Women testing men ...

[Jamie]

Okay, this woman has been mailing me, she's one I was really interested in some time back, anyway ...

Do women intentionally test (subtle challenge) men?

She's created a situation, where she's opposed to me on an issue, in conversation (she's saying soldiers are there to save lives; I'm saying they're not following their own sense of what's right, but just doing what they're told, to meet the political agenda of their bosses).

She's pretty emotional about it, her brother is in Afganistan, so is her ex-BF.

I've tried to explain my view, clearly, but she thinks I'm missing the point (I don't think I am).

I'm wondering if she's more trouble than she's worth already.. I can see various responses.

1. I cave in, and agree with her, just to be nice.
(no way am I going to do this).

2. I argue with her about it, some more.
(seems like a losing stratagey too).

3. I ignore her for a few days.
(best I can come up with, will leave her wondering what's happening with me, and also give her time to cool down, give me time to cool down too).



Anyhow, aside from this one situation, I'm getting the feeling that girls create confrontational tests / situations all the time, and it's to test the guys response, so she can guage his character / nature.

Is that so, girls? Are you playing us?

[jaamkie]

awww cmon there must be 4. agree to respectfully disagree

I don't know if we intentionally set up situations like this, but I do know it irritates the hell out of me if a guy agrees with me about everything- makes for boring conversation! In this particular case though, I bet it's just an emotional topic for her because of her relatives, so when you disagree she probably has a hard time letting it go- even if we were to "set up" a "test" we wouldn't do it on a topic with so many other emotions involved. Hasn't a girl ever hit a sore spot with you where you have irrationally strong feelings about a particular topic and a hard time dropping them???

[Jamie]

I thought about saying something like, "look, I just don't think we're going to agree on this, and I can see it's a very emotive topic for you, so can we agree to disagree and just drop it?".

But then even that, kinda focusses more energy on the topic.

[MrNotebook]

Yes, that is correct, women do test men.

I have heard before that it is best to not get into discussions about religion and/or politics with someone we're getting to know. Its best to keep the conversation light.

[jaamkie]

yea I could imagine how that could come off a bit condescending if everything is already all emotional; could you just talk about other things and not bring it up? and if she brings it up deflect the topic with short nonthreatening answers and change of topic; if she continues, ask if she really wants to discuss it when you obviously disagree (and if she still does want to discuss maybe she sort of wants to hear your disagreements, if she wants to discuss then you can't be blamed for continuing to argue)

[jaamkie]

Originally Posted by MrNotebook

Yes, that is correct, women do test men.

I have heard before that it is best to not get into discussions about religion and/or politics with someone we're getting to know. Its best to keep the conversation light.

ohhhh I totally disagree with that- maybe I wouldn't say I have "tests" but I know I think a lot about religion and politics and etc.... so I want someone I can discuss them with- I give it a month or so, and if we can't have long great discussions on topics important to me, then usually I start to lose interest and find those discussions elsewhere.

[MrNotebook]

Originally Posted by jaamkie

ohhhh I totally disagree with that- maybe I wouldn't say I have "tests" but I know I think a lot about religion and politics and etc.... so I want someone I can discuss them with- I give it a month or so, and if we can't have long great discussions on topics important to me, then usually I start to lose interest and find those discussions elsewhere.

Why should it be SO important to get into debates with someone concerning their political stance when it should really be about getting to know more about their personality/interests? If I like someone, I'm ok without needing to know where they stand in terms of political/military matters until I get to know them more in depth as a person. There are other things that can be discussed that challenge debate, only on a lighter note. If I'm getting to know a women and she can't seem to be ok with me not wanting to delve deep into conversation about politics/religion, than maybe she is not the one for me. I want someone that is more willing to fight for a level of peace between us rather than looking for irrelevant things to disagree on. Why would any man want to get involved with a woman always itching to debate about something? I think harmony and balance is key when starting out. What does someone's opinion on the military have to do with the relationship at large?

