b) I would choose to see a movie rather than read a book.

14. (a) I often have trouble putting my feelings and opinions into words; it
        is difficult sometimes to say what I really mean.

    (b) I am relatively adept at expressing my feelings and opinions; rarely do 
        I have trouble saying exactly what I mean.

15. (a) When I have to parallel park, I usually get it right the first time.

    (b) I usually have to pull out at least once and try it again when I try to
        parallel park.

16. (a) When I am planning a trip and someone is giving me directions, I prefer
        to have them written out listing the route numbers and street names, the
        left and right turnoffs, and various landmarks in order.

    (b) I prefer to have a map drawn for me, or to be shown the route on a map
        when I am figuring out how to get to where I want to go.

17. (a) When I am faced with a problem situation, my mind tends to skip around
        a lot, free associating, remembering, and imagining a lot of "what-ifs"
        until I suddenly have an "a-ha!".

    (b) I rarely have hunches.

18. (a) I select fabrics with a lot of texture to them like silk, corduroy,
        woolen tweeds, and linens when I choose clothing.

    (b) I choose relatively understated fabrics such as simple cottons and
        wool gabardines.



19. (a) I think mostly about what is appropriate to the environment when I
        choose clothing.

    (b) I choose clothing that expresses my identity and then feel comfortable
        wearing it just about anywhere.

20. (a) I remember faces well.

    (b) I do not remember faces well.  A lot of people look vaguely familiar to
        me but if I have only seen someone once or twice, I will not remember 
        them exactly.

21. (a) I am terrible on names - I recognize faces easily but cannot recall the
        names that go with them.

    (b) I remember people's names well.

22. (a) I believe that there are events which have occurred and phenomena which
        exist in out world which none of the sciences will ever explain.

    (b) I believe that there is a natural law which governs every event or
        phenomenon and that science will therefore eventually be able to explain
        those things which now appear to be mysteries.

23. (a) If I were a graduate student, I would succeed better in a traditional
        MBA program.

    (b) If I were a graduate student, I would succeed better in a MS in Human
        Resources Development program.

24. (a) I prefer to read biographies and histories, books about people who 
        actually existed and events that actually occurred.

    (b) I prefer reading fantasy and science fiction, novels, and short stories.

25. (a) I am, or have been at some point in my life, a better-than-average
        athlete in some sport or activity.

    (b) I have always been less than competent in sports and athletics.


Of the two answers to each question, one is more likely to be chosen by a person
whose left-brain functioning is dominant, and the other by a person whose
right-brain functioning is dominant.  Check your answers against the Inventory
Answer Key and then add up your total number of L and R responses.





BRAIN DOMINANCE INVENTORY: ANSWER KEY


Reading from your answers on the inventory, circle the appropriate letter for 
each item below.

              Item
              ----

                1)          a          b
                2)          b          a
                3)          a          b
                4)          a          b
                5)          b          a
                6)          a          b
                7)          a          b
                8)          b          a
                9)          b          a
               10)          b          a
               11)          a          b
               12)          b          a
               13)          a          b
               14)          b          a
               15)          b          a
               16)          a          b
               17)          b          a
               18)          b          a
               19)          a          b
               20)          b          a
               21)          b          a
               22)          b          a
               23)          a          b
               24)          a          b
               25)          b          a

Total the number of 
circles in each column:   _____      _____
                          Left       Right

If you chose 15 or more L answers, your left hemisphere probably exerts the
dominant force on your personality.  If you chose 15 or more R answers, your
right hemisphere probably dominates.  If you ended up with a relative balance
(that is, if you didn't score more than 14 or fewer than 11 in either category)
you are in a special middle group described as having a balanced brain.



BRAIN DOMINANCE INVENTORY: DESCRIPTIONS

The Left Brain:

        The left cerebral hemisphere's skills are those that (at least since the
Renaissance) have been most favored by Western civilization.  It is analytical,
rational, and practical.  The individual who is dominated by his/her left brain
does not seek mystical union with the cosmos; he/she just wants the facts.
Because the left brain is almost entirely responsible for all human verbal 
skills, people in this category tend to be good conversationalists and writers.
In fact, when a split-brain patient talks, it's his/her left brain alone that's
speaking to you.  Information contained in the right brain can't be expressed in
words since that hemisphere has the approximate linguistic ability of a three or
four-year-old child.

