miss2miss1Another installment in what should be a long list of helpful articles in service to the women who so desperately need them when it comes to understanding men.  I can’t promise that I will author them all, but lets start with the topics that seem to be the most troubling to the women I know.  Although I have had this discussion in person with every single woman in my sphere of influence, my communication skills must be lacking because I’ve yet to see a break-through in this area, so I’m resorting to the written word and perhaps this will be more durable and understandable.


This is the classic case of a woman meaning one thing and saying another and then blaming the man for his misunderstanding of the inaccuracy of her statement.


This is how it goes, you can use any variation on the theme you would like, but this is the gist of it.  A guy asks a woman to go out with him on a date.  The woman says she can’t because she’s busy, or makes up some other excuse.  What the man hears is that the woman would love to go out with him except his timing is bad, she’s busy.  This almost insures that he will ask her out again in the future.  What the woman really meant was that she is not interested, not today and not tomorrow.  When brought to her attention the reality of how her excuse of being busy actually invited a future request for a date, she says that she doesn’t want to be rude or hurt the guys feelings.  Somehow, women have rationalized the lie that misleading the guy is better than being honest with him, all in the greater interest of not hurting his feelings.  Hey, if you’re that worried about hurting a strangers feelings, SIMPLY GO OUT WITH HIM, that will certainly sooth his feelings.


So, getting back to the point of simply being honest with the guy, to that they say that level of honesty is hurtful and therefore they won’t do it.  Again, it’s the all-or-nothing mentality that seems so pervasive in women when having this conversation.  Telling him thanks but no-thanks can be done very daintily, it doesn’t have to be, “are you kidding me pal, get the hell away from me…”how about,” thanks very much, but I’m just not interested.”


Now, in deference to the lovely women in my life, their defense is that men should be better attuned to nuance, reading between the lines, getting the hints and non-verbal suggestions.  One of my gal-pals described a situation where the same guy emailed her 7 times when she failed to respond.  She told me this as an example of how dense some guys are, and I think, to her surprise, I agreed with her, without question I told her, 7 emails with not a single response is ridiculous, obviously this guy is clueless, but then I asked her, doesn’t this situation help and make my point?  The words women use should be carefully chosen and leave no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding, especially when addressing the kind of moron that can’t understand why 7 emails is 5 too many.  To a guy like this you have to say, “Thanks but no thanks, I’m not interested.”  If you tell him, “thanks but I’m busy this weekend”, you’re inviting him to ask you out next weekend because what he heard you say was, “I would love to go out with you, but I’m busy on the weekend you have asked about.”




Perhaps I’m a slow learner when it comes to understanding the minds of women, matter of fact, I’ll stipulate to it, but it recently dawned on me that many of the women afflicted with the bad communications skills I have outlined above are not really lacking an understanding about what it is they are doing or what kind of signals they are leaving, but instead know exactly what they are doing and use the excuses as plausible deniability when called out on it.


Here is my theory about this sub-set of women.  Even when the woman has no intention of ever agreeing to go out with a particular guy, she nevertheless uses the language I am critical of, purposefully leaving a tiny shadow of doubt about her willingness to eventually accept his offer.  She does this for two distinct reasons.  Number one, in a small town like ours, she wants all of her options open, even if that option is as small as the likelihood that when she runs into this guy, he won’t hold her in distain, and if he continues to pay attention to her, it just might increase her currency socially, as others observe her ability to attract guys.


Second, just knowing that she has the attention of this guy, even if she doesn’t want it to go any further, is still an ego boast and allowing it to remain unsure in his mind, encourages him to keep pursuing her and this conveniently fuels her ego, convincing herself that she still has what it takes.


What I initially mistook as a woman’s lack of understanding about how men’s minds work is really a rather complete understanding of exactly how it works, and the brilliance of manipulating it to serve their own purposes.  That level of cunning is a little scary.


The Milo Phenomenon



Unlike nature’s actual no-two-are-alike snowflakes, we’re learning that today’s modern version; college-coddled millennial drones are just the opposite: they’re all sadly very much the same.  These snot-nose, entitled brats cannot tolerate viewpoints that challenge what they think they already know because they have been raised to be self-righteous winners regardless of facts.  Sorry, but that “participation” trophy you won for sucking at soccer won’t enhance your resume once off the safe spaces on your college campuses my fragile buttercups.


When you shun free speech, you’re a misguided loser, afraid of having your thoughts challenged.  Ironically, sorting through varying theories and opinions is the very definition of a real education.  When people fear opposing viewpoints, it is because their own position is either tenuous, or impossible to defend.  Therefore, instead of risking losing an argument to logic and reason, or being forced to confront a false premise in their own conclusions, or worse yet, change their minds, (God forbid), they resort to a form of censorship disguised as righteous protest, just what we saw recently at the college campus at UC Berkeley.


Milo Yiannopoulos, outspoken gadfly, writer and provocateur extraordinaire, was threatened with bodily harm, while fires and rioting ensued on campus due to a talk he was to deliver there.  Berkeley, the supposed birthplace of campus free speech circa 1964, today demonstrating zero tolerance for it.


We can learn much from our own forefathers, cognizant as they were of the ignorance of youth.  Accordingly, they included directly into the framework of our Constitution, specific writings about the minimum ages for legislators and the President to hold office; the former 25 and the latter 35 years of age.  This is because minds need developing, thoughts need refinement, personalities need edification, education and experience in order to create a persona capable of thoughtful listening, learning, discerning and advancing in the quality of their own personal development.


Too many parents are confusing their kids with the wrong messages, mixing the virtues of establishing a healthy level of self-esteem with the mistaken notion the kid takes away that includes an over-dose of self-righteousness.  Seeing yourself as a worthy, contributing member of society is quite different from the concept of always feeling you are right.  Parents would do better to tamp back that typical teenage notion of invulnerability, omnipotence and self-importance with a reality check that tells them in no uncertain terms that they are far from developed, they are largely incapable at this moment of even grasping some of the higher orders of thinking, and that they will not find their way into that realm until and unless they exercise that brain of theirs by allowing a wide divergency of thoughts, opinions and suggestions to percolate through their systems as they grow, mature and develop.  That is why they are attending college.  Too few of them see themselves as works in progress and instead think they know it all.


Yiannopoulos scares the crap out of these snowflakes because he looks like them, he talks like them, he is young like them, he is vulgarly plainspoken, and he is gay.  These kids have no clue in how to disagree with someone gay, someone like them in dress, demeanor and words.  They didn’t believe, up until he came on the scene, that such a being could exist.


Once Yiannopoulos opened his mouth and began to contradict virtually everything these kids thought they knew, he did something very 1960ish.  He blew their minds.


Milo fits all of the stereotypical positions these kids thought defined what they liked, what they followed, what they believed.  Then he spoke and they were dumbstruck, perhaps for the first time in their lives with a true dilemma.  What he thought, how he reasoned and what he concluded did not jive with the snowflakes illusions.  It is one of the most satisfying phenomenon’s I’ve ever seen, sort of like watching a gangly puppy chase a laser.


And so, kids in Berkeley and wherever else you are, listen up.  Yiannopoulos is a firebrand.  He looks like you, he talks like you, but he actually thinks, not like you.  Be brave, we won’t keep score, just like in T-ball, doesn’t seem like that long ago does it?  Listen.  If you think he’s full of crap, tell him why, defend your outrage.  If you can’t, either you’re dumber than you thought, (very likely), or maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider changing your mind.  Just a thought.