Thursday, May 21, 2015

The Unbearable Lightness of Mattress Feminism? mattress feminism: a squishy, no-backbone ideology that eschews female agency, rejects critical thinking, and encourages women to be helpless doormat.


For thousands of years, divergent religious traditions have celebrated and venerated one unifying act: meditation. Twenty years before Christ, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, recommended various meditative spiritual exercises. Meditation fills the history and writings surrounding the Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Sufi traditions. Early Christians, contrary to any modern image to the contrary, were enthusiastic practitioners of various metaphysical arts—and many, as Tony Jones notes in his book, “The Sacred Way,” still are.
Meditation’s appeal is simple yet profound: By clearing the mind of all distractions, petty thoughts, daily worries, and focusing relentlessly on the now, we can reach higher truths, deeper insight, and even elevated forms of consciousness.
It’s hard to think clearly, however, when you’re one of of today’s third-wave feminists, particularly when you’ve been lugging a 50-pound mattress around your college campus for the past eight months as a public “performance art” project/protest accusing your former friend of rape. This, alas, is the burden of Emma Sulkowicz, the infamous Columbia University “Mattress Girl,” who graduated on Tuesday from the Ivy League school with her signature box spring in tow. Several friends joined her on stage, preening—one even offered up an awkward facsimile of a Queen Elizabeth wave—as the not-so-humble, symbolic mattress was greeted with enthusiastic applause.
Sulkowicz’s claims, to put it kindly, are dubious. After an allegedly brutal attack, she refused to press criminal charges, saying it would be “too draining”—strange, given that she had the raw and obsessive energy to cart a mattress around all day for two semesters—and sent intimate and cutesy texts to Paul Nungesser, the young man she accused, in the months following the alleged assault. Mr. Nungesser, meanwhile, has been cleared multiple times by the university, and has filed a lawsuit against Columbia for enabling a targeted harassment campaign.
Oh, well. Details, details! “Mattress Girl” has gained media accolades, applause from high-profile politicians, and even an invite to the State of the Union. MTV lauded the mattress’s graduation appearance as a “touching act of symbolism” worthy of a “slow clap.” L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, Columbia’s commencement speaker, gave the mattress a triumphant shout-out in his address. Sulkowicz’s mattress, Slate’s Amanda Marcotte wrote, ended its run “as a piece celebrating women’s strength.”
Speaking of mattresses, when I read that last line, I frantically searched for one myself, hoping I safely could throw my computer upon it in exasperation while pretending I was throwing it off the roof of, say, the Empire State Building. Sulkowicz’s mattress project was an act of symbolism, to be sure, but it certainly didn’t celebrate women’s strength. Rather, it serves as a striking illustration of the logic-free, wild-eyed, finger-pointing, all-bitterness mess that modern feminism has become.
Friends, let us consider the mattress. Let us meditate upon it, not in its earth-bound, atom-based, material form, but as a symbol or Platonic form. The mattress is squishy. It lacks any backbone or sense of agency. It is easily manipulated. It is not a critical thinker; in fact, it does not think at all. You can probably see where I’m going here, so I’ll move on.
Let us now contemplate modern feminism, a movement that drives university professors to offer agonized trigger warnings for poems like Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock,” which is not about rape, but about a young rapscallion who cuts off a piece of a lady’s hair. More importantly, let us look at the latest feminist shock study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, which claims, among other things, that a jaw-dropping 37 percent of American women will be victims of rape or attempted rape by the end of their freshman year in college.
Let’s pretend, as a thought experiment, that these shocking numbers are accurate and representative of reality. (They are almost certainly not, thanks to flaws in the study—including some seriously cloudy numbers surrounding alcohol use—but work with me here.) If these mind-boggling numbers are real, after all, American women live in a savage, dangerous wasteland rivaling some of the worst war-torn environments in history, and maybe even the one in “Game of Thrones.”
With this in mind, if you really care about women, shouldn’t your first priority be locking this army of perpetrators—male monsters, apparently still on the loose, ready to assault other women—in the clink? Shouldn’t item one on the feminist agenda involve encouraging women to officially report sex crimes, seek some real justice, and stop the alleged madness?
Alas, in the world of today’s feminism, hand wringing is 80 percent of the fun. As the “37 percent” report was released this week, it was, rather predictably, greeted by a chorus of feminist horror, self-pity, sanctimony, and utterly impractical, quasi-therapeutic advice—not to mention repeated proclamations that drinking until incapacitation is a treasured modern women’s right, up there with suffrage and dodging questions about mysteriously deleted emails and your shady family foundation during various political runs. To suggest otherwise, you see, is “victim blaming.”
Strange, isn’t it? It’s almost like feminists (a) don’t care about women; (b) don’t really expect anything of women; or (c) deep down, know that the truth about the sexual assault “epidemic” is far cloudier than they acknowledge. The result, sadly, is mattress feminism: a squishy, no-backbone ideology that eschews female agency, rejects critical thinking, and encourages women to be helpless doormats—or downright delusional—when it comes to the topic of sexual assault.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Liberal Being Call Out Again For More Lying To This Nation, For the first time, a majority of Americans say that homosexuals are "born that way."Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic. Meaning Liberal are liar


Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.
Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.
For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.
The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.
“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”
A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.
“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.
Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.
Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”
Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.
The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”
“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Harry Reid Admits the Democrat Party has No Good Presidential Contenders



The corrupt and decrepit leader of the Democrat Party in the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV), is on his last legs in politics (hold down the cheering folks), and that’s a good thing for America. But until he finally does walk away from Washington for good, we’ll have to deal with his interviews with the media where he does his level best to spin the prevailing story into good news for the Democrats. For example, back in 2008, he tired to argue that having a viciously contentious primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was a good and healthy thing for the Democrat Party. Now he’s trying to argue that having a primary where Hillary Clinton faces no real competition is also a good thing.
Now, it’s not like we expect Harry Reid to be honest. We’ve been watching him long enough to know that lying comes easier to him than breathing… but we at least hope for some creativity in his lies.
The truth about the 2016 election for the Democrat Party is that they are dying. They are older than Republicans, and they have no real fresh blood on the horizon. While Republicans have a wealth of young, fresh talent at every level and in almost every state – the Democrats are being forced to bring back retreads and has-beens in races across the country, all in an effort to just be competitive.
From the Cook Political Report notice who the Democrats are hanging their Senate hopes on in 2016.
Today, The Cook Political Report puts two Republican-held seats in the “Toss Up” category—the open seat in Florida and Kirk in Illinois. That toss-up column will certainly grow as the recruiting season progresses. If Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan challenges Ayotte in New Hampshire,former Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan runs against Republican Sen. Richard Burr in North Carolina, and former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold stages a rematch with Johnson in Wisconsin, all of those races would become toss-ups. Democrats are trying to recruit a stronger candidate in Pennsylvania to challenge Toomey. If they succeed, Toomey would also land in the toss-up column. Ohio, where Republican Sen. Rob Portman is seeking a second term, has the potential to end up in the toss-up column as well. 

 So, Harry, the truth is far more pessimistic than you let on…

Jose Diaz-Balart: Let’s talk a little bit about 2016 a little bit more. You told my colleague Chuck Todd in 2008 — sorry, the 2008 primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was, “an extremely healthy process,” you even called it wonderful. Is there concern that this time around there won’t be that vigorous debate between Democrats?
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Think how wonderful that primary was. Two all-stars, two people that will be in the political hall of fame no matter what happens in the future and they were involved in a primary. That was helpful. Now, right now we have Hillary Clinton and that’s it. She’s not him. There’s not another Barack Obama out there. There are no all-stars out there. She has a clear field, and I’m glad she does.
http://freedomforce.com/3621/harry-reid-admits-the-democrat-party-has-no-good-presidential-contenders/

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Girl Scouts of America Are Confused About Gender , This means girls in the organization will be forced to recognize and accept Confuted Gender Boys



Wasn’t it only yesterday when we generally knew where all the boys were? Standing like shy colts against one end of the school gymnasium, pretending to be oblivious to all the girls hoping not to be wallflowers waiting to be asked to dance, at the other.
It was the boys diving off rocks into the creek at the edge of town each summer, and the girls twittering like birds at pajama parties while their parents admonished them: “Go to sleep!”