        Most scientists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are 
left-brained.  So are lawyers.  They use the hemisphere's logical ability to
assemble bits of disparate information into a coherent whole.  Because they
combine linguistic and logical abilities so well, persons in this category are
often brilliant and witty.  Under pressure, they can come across as driven, 
nervous, and fanatically single-minded.

        In solving a problem or making a decision, the LB-dominant individual 
will take a linear, analytical approach and will tend to feel frustrated at 
what appears to be extraneous data, or at the more helter-skelter approach
favored by a RB-dominant colleague.  The more logically sequential the process
used to solve the problem, the better the LB-dominant person will like it.

        The thoroughness, precision, and detail-orientation of this approach 
pays off in a well-researched and documented solution.  However, if this type of
approach to problem-solving is used to the exclusion of RB facilities (whether
in oneself or others), then a number of undesirable outcomes can be anticipated:
no viable solutions ("It makes sense, given all the data, but it just ain't 
gonna work!"), no new perspectives on the situation since you're just examining
the available data and not trying to see beyond the boundaries.  Since 
RB-generated information and thinking which is relevant to the situation hasn't
been considered, the effectiveness of the solution will be impaired.

        LB-dominant individuals need to develop and allow expression of their
own RB facilities and should make a point of seeking out the perspectives and 
ideas of their RB-dominant colleagues when attempting to solve a complex 
problem or to make a critical decision.



The Right Brain:

        Individuals dominated by their right brains tend to be intuitive and
emotional.  They take a holistic approach to life: they sense things all at once
and don't like to get bogged down in details.  They perceive the gestalt (a 
unified physical, psychological, or symbolic configuration having properties
that cannot be derived from its parts) of things, instinctively absorbing the
subtle connections and relationships that make up their sphere of consciousness.
There is considerable evidence that creativity is centered in the right brain.
So is spatial perception.  Consequently, most artists are right-brained people.
(Even science, at its most creative level, seems to be a right-brained
phenomenon.  Einstein made a quintessential right-brain statement when he said
that most of his important discoveries came to him as images in pictures, not
words.  Only after he had the inspiration did he go back and let his left brain
work out the linguistic and mathematical description of his discoveries.)

        Right-brained people also have a deep-seated musical sense.  Alenander
Luria of Moscow's Burdenko Institute (he's one of the world's most famous brain
specialists) once treated a patient, a composer whose left hemisphere had been
incapacitated by a stroke.  The man couldn't say a word, but with his unaffected
right brain he went on composing as well as before.  The exception to this rule
is the professional musician.  Rather than creating music, he/she must have
extreme technical competence in order to reproduce it accurately.  Therefore, he
is likely to be left-brained.  For him, music is not inspiration but a line of
notes, a language, to be put in order by his/her left brain.  Right-brained
people are also most easily hypnotized.  As a group, they are more athletic.
They are also people who can remember your face but not your name.  The face,
being an object in space, is remembered by the right brain.  The name, a
linguistic construct, is stored in the left brain and thus is not so easily
retrieved by right-brained people.  

        RB-dominant people usually take an approach to problem analysis or 
decision-making which looks scattered and even harebrained to their LB-dominant
colleagues.  They are capable of looking at a situation from many angles 
simultaneously and their descriptions of what they see can sound illogical to
the more ordered mind.  The RB can evaluate the whole problem at once.  

        RB-dominant people make liberal use of the many RB functions, i.e.,
imagining, picturing, fantasizing, dreaming, analogizing, free associating,
etc. when grappling with an issue that needs to be addressed.  The payoff in 
this approach is that the wealth of information which the RB processes from data
received from observing facial expressions or making connections between
seemingly disparate events is available to the problem solver or decision maker.

        How this information is made available is through what we call a gut
feeling, a hunch, an intuitive kit, a flash of inspiration or a stroke of
genius.  Intuition is a viable and valuable RB function; it is also a faculty 
that can be nurtured and developed in the most extremely LB-dominant person.

        RB-dominant individuals need to be careful about making snap judgments
solely on the basis of their "feel" for a situation.  Solutions arrived at
intuitively ought to be tested against criteria generated at the logical
beginning of a problem analysis or decision-making process.

        These individuals should develop and utilize their LB faculties, and
should see the input and counsel of their LB-dominant colleagues when attempting
to solve a complex problem or to make a critical decision.