[jaamkie]

Originally Posted by MrNotebook

Why should it be SO important to get into debates with someone concerning their political stance when it should really be about getting to know more about their personality/interests? If I like someone, I'm ok without needing to know where they stand in terms of political/military matters until I get to know them more in depth as a person. There are other things that can be discussed that challenge debate, only on a lighter note. If I'm getting to know a women and she can't seem to be ok with me not wanting to delve deep into conversation about politics/religion, than maybe she is not the one for me. I want someone that is more willing to fight for a level of peace between us rather than looking for irrelevant things to disagree on. What does someone's opinion on the military have to do with the relationship at large?

ok but for me politics/religion is a large part of my personality/interests- I read a lot about them, want to discuss what I've been reading... and it is important that I date someone who can discuss those topics without it turning into a heated argument. To make a particular effort to avoid politics and religion (and they very much come together about the military when one is starting to become Quaker....) would be like hiding my veganism or something- it is a big part of who I am, to hide it would only create an unwelcome "wait I didn't fall in love with this" moment later.

If you just are politically disinterested, then sure the topic might not come up much, that's cool, but then the "advice" is unnecessary; while if politics is important, like for me, to avoid politics would be evasive "so what are you doing tomorrow?" "uhhhhhhh" (going to my weekly peace vigil at the Capitol)

[jaamkie]

thinking about it, maybe what men perceive as "tests" women see as trying to flush out major incompatibilities before we get too emotionally involved- it's meant for the good of both people, and guys should just be themselves, act naturally, and stop trying to cheat on the tests- if it is meant to work out, you'll pass them all effortlessly, if it is not meant to work out, then the sooner we come to that conclusion, the better for both people involved. I remember having this debate with men I've dated, asking why he put so much effort into impressing/convincing me to date him when really he should be trying to ascertain if HE really wants to date ME...

even my "perfect" guy once asked me "wait so did I pass the test?" after I'd asked something that guys have been taught is a typical "test"- I was totally suprised that he thought it was a "test" and laughed at him- I'd just been making conversation...

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Is that so, girls? Are you playing us?

Well, I'm not. I am sure there are girls who intentionally do certain things to guage whether a guy is right for them, but I don't think even then it's usually a conscious "test" although with some I would wager it is. It's really all down to the individual.

In this particular case, though, it seems like you two have hit on a topic that is very important to her. I am anti-war, but if my brother were serving in Afghanistan you can be sure I'd have strong feelings on the matter. I doubt I would be able to look at it in a disconnected way.

If you still want to persue this woman, I'd 1) look at jaamkie's last post and realize that women aren't out to trick or test you all the time and 2) try to discuss it with her along the lines of "this is a topic I can see you feel strongly about, we can agree to disagree or we can talk about it further, what do you think?"

[Perfect Sunday]

I don't get it.

So what?

She thinks something, you think another thing.

What the hell is the problem?

And yes, studies have shown that women in the age group of 0.01 years old up to 107 test men... but just the 94.32% that are not in a relationship.... the study said that for women that were in a relationship, it was more like 98.60%... of course, 74.2% of all internet statistics are made up.

[Alison Jenkins]

Yes women do test men but remember it works the other way too, men test women. I work with many clients who play games or their partner plays games. Sometimes you will hear this referred to as the dance of life.

Alison

[Angela]

Jamie, you are so missing the point. Good heavens, Jamie.

This woman loves two people who are at war. She is frightened and worried. Their lives are in danger. She probably lies in bed at night sometimes with a knot in her stomach, wondering if they'll come home alive.

She's not testing you, she's surviving something really difficult.

She doesn't need you to explain your view to her, Jamie. Jeesh.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Angela

Jamie, you are so missing the point. Good heavens, Jamie.

This woman loves two people who are at war. She is frightened and worried. Their lives are in danger. She probably lies in bed at night sometimes with a knot in her stomach, wondering if they'll come home alive.

She's not testing you, she's surviving something really difficult.

She doesn't need you to explain your view to her, Jamie. Jeesh.

I know all that Angela; and she did say she lies awake in bed at night some nights. However, I think you misunderstand the situation and don't know the context or time-scale of this interaction. Let me explain...

In this order.

1. I posted on a thread, in a public forum, my views about soldiers and war, and greedy governments etc, who don't always represent the best interests of the population.

2. I get an angry message from her account (but later found it was typed by her cousin, who has access) ... her loved ones are at war, they're good people, end of friendship etc.

3. I try to explain myself, and say that I'm not saying that soldiers are bad people etc, but that I believe it's better if people can follow their own hearts and conscience.