A new Girl Scouts of America (GSA) policy states it will extend membership to boys who identify as girls. (American Family Association, May 14, 2015)

This means girls in the organization will be forced to recognize and accept transgenderism as a normal lifestyle. Boys in skirts, boys in make-up and boys in tents will become a part of the program. This change will put young innocent girls at risk.

The group says on its website, “If the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.”

“Adults are willing to experiment on our kids - both the boys who are confused and the girls who will wonder why a boy in a dress is in the bathroom with them.

“The Girl Scouts of America has lost its moral compass and needs your encouragement to rescind this new policy. Since 2003, bad policies like this have resulted in GSA’s enrollment dropping by over one million girls, almost 27% of its membership.”
GSA seems to be losing sight of the fact that it is membership and not pandering to the politically correct that keeps them going.

Meantime, if boys want to don skirts and make-up while transforming over to girlhood, they should do it in their own tents.

Rooms filled with white people cause ‘microaggressions’ for minorities: study



report by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign into the topic of “microaggressions” found that the simple task of “walking into or sitting in” a room full of white people can be problematic for minorities.
Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color, or one of a few,” said the report, titled “Racial Microaggressions @ University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,” National Review reported Wednesday.
“People do not necessarily say I do not belong, but I feel as if I do not when I am in a classroom and I am the one non-White person,” said one student in the college’s report, National Review reported.


Many colleges turn to Dr. Derald Wing Sue of Columbia University for a definition for the term “microaggression.” He has described such offenses as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership.”
The Princeton Microaggressions Facebook page relied on Dr. Sue’s definition for its purposes in December 2014, but added: “The perspective and lived experiences of each individual contextualizes the world around them and thus places a particular meaning in words based on their distinct subjectivity. What counts as harmless banter to some may be emotionally triggering to others.”
The University of Illinois report suggests that one way to ameliorate microaggressions on campus may include “General Education requirement about race, White privilege, and inequality in the United States,” National Review reported.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/13/rooms-filled-white-people-can-be-microaggressions-/#ixzz3a8Us46ax 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Monday, May 11, 2015

A Liberal Studied Conservative Brains And Made A Discovery He Never Expected



Generally articles about conservatism vs liberalism basically say that one rules and one drools, depending on who the author voted for in 2012.  In this case, it was written by someone at Salon.com, who admitted that this is a problem for the left. We give credit where it’s due here.
He’s also selling a book called “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality,” because his publisher rejected the original titles, “Arbitrary Liberal Buzzwords that Don’t Really Mean Anything.”

Some choice nuggets…
47 percent of conservative Republicans said they were “very happy,” compared with just 28 percent of liberal Democrats…this result could not simply be attributed to the seemingly obvious cause: differences in income levels between the left and the right. Rather, for every income group in the study, conservative Republicans were happier than Democrats.
One striking finding is that conservatives tend to be less neurotic — or, more emotionally stable — than liberals. It is part of the inherent definition of neuroticism that one is less happy — more fretful, more depressed.
That means they probably make more friends and feel more comfortable in groups and communities. They’re more sociable. Once again, this probably helps confer a subjective sense of greater happiness.
To the author’s credit, he didn’t try to make excuses for this.  It was more of just sounding the alarm for his leftist followers to stop being so miserable all the time.
Conservatism vs Liberalism: conservatives can haz cupcakes… and liberals can’t enjoy cupcakes when there’s so much alleged income “inequality.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-studied-conservative-brains-and-made-a-discovery-he-never-expected/?utm_campaign=54ebe14371e7fc692400399a&utm_source=BoomTrain&utm_medium=email&utm_content=recommended&bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJiN2JjNGIyMC0xMTIzLTRmZTYtOWJkNi0xNDA5MzYwMWE1NjIifQ%3D%3D

Proof That The Left Is Pushing A Hoax With Confuse Gender Men, Understanding The Difference Between Men And Women