The Balanced Brain:

        Between the two extremes already described are people whose 
personalities blend the characteristics of both brain hemispheres.  They are 
nice folks to be around since they are not likely to exhibit either the extreme
single-mindedness of left-brain types or the terminal mellowness of some 
right-brainers.  Depending upon your career, this balanced stance can be either
a help or a hindrance.  Since one brain will never let the other dominate, 
neither brain is likely to achieve the full exercise of its talents.  Yet that
limitation may prove a boon in fields that require the skills of the middleman
or the mediator.  You may not be able to design computers but you may be able
to sell them very well.  Your ability to match names with faces could be the 
basis for a promising political career.

        The BB (Balanced Brain) individual is in a unique position in that 
he/she possesses many of the strengths of both LB and RB faculties, and has the
capacity to grow and develop his/her abilities on either side with a roughly
similar amount of effort.  This individual will usually value and utilize both
the linear/analytic and the "creative" processes in approaching problem
analysis and decision making.

        The challenge for the BB is 1) to know when each approach is appropriate
depending on the stage of problem analysis or decision-making process that one
is in, and 2) to continually develop one's intelligence and ability to function
effectively on both sides of the brain while maintaining the balance.

        BB's should seek input and advice from both their LB-dominant and
RB-dominant colleagues since their more in-depth functioning on one side or the 
other will inform the BB's approach all the way around.  Likewise, the BB can
serve his/her colleagues as a mediator and balancer, especially when the danger
of polarizing becomes extreme.




               C R E A T I V I T Y   I N H I B I T O R S


        *  Low self esteem or self worth

        *  Fear of appearing foolish

        *  Fear of being disliked/rejected by others

        *  Lack of positive feedback or rewards

        *  Left brain dominance in educational system

        *  Left brain dominance in society

        *  Self-imposed constraints

        *  Lack of courage

        *  Personal belief system (attitudes) "Mental Locks"



Left Brain Major Functions                      Right Brain Major Functions

* Analytical thinking                           * Orientation in space

* Logical thinking                              * Artistic thinking

* Verbal functions                              * Crafts

* Mathematical functions                        * Body image

* Linear operation mode                         * Recognition of faces

* Sequential information process                * Diffuse information process

* Language                                      * Integrative operation mode

* Rational thinking                             * Intuition

                                                * Holistic and Relational

                                                * Emotive thinking

.35> Does anybody else feel that to women, underlying emotions and process is
.35> more important than "just the facts, ma'am"?
    
    ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, RESOLUTELY, YES!
    
    I saw this many many many times in "discussions" with my wife.  I have
    seen this many many many times in "discussions" with my daughters.
    
    Now, I wonder if women agree with Levesque's statment, or, if they say
    the same thing about men?
    
    Bubba

    DITTO! No doubt about it? The facts seem to be far less important
    than emotions or intuition.
    
     

    RE: .34
    
    > We men are problem solvers. As .10 said, we deal in facts so we can
    > resolve problems. Our mates (if they happen to be women) are designed
    > to deal with emotions(women's intuition).Women are nurturers by
    > design. They are designed and intended by God to birth babies and
    > be more tuned in to things that us men may not see any hard evidence
    > of.
    
    Generalizations like these cause discrimination against men and women
    both!
    
    Men receive custody of children far, far less often than women do
    because men are NOT regarded as the ones "designed to nurture," for
    example.  This is discrimination based on the stereotype above.
    
    We're all far more affected by our socialization than by any innate
    gender brain differences.  Men can (and do) nurture their children -
    and women can (and do) perform as problem solvers.

    This is pretty cynical, and not very respectful, but...
    
    My brother found arguments with his wife extremely frustrating, because
    of their different approaches to problems. They would identify a
    disagreement. He would muster a half-dozen "facts" and present them,
    leading to the (he felt) unavoidable conclusion that he was right. She
    would respond "I still disagree." WHY? he would shout in frustration.
    "I just do." This drove him up the wall, because he wasn't winning the
    argument, but mostly because she wouldn't PARTICIPATE in the argument,
    in the manner HE participated and preferred.
    
    Then he hit on a solution. He found that he could come to his wife with
    a different set of facts, and ask her opinion then. She might disagree
    again, and he'd have to develop a totally new tact, and then she might
    still disagree. Sometimes, though, she'd consult her internal oracle
    (that's how he perceived it) and answer "OK, you're right, fine." So he
    learned to keep raising the SAME issue DIFFERENTLY, until he got the
    answer he wanted. Her internal process was still a mystery, but he'd
    found a way to work with it.
    
