Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Men and Women

Read my previous post before reading this post.

For the purpose of further discussion the word men means male tendencies and the word women means female tendencies in this post since there are no attributes that are solely male or female.

Women tend to form relationships in order to have someone to talk to and do things with. Women will also talk to other women and do things with other women in order to from relationships. It’s all perfectly logical. So what is different about men?

Men don’t form relationships in order to "talk" or "do" and men don’t "talk" or "do" in order to form relationships. For men, the doing and the talking and the relationship are inseparably integrated. It’s not that men don’t want or need companionship. Men want friends to golf with, and fish with, and drink beer with. For men, the relationship, the golf, the fishing, and the beer are all one in the same.

Women derive joy from knowing about the happenings of their friends, their friend’s families, and the friends of their friends. Even when women friends share tears over a sad event in one of their lives, they are still receiving a certain satisfaction from having someone to empathize with. The relationship for women is the knowing, and caring, and empathizing, with friends. The “doing things” for women is the sideshow, not the relationship.

The “doing things” for men is the relationship, not the sideshow. Men will talk about golf, or beer, or fishing, but the talking is no substitute for the golf, the fishing, and the beer. Men will also talk about the happenings of their friends and occasionally even empathize with their friends, but men don’t get any satisfaction from crying with their friends, and rarely will a man care about the friend of a friend.

It’s easy for women to say men should be more like women. If men could make a decision to be more like women, I’m sure many men would. In some ways, the way women relate is much more Christ-like than the way men relate. However, men can’t just flip a switch and be more relational without the "doing" part. A good man will make the effort to compensate for the weaknesses of his nature, but no man can change his nature completely.

OK, in the next post I will get to the Church. [Hopefully]


Nathan said...

wow, good post. deep. My head hurts.


David M. Smith said...

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for stopping by.

Take two aspirin and stop back by again.

Jennifer said...

You, my friend, are full of crap. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

David M. Smith said...

Hi Jennifer,

It’s not obvious to me what you think is crap. I tried my best to tell it like it is. Again, I apologize for my clumsiness. It would help me to know where you think I am wrong.

Teresa said...

That is a no-brainer. All know that women and men are different and God made us that way. The differences are a good thing. Making man like woman would just be stupid and defeat the purpose of woman in the 1st place. David, I just don't get where you are going. Please get to the church because I don't understand how this fits in.

Hammertime said...

I also await the church / finances portion. I am sure we'll appreciate the depth of groundwork you are laying, but the suspense is brutal!

David M. Smith said...

Hi Teresa,

Do you agree with my analysis? I am not just saying men and women are different. When it comes to relating, some men are more like most women and some women are more like most men. I just think it is more accurate to say most men or most women than to say some people. How people relate makes a big difference in the way we use the term “relationship” and an even bigger difference in the way we do Church.

I’m a little confused that Jennifer thinks it is crap and you think it is a no-brainer.

Hi Hammer,

My Church ownership series is separate from my relationship series. I just wanted to point out that Home Churches are a good example of Church ownership. I still have more to say about Church capitalism. I’ll get back to it when the relationship series dies down.