[ This paper is collection of research conclusions and observations which I have witnessed over the past 5 year that I have attempted to put into a written form that might be helpful, but more importantly stimulate discussions. The real purposes is to increase the awareness between men and women, and to help them set aside issues that are not personal but are merely manifestations of nature. To my way of thinking, it is important to honor and rejoice in both our nature and our individuality.]
For centuries, the differences between men and women were socially defined and distorted through a lens of sexism in which men assumed superiority over women and maintained it through domination. As the goal of equality between men and women now grows closer we are also losing our awareness of important differences. In some circles of society, politically correct thinking is obliterating important discussion as well as our awareness of the similarities and differences between men and women. The vision of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for discovery of what truly exists within a man and within a woman. The world is less interesting when everything is same.

It is my position that men and women are equal but different. When I say equal, I mean that men and women have a right to equal opportunity and protection under the law. The fact that people in this country are assured these rights does not negate my observation that men and women are at least as different psychologically as they are physically.

None of us would argue the fact that men and women are physically different. The physical differences are rather obvious and most of these can be seen and easily measured. Weight, shape, size and anatomy are not political opinions but rather tangible and easily measured. The physical differences between men and women provide functional advantages and have survival value. Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s. The stereotype that men are more "thick-headed" than women is not far fetched. A man’s "thick headedness", and other anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless behavior that usually involve collisions with other males or  automobiles. Men invented the game "chicken", not women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to charge and crash into each other a great deal in their spare time.

Women on the other hand have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. This latter finding provides physical evidence that supports the observation that men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has observed how young girls find the conversations of young boys "boring". Young boys express confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a conversation between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at once!

The psychological differences between man and women are less obvious. They can be difficult to describe. Yet these differences can profoundly influence how we form and maintain relationships that can  range from work and friendships to marriage and parenting.
Recognizing, understanding, discussing as well as acting skillfully in light of the differences between men and women can be difficult. Our failure to recognize and appreciate these differences can become a life long source of disappointment, frustration, tension and eventually our downfall in a relationship. Not only can these differences destroy a promising relationship, but most people will grudgingly accept or learn to live with the consequences. Eventually they find some compromise or way to cope. Few people ever work past these difficulties. People tend to accept what they don’t understand when they feel powerless to change it.

Relationships between men and women are not impossible or necessarily difficult. Problems simply arise when we expect or assume the opposite sex should think, feel or act the way we do. It’s not that men and women live in completely different realities. Rather, our lack of knowledge and mutual experience gives rise to our difficulties.

Despite great strides in this country toward equality, modern society hasn’t made relationships between men and women any easier. Today’s society has taught us and has imposed on us the expectation that men and women should live together continuously, in communion, and in harmony. These expectations are not only unrealistic but ultimately they leave people feeling unloved, inadequate, cynical, apathetic or ashamed.

The challenge facing men and women is to become aware of their identities, to accept their differences, and to live their lives fully and as skillfully as possible. To do this we must first understand in what ways we are different. We must avoid trying to change others to suit our needs. The following illustrates some important differences between men and women. These differences are not absolute. They describe how men and women are in most situations most of the time.

Problems
Men and women approach problems with similar goals but with different considerations. While men and women can solve problems equally well, their approach and their process are often quit different. For most women, sharing and discussing a problem presents an opportunity to explore, deepen or strengthen the relationship with the person they are talking with. Woman are usually more concerned about how problems are solved than merely solving the problem itself. For women, solving a problem can profoundly impact whether they feel closer and less alone or whether they feel distant and less connected. The process of solving a problem can strengthen or weaken a relationship. Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem.

Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. For most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to demonstrate their competence, their strength of resolve, and their commitment to a relationship. How the problem is solved is not nearly as important as solving it effectively and in the best possible manner. Men have a tendency to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process. They set aside their feelings provided the dominance hierarchy was agreed upon in advance and respected. They are often distracted and do not attend well to the quality of the relationship while solving problems.
Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they attempt to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ "collective intelligence" to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command.