    Besides the sometimes-eventual agreement, my brother got other benefits
    from this process. Thinking up new tacts gave him something to do
    besides be frustrated. Sometimes, while thinking up new angles, he
    reached a different conclusion himself: his WIFE was right, it turned
    out! Finally, (he says) it gave him more insight into his wife. It was
    as though he was "sampling" from his wife's mind, when he tried this
    argument and that one. Eventually (he says) he had more insight into
    the way she thinks, because he'd identified patterns of what worked and
    what failed.
    
    - Hoyt

    re:..40
    As stated in .34 ,we as human being are capable of learning practically
    anything that we set our minds to.Women indeed can be problem solvers 
    and men can be nurturing.With great success on both sides. 
    There are variations in every walk of life and in every species of
    animal. Generally speaking,females interact on a different level(for
    lack of a better descriptive)than do males. This can be witnessed in
    infants. At very early ages,little girls use their natural
    communication and interaction skills at a rate almost twice that of 
    little boys of the same age. We must use generalizations. The entire
    world in set up on generalizations. Generally speaking, women are
    more naturally intuitive than men are.
    
    CZ
    

    re .01:
    
    Quick story...
    
    I have a friend who I met, quite accidently, at work.  We used to go
    for walks and play bball at lunch.  We enjoyed one anothers company. 
    He's married and I'm single.  Everything was going along great until...
    he kissed me.
    
    We were leaving work and letting our cars warm up.  He came over to my
    car- we talked through the window for a while and he leaned forward
    and caught my cheek with a kiss. (I say caught because I realized what 
    he was doing and backed away) He said "I just wanted to give you
    a kiss" to which I said "Well you did."...and we went our separate
    ways.
    
    Even though we had a strong relationship I was completely turned off by
    this gesture.  I realize a kiss is spontaneous and a kiss on the cheek
    is harmless but I was offended.  He had no right to kiss me.  Although
    I'm sure his kiss was a gesture of appreciation (just the facts), he
    overstepped the boundaries of work friends (emotional).  I put distance
    between us and what was once a great relationship diminished to
    nothing.  He wouldn't kiss a male friend...what gave him the right to
    kiss me?
    
    It's easy to see the male/female view differences if you simply scan
    through womannotes and mennotes. IMHO- Womannotes is very
    huggy/supportive(emotional). I find mennotes to be very direct "what
    should I do about this"..."this is what you should do".  Direct
    questioning and answering.  If I needed advice on a current boyfriend
    dilemma I would turn to mennotes, not just to get a male perspective
    but also to get an answer.
    
    I don't feel comfortable in womannotes and feel I'm looking for "just
    the facts ma' am" but when I deal with issues I'm emotional.  I don't
    think it's more important to be emotional (ie. I have no control over
    it.)  I'm in a new relationship where I catch myself saying "Well, how
    would you feel if I did that to you"- his response...uhhhhh, you're
    right, I'd *hate* it.  He just doesn't think about the effects of his
    actions where I do.  Is this tied up in the male/female scenerio?  I
    think so.  < sob, sob, sob...why don't you *know these things?...it's
    so basic to me...if you loved me you would know this...> 
    
    ...it's not fair, but even though I realize this, I can't just let it
    pass... I think it's a war of I want you (male) to be more emotional
    while you want me to be less emotional.
    
    tami
    
    
    

    "He just doesn't think about the effects of his actions where I do."
    
    I don't think that men are incapable of being considerate. If I was so
    daring as to make a generalization, I guess that men are more disposed
    to be less cautious, to blunder ahead and assume that they will be told
    if they're stepping on toes.
    
      Higgins:           "Would you be offended if I never sent you flowers?"
      Colonel Pickering: "No, never!" 
      Higgins:           "Why can't a woman... be like you?!"
    
    Bad example, maybe, but I'm a big fan of My Fair Lady, which is Shaw's
    ode to feminism, by the way, if you ever chance across the original
    play.
    
    If it's any consolation, my brother (the divorced one ref -.X) is in a
    relationship where his girlfriend routinely hurts his feelings and he is
    shocked by her lack of sensitivity. She complains that she's not a mind
    reader. "Tell me what bugs you and I won't do it." He thinks she should
    be anticipating these things, "... if she really loves me." Not even love 
    makes people mind-readers, bro! My point is that this problem happens
    to persons of all genders. In this situation, HE'S the emotional,
    sensitive one.
    