So it's not that I knew she had this personal involvement, and then proceeded to start a discussion with her on the topic.

[Jamie]

And I don't understand how soldiers can go to war, to keep the peace.

[Angela]

I get it alright, Jamie. In this particular relationship, you are more interested in being right than you are in nurturing the friendship, in which she's hurting and she's scared. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that; but it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with her testing you; it's all about you choosing your priorities.

[Jamie]

How well you know me Angela (not).

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Jamie

And I don't understand how soldiers can go to war, to keep the peace.

It may not make sense to you, but a lot of people feel that they are doing just that. I've got a military history in my family and several friends who've served. Some of them were/are against war in general, but they feel that if a war is on they will fight to protect their country and its ideals.

It's not really something you have to understand or agree with. But it does help if you can respect that some people really feel called to do this work as a necessary evil. Still others find it heroic and patriotic.

And I, as a person who hates war, was scared to death when my dad almost had to go as well as when my friends did go and one returned without limbs or came back intact only to kill himself over what he saw.

[Jamie]

But if no soldiers ever signed up, there'd never be any wars, wouldn't there?

It's the universal soldier syndrome; wars only happen because men are willing to put aside their own sense of truth and rightness, of feeling their own hearts (inner guidance), and instead, to just follow orders.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Jamie

wars only happen because men are willing to put aside their own sense of truth and rightness, of feeling their own hearts, and instead, to just follow orders.

Some men's sense of truth and rightness includes war, which is the fact I think you are failing to see. Some people do believe that there can be just and necessary war. That is what they feel in their heart of hearts.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Angela

I get it alright, Jamie. In this particular relationship, you are more interested in being right than you are in nurturing the friendship, in which she's hurting and she's scared. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that; but it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with her testing you; it's all about you choosing your priorities.

Er, how was that, put your values first and your relationships second or something?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Playlife

Er, how was that, put your values first and your relationships second or something?

So, what is the value? Peace? You feel strongly anti-war, you don't join up, you speak out, you vote, you be active.

If your value is Peace and you are complaining about someone "testing" you, when she's in the throes of her own fear and pain, this is not being Peace. So, what's the value?

[robc]

Originally Posted by Jamie

And I don't understand how soldiers can go to war, to keep the peace.

Everyone has bills to pay.

I'm sure there are quite a few people in armed services that actually chose to become a soldier because that is what they really wanted to do.

But I'm also sure that for alot of soldiers, it's quite possible that other forms of employment weren't possible either because they didn't have access to post secondary education & training, grew up in poverty and have no other way to make it.

The picture I'm trying to put across is hopefully not that bleak (did I spell that correctly?) but in the end being a soldier is a job and alot of times a thankless one because alot of people who are against wars & military action in general also seem to vent their frustration against the soldiers themselves.

These people have families too, being a soldier is probably one of the most difficult things you can be. The pay isn't that great and if you have a family (and even if you don't), the risk of death during your job is very high. How many people go to work nowadays and have that type of risk put in front of them on a daily basis.

Yes, accidents can happen and we can all meet our maker on any given day. But as a soldier that is in your list of job expectations: to possibly die for your country.

Soldiers need to receive alot more respect than they currently receive, this would include more respect from the public regardless if said public is against war. This would also include improved remuneration for the work they do and the amount that they risk (again did I spell that properly?), better tools & equipment for the job that they perform plus alot of other things that I haven't mentioned here that should be standard for a soldier.

If people don't like war (and technically more people shouldn't), don't disrespect and hate soldiers for doing their job. Disrespect & hate your politicians who make the decisions to send soldiers to war.

As for the original post, respect this woman's viewpoint & opinions, she seriously cares for the family/friends she has out there serving your country. If she is testing you, the test isn't whether or not you have to let go of your views, it's whether or not you can see the bigger picture and see things from another perspective.

just my 0.02 cents

[PerDev]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Okay, this woman has been mailing me, she's one I was really interested in some time back, anyway ...

Do women intentionally test (subtle challenge) men?

She's created a situation, where she's opposed to me on an issue, in conversation (she's saying soldiers are there to save lives; I'm saying they're not following their own sense of what's right, but just doing what they're told, to meet the political agenda of their bosses).

She's pretty emotional about it, her brother is in Afganistan, so is her ex-BF.