Thinking
While men and women can reach similar conclusions and make similar decisions, the process they use can be quit different and in some cases can lead to entirely different outcomes. In general, men and women consider and process information differently.
Women tend to be intuitive global thinkers. They consider multiple sources of information within a process that can be described as simultaneous, global in perspective and will view elements in the task in terms of their interconnectedness. Women come to understand and consider problems all at once. They take a broad or "collective" perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent. Women are prone to become overwhelmed with complexities that "exist", or may exist, and may have difficulty separating their personal experience from problems.

Men tend to focus on one problem at a time or a limited number of problems at a time. They have an enhanced ability to separate themselves from problems and minimize the complexity that may exist. Men come to understand and consider problems one piece at a time. They take a linear or sequential perspective, and view elements in a task as less interconnected and more independent. Men are prone to minimize and fail to appreciate subtleties that can be crucial to successful solutions. A male may work through a problem repeatedly, talking about the same thing over and over, rather than trying to address the the problem all at once. 

While there are differences in the ways that men and women think, it must be emphasized that they can and do solve problems in a similar manner. There are no absolutes, only tendencies.

Memory
Women have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong emotional components. They can also recall events or experiences that have similar emotions in common. Women are very adept at recalling information, events or experiences in which there is a common emotional theme. Men tend to recall events using strategies that rely on reconstructing the experience in terms of elements, tasks or activities that took place. Profound experiences that are associated with competition or physical activities are more easily recalled. There appears to be a structural and chemical basis for observed memory differences. For instance, the hippocampus, the area in the brain primarily responsible for memory, reacts differently to testosterone in men and it reacts differently to changing levels of estrogen and progesterone in women. Women tend to remember or be reminded of different "emotional memories" and content to some extent as part of their menstrual cycle.

Sensitivity
There is evidence to suggest that a great deal of the sensitivity that exists within men and women has a physiological basis. It has been observed that is many cases, women have an enhanced physical alarm response to danger or threat. Their autonomic and sympathetic systems have a lower threshold of arousal and greater reactivity than men. In both men and women, higher levels of testosterone directly affect the aggressive response and behavior centers of the brain. Increasing estrogen and progesterone in men has a "feminizing" effect. Sexually aggressive males become less focused on sexual aggressive behavior and content when they are given female hormones. On the other hand, changing estrogen and progesterone levels in women during menstrual cycles can produce a "flood" of memories as well as strong emotions. Increasing or high levels of testosterone can produce an emotional insensitivity, empathic block and increased indifference to the distress others.
At the heart of sensitivity is our capacity to form, appreciate and maintain relationships that are rewarding. Even here there are important differences. For men, what demonstrates a solid relationship is quitedifferent from that of most women. Men feel closer and validated through shared activities. Such activities include sports, competition, outdoor activities or sexual activities that are decidedly active and physical. While both men and women can appreciate and engage in these activities they often have preferential differences. Women, on the other hand, feel closer and validated through communication, dialogue and intimate sharing of experience, emotional content and personal perspectives. Many men tend to find such sharing and involvement uncomfortable, if not, overwhelming.

The Task Of Relationship Facing Men and Women
The task that faces men and women is to learn to accept their differences, avoid taking their differences as personal attempts to frustrate each other, and to compromise whenever possible. The idea that one gender can think and feel like the other if they truly loved each is rather absurd. Sure, a man or women could act in consideration of the other’s needs, but this would not necessarily be rewarding and honest. Holding the benefit of another above our own is rewarding. But from time to time, and more often for most of us, it is important to be our self and to be accepted, and not to be the source of distress and disappointment in the lives of people we love.

The Role Of Counseling and Therapy
Counseling and therapy can help a couple understand and appreciate each other, and even benefit from their differences. Understanding these differences intellectually is not enough.  A counselor or therapist can help point out these differences, as they surface, and guide a couple to a greater level of relationship. Understanding that differences are not intentional and that misunderstandings are merely the result of expectations that are not realistic can make a huge difference in a relationship. The differences that can be sensed between a man and women can deepen their relationship. More importantly, when men seek to understand and appreciate that which is feminine, they come to a deeper understanding of their self. And when a women seeks to understand that which is masculine in men, they come to appreciate and understand more about their own masculinity.