    Maybe it will be helpful if you can chant the mantra "andylovesme" and
    get comfortable with the mild rebuke "I'd prefer that you [whatever]."
    
    - Hoyt (offering a solution, like a typical male, but attempting some
            emotional support as well, androgenous creature that he be)

    RE: .43  Tami
    
    > It's easy to see the male/female view differences if you simply scan
    > through womannotes and mennotes. IMHO- Womannotes is very
    > huggy/supportive(emotional). I find mennotes to be very direct "what
    > should I do about this"..."this is what you should do".  Direct
    > questioning and answering. 
    
    Both conferences have support *and* direct questions/answers.
    
    Mennotes has a LOT of emotional notes (displaying ANGER about the 
    various aspects of life in our society) as does Womannotes.
    
    Womannotes also has many, many topics that are strictly informational
    (including a topic where people can ask questions about VMS, etc.)  
    A very recent topic is about automotive advice (including driving in 
    ice and snow for front vs. rear wheel drive cars.)

    re: .43
    	You are a victim of your cultural environment. Some of my female
    coleagues recognise that it is not Anglo-Saxon to kiss when meeting,
    but others would be quite offended if I forgot. And if you check up on
    the story of Judas Iscariot you would see that it was normal for men to
    kiss male colleagues in that culture.
    
    	If you lost a friendship because of something that you seem to
    suspect was no more than a gesture of friendship then I am sorry for
    both of you.
    
    	Dave (still struggling with deciding whom I have to kiss and whom I
    have not to).

Doctah, if you wrap what you say in emotive verbiage, ie., "I feel () about 
this because..." you can get away with murder.  It doesn't seem to matter 
what you say as long as it involves feelings.  

    re.36
    Half operable...
    
    Speak for yourself my brain is fully functionable.
    
    -j
    

    DITTO: .46
    
    Last on a local news cast there was a story dealing with a college
    football team playing their final game of the year in Tokyo, Japan.
    Prior to their departure from home they were instructed on the DO'S
    and DON'TS of visiting Japan. One DON'Tthat stuck in my mind was
    -Never eat with your left hand because your left hand is considered
    dirty- I feel that humans are all victims of their own culture,what-
    ever that may be.These are the rules that we must live by and is one 
    reason that it is so difficult to get change in society even if 
    intellectually we feel that the change would be good or just ie;ERA
    and South Africa.
    
    CZ

    I will kiss anyone who a) will let me or b)is a member of my family.  I
    lived in France, where human contact (hand shaking and kissing) where
    just part of the norm.  All this Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic "cool" is for
    me (a Southern European) understandable and unncessary.  
    
    I generally avoid kissing anyone while I am at work. Sexual harassment
    nerve endings, now at hyper-sensitive level, persuade me that kissing
    or any contact can and has been mis-construed. Now I won't even touch
    anyone, unless an absolutely good friend.
    
    Perhaps this expression (kissing/touching), which is for me an
    expression of friendship, understanding, warmth, compassion, and human
    to human spiritual/emotional/psychological connection, is just another
    way in which men and women differ in their understanding/interpreting
    of each other.  Granted some men use such contact for "ulterior
    motives", but if women are as intuitive as they are spoken to be, then
    surely they could figure out when a simple cheek kiss or comfort
    embrace is simply no more than that.
    
    As for me, I like the human to human innocent and compassionate contact
    I have seen in other countries/cultures.
    
    Paul

    re .50: Paul
    >> Granted some men use such contact for "ulterior motives", but if
    >>women are as intuitive as they are spoken to be, then surely they could
    >>figure out when a simple cheek kiss or comfort embrace is simiply no
    >>more than that.
    
    Paul, I did recognize the kiss as a simple act of appreciation *but* I
    obviously was effected emotionally by it.  I couldn't separate the two
    (emotions/facts) and still can't.  My point is that you can (?)...can
    all men?  Do you see my response as an overreaction?   I know the facts
    but can't stop feeling.  Maybe this isn't male/female.  How would the
    men feel if a woman (close friend) kissed them?
    