I've tried to explain my view, clearly, but she thinks I'm missing the point (I don't think I am).

I'm wondering if she's more trouble than she's worth already.. I can see various responses.

1. I cave in, and agree with her, just to be nice.
(no way am I going to do this).

2. I argue with her about it, some more.
(seems like a losing stratagey too).

3. I ignore her for a few days.
(best I can come up with, will leave her wondering what's happening with me, and also give her time to cool down, give me time to cool down too).



Anyhow, aside from this one situation, I'm getting the feeling that girls create confrontational tests / situations all the time, and it's to test the guys response, so she can guage his character / nature.

Is that so, girls? Are you playing us?

May be she is prejudiced with her point of view and you are trying her to chnage her deep rooted belief.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Jamie

How well you know me Angela (not).

That's true, and it's a last-ditch argument I see around here a lot -- "How dare you comment? You don't know me!" You don't have to know someone at all to be able to see what they're doing in their words.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Angela

That's true, and it's a last-ditch argument I see around here a lot -- "How dare you comment? You don't know me!" You don't have to know someone at all to be able to see what they're doing in their words.

Equally, I don't know you Angela. We've crossed swords before, and it strikes me that you're often eager to make the other person wrong, and come across in a quite aggressive (and judgemental) manner, that isn't always helpful to people; esp. given the context of a personal development group, I would have though a more gentle approach would yeild better results, where you allow people the space to recognise for themselves where they may be in error; rather than going in rambo stylee. (AKA "you're wrong, you're wrong, I'm the expert here").

In this instance, your assesment of me, may have some validity; I'll consider your comments, and thank you for your food for thought. So there!

[Honeywith4bees]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Do women intentionally test (subtle challenge) men?

I certainly don't speak for all women on this issue because as we all know, everybody is different in how they think and handle certain situations, but yeah, I have set up different "tests" for the guy I am dating, specifically when we were first getting to know each other. For me, I had learned from my ex husband that we he said and what he did were so extremely opposite, that I needed to actually see for myself how my new man would react to a situation, not just what he would say about it. He caught on pretty quick as to what was going on though and whenever I'd start to get into one of my "testing" moods, he's just call me out on it!

I'm not sure this girl is testing you though. I agree with other posters who suggest trying to steer clear of this emotional area for now until you can get to a place where you can simple agree that you have different viewpoints on the matter.

[Angela]

How right you are, Jamie! I am not known for having a gentle approach!

Just to reassure you, though, I'm not judging you, and I don't consider you to be wrong. I think you did miss her point, which had nothing to do with politics, but there's nothing wrong about that. My assessment is that you would like to make a difference for this woman, and that you do recognize her fear and pain. I think that turning that into a gender-wide tendency to test you, or to turn a personal crisis into a political argument, will not help you to make a difference with this woman, or to be able to relate effectively with women in general. But you are doing the right thing for yourself, whatever it is you choose.

Just a word to the wary: if you post about a relationship, you might get a rambo-style response from me! What a great opportunity for discernment, huh?

Love,
Angela

[Perfect Sunday]

Originally Posted by Jamie

But if no soldiers ever signed up, there'd never be any wars, wouldn't there?

Yes there would.

Originally Posted by Jamie

It's the universal soldier syndrome; wars only happen because men are willing to put aside their own sense of truth and rightness, of feeling their own hearts (inner guidance), and instead, to just follow orders.

Hmm... alternate quote:

wars only happen because men are UNwilling to put aside their own sense of truth and rightness, of feeling their own hearts (inner guidance), and instead, to just follow orders.

There will always be wars to be fought... because there are always men that need to get their face punched in.

What would have happened if the men of WWII had "placed aside" their sense of truth, and rightness?

Just adding another opinion into the mix...

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Honeywith4bees

I'm not sure this girl is testing you though. I agree with other posters who suggest trying to steer clear of this emotional area for now until you can get to a place where you can simple agree that you have different viewpoints on the matter.

Yep, I agree 100% with this. I don't think she's testing, at all; and steer clear is of course the right thing to do.

It was unfortunate, that I expressed my views on an open thread, and she saw that. There is absolutely no way I would have brought the topic up, in a one-on-one, discussion situation, esp. considering her personal situation.