    Maybe it's one of those...if it happened to you deals-where everyone
    handles it differently, we'll have to wait and see...
    
    tami 

    tami,
    	Whether or not the kiss was a "simple act of appreciation" depends
    on the man.  Sounds unlikely to me if he was a moderately typical
    American male.  He may have classified it as such after your reaction
    to save face, even if he executed the kiss as an escalation of
    affection.  Whenever you are in a relationship with another person,
    either you or the other person may want to make the relationship closer.  
    There are direct and indirect ways of trying to get there.  If you
    really are someone's friend, then you will help them learn the limits
    you have for the relationship.  Your friend obviously didn't know (or
    believe) your limits (even if you made them perfectly clear).  He
    tested you, and you blew away the friendship.  So, yes, now that I
    think about it, I think you overreacted.  You might have said to him,
    "Look, if you are willing to settle for a totally non-physical 
    friendly relationship, then fine, but otherwise I'll have to call it
    quits.  This kissing business just doesn't feel right to me."   I don't
    know how he would have reacted, but I think you would have soon found
    out his feelings for you.  As it is, you may never really know.  No
    relationship that is worth anything is free from conflict.
    
    How would I feel if a female close friend kissed me?  Well it depends
    on the person, the circumstances, and the kiss.  In some cases I would
    love it.  In other cases I would hate it.  But if a close female friend
    kissed me who I thought was looking for a closer relationship than I
    wanted, and kissed me in such a way that I thought that was what she
    was getting at, then I would talk to her about it.  I don't dump a
    friend unless I'm pretty certain that there is no hope of saving the
    friendship. 
    						- Vick

    While this topic is titled "Understanding Women", I believe that
    dissecting a man's and a woman's response to a spontaneously given kiss
    may give us a platform to show how differently men and women react to a
    similar situation.
    
    A few years back I was given a kiss on the cheek by a peer colleague
    woman with whom I had worked on a very tough project over a two year
    period.  At first I was embarassed, because 1) I am married and she was
    not, 2)it was given in the office, 3)there were other people watching
    and 4)I did not want anyone to think that there was any hanky-panky
    going on between us since we travelled together, were in meetings
    together, etc.
    
    Now, despite my first emotional response (embarassment), I quickly
    dismissed that response because it was an incorrect response when I
    reviewed the facts surrounding the motivation for the kiss. 
    Rather, I decided to accept the kiss for just what it was, a gesture of
    warmth, tenderness, affection, mutual respect, regard and appreciation.
    Did I mention that it was also a few days before Christmas? Besides the
    woman kissing me was Italian (born in Italy), so I recognized her
    cultural bias for kissing me. While I had an emotional response, the
    facts did not support that response so I dismissed that response and
    enjoyed the kiss for its original and only meaning.
    
    Other spontaneous kissing, hugging, touching from women or men for the
    same reasons, I have handled the same way. No need to get embarassed by
    human beings showing their human warmth one to another.
    
    Did I answer your question?
    
    Paul 

    RE: .53  Paul
    
    > While this topic is titled "Understanding Women", I believe that
    > dissecting a man's and a woman's response to a spontaneously given kiss
    > may give us a platform to show how differently men and women react to a
    > similar situation.
    
    There are 4 or 5 billion men and women on the planet.  I don't think
    we can generalize about billions of men or women based on the responses 
    of one woman and one man (in ONE particular situation each.)

    
    sure you can. they're all pretty predictable.

    RE: .55  Bob Holt
    
    >> There are 4 or 5 billion men and women on the planet.  I don't think
    >> we can generalize about billions of men or women based on the responses 
    >> of one woman and one man (in ONE particular situation each.)
    
    > sure you can. they're all pretty predictable.
    
    "They" (men and women??)
    
    So tell me, Bob, what planet do you hail from (seeing as how you don't
    seem to count yourself as belonging to the human inhabitants of the
    planet Earth)?  :-)

    
    eh?
    
    i'm from this planet here, and can prove it. 
    
    how 'bout you? 
    
    brone III ?
    

    
    Glad to hear it, Bob (that you're from Earth.)
    
    You just worried me for a second when you referred to the entire
    human race without using a "first person" pronoun.
    
    Never mind.
    

 Has anybody made any progress in understanding women in the last year or so?

 I'm not sure I've made much progress, but maybe someone else has.

    Um, well, I think I understand myself a _lot_ better, but I'm still
    clueless regarding all those _other_ women. 
    
    Does that help?  ;-)
    
    -b

    The day I claim an understanding of any woman, let alone all women, is
    the day I expect to be hauled off to the local Ha Ha Hotel.  Cuz I
    surely will have flipped my lid.
    
    Mike

    
    In the immortal words of Christopher Loid, alas Rev. Jim and Dr. Brown
    from 'Back To The Future'. 

    Brown: 'Now that I have concord time travel, I am going to dedicate my life to
    study the worlds oldest mystery.'

    Fox: Whats that?

    Brown: Women!! 

    The moral of the story, time travel is probably an easier task than
    trying to understand women.:)
    
    Peace

    

>    Does that help?  ;-)

 Maybe, Beth. It depends. Do you wanna try to explain yourself? How you see 
things, what things men do that you don't understand, stuff like that? 

re: Mike

 I know, I feel the same way most of the time. But it would seem helpful to
at least understand something about them. And ourselves, too. There's two
sides to this coin. Male-female communication is, of course, a two way
street. At least it should be. After all, women complain that they are
listened to and aren't heard. Well, I'm Ross Perot, I mean, I'm all ears. :-)

re: George

>    The moral of the story, time travel is probably an easier task than
>    trying to understand women.:)

 The more difficult the task, the nobler the endeavor (particularly when
a significant payback could be in the offing.)

> Has anybody made any progress in understanding women in the last year or so?
    
    Yes.  I now understand women.  It's true that they're absolutely alien
    but since they're also all exactly alike, it's actually not that
    difficult after the first one. 
    
    Has anybody made any progress in understanding men, or does their
    rugged individualism get in the way?
    
    Hoo boy,
    Ray

> Has anybody made any progress in understanding women in the last year or so?

	Why would anyone want to?  I hope I never understand men.  They're
	wonderful, complex creatures and I dare say "understanding" them
	would take all the charm out of life.

	Di

	PS Ray - good sense of humor.  Always a pleasure to read your
	   replies.

    .-1

>I hope I never understand men.  They're wonderful, complex creatures .
    
    iam a wonderful and a complex creature ?!

    thanks!

    no one ever said that of me. it sound kind'a nice to hear.

    i always thought i was kind'a special too.
    
    /nasser

    re .66, well, I think she was speaking of men in general.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.59
    
    Depends on the type of woman.
    
    Sone defy reasoning and explanation, others make sense.
    
    I think I understand the latter type pretty well.

    
    Z, I think it is hooplas to try to understand what a woman want, it
    is much better to work with them in a spirit of compromise and
    consensus building team-work related approaches that will lead
    to mutual inter-working-relationships based on pre-agreed upon
    set of rules without going deeper into the realms of things to
    figure the foundations of these rules, and you'll be much happier if 
    you set up yourself in a react-type-mode, instead of a forecast-type-mode.

    this from someone who have plenty of experiences of these issues based
    on long-time monitoring of behaviors around frozen-sections and
    laundry rooms situations, so I know what Iam talking about.

    hope this helps.

    good luck.

    /nasser
     

    Re: 69
      
     "...long-time monitoring of behaviors around frozen-sections and
      laundry rooms situations..."
                                                                  
    I know what you are saying, Nasser, but I can't help some really
    strange images from coming to mind!  :^) 
                                   
    Mike
    

    
    aw, c'mon.
    as soon as you understand us, we'll only go and change the rules,
    right?
    
    light-spiritedly,
    
    -Jody
    

    
    knee deep in the hooplas, nasser.

	>>Why would anyone want to?  I hope I never understand men.  They're
	>>wonderful, complex creatures and I dare say "understanding" them
	>>would take all the charm out of life.

	This could apparently be construed as patronizing.  It was 
	certainly not intended to be.  Just thought I'd clear that up, 
	FWIW (which ain't much, I'm sure).

	Di

>got to be soooooo careful

 Yep. That's a fact. There's an element of mistrust between the sexes that
took countless millenia to construct. Being careful may hinder expression
in some ways, but it can enable more effective communication.

>>            <<< Note 690.74 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Never Satisfied" >>>
>>                   -< I feel this way about the other file >-

>>>   >got to be soooooo careful

>> Yep. That's a fact. There's an element of mistrust between the sexes that
>>took countless millenia to construct. Being careful may hinder expression
>>in some ways, but it can enable more effective communication.

	I didn't mean in this file, in particular.  It's hard to compliment
	anyone these days, or to express any kind of romantic notion without
	getting some grief about it.  C'est la guerre, I guess.

	Diane