Do Men and Women Resolve Conflicts Differently?

You know, that's a really great question! A lot of discussions and books, theories, etc. on the subject (yes, I've read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"...) have hypothesized that men and women do handle/resolve conflict differently. I'm not thoroughly convinced that there are large, definite differences, except for when it comes to violence. And those differences may not have a root in biology, but rather in learning. (Most of us don't resort to violent tactics or physical intimidation when upset, but of those who do, it seems there are more men who do this than women.) But as far as other means of handling conflict, it seems to me that gender has little to do with it. Men and women both seem to show the same sorts of coping skills. Some withdraw (need to be alone for awhile), some want to "talk it out." I've seen just as many men want to talk things out as I've seen women who want to. I've seen women seek solitude (alone time) just as much as I've seen men do the same thing. I've witnessed women who yell, men who yell, and witnessed examples in both genders of people who are able to remain calm and rational under the stress of conflict. I think it depends on the person, his/her personality and temperament, social skills, cognitive abilities, and learning experiences (particularly in infancy and childhood, but also beyond.) It seems to me that parents play a big role, too, on the development of their children's psychological health. If gender expectations are strict or limiting, this could indeed set the stage for problems later on in life. (For example, boys not being able to cry, girls being "less assertive", etc.) I don't think these differences (IF they exist), are because of biology. They are learned. EDIT: Jonmc: I'm not prepared to say why violence (esp. deadly violence) seems to be much higher in men than women. I'm not a psychologist. It is possible that there are genetic influences, brain differences, environmental (learning experience) differences, etc..that may account for this. No one really knows the answer to that for certain- not even the psychologists. What most psychologists can seem to agree on is that there isn't just ONE etiological (causal) factor when it comes to violent people.

The more I think about it, I think we should try to altogether do away with the general ideas of men or women or 'gender' and focus on the individual people involved. Every *person* I know handles conflict differently. As far as my relationship is concerned, I'm typically the instigator of conflict and usually have a stubborn, angry "Dammit I know I'm right!" attitude. But in my defense, I'm always willing to admit how irrationally idiotic I was being, and am usually also the first to apologize. He's the "See ya!" type. (Can't say I blame him, lol) Whether it's hanging up, leaving the room, or generally just bailing to the corners of his own mind with this blank look on his face (grrr that drives me crazy!). That's just the way he deals with things. And in his defense, though he may have the right, he never holds a grudge, and when he does retreat, always comes back in hopes of resolution. I'm fight, he's flight. We put the "fun" in dysfunctional. LOL

Both resort to emotional terrorism. That's my new phrase. What I mean by that is, when things don't go their way, both men and women resort to emotional displays to guilt/terrorize/browbeat the other into agreement. I think this is definitely unconscious. Both genders run the gamut somewhat differently, but thinking objectively about the subject for more than a minute and you'll see it. Some people go for anger displays, then sadness, then passive-aggressive calm disillusionment. Generally, these are strategies that worked so well throughout one's youth, that the patterned response isn't even conscious. Anyway, my point is that both men and women, when they don't get what they want, immediately dive into pre-programmed emotional displays to convince the other of their rightness. It is true that many women resort to tears or sadness (invoking compliance through guilt or pity), while more men tend to respond with anger (invoking compliance through fear), but that is changing so quickly that the stereotype hardly holds true, anymore. For example, many men know smashing dishes (or their partner) is not going to get them anywhere but single. Many women are finding that the weepy female doesn't engender pity like it used to. In both cases, the person resorts to some other pathos-laden tack. Either way, both use emotional responses to trigger emotional responses in the other, and 'win' whatever point is in contention. So, my answer in a nutshell? No. EDIT: I would even go so far as to say that men's vaunted 'reasonable logic' is STILL nothing more than an emotional ploy. 'Listen to the reasonable logic coming out of my mouth. Obviously I am thinking far more clearly and rationally than you.' Inside he's saying, 'cave.... c'mon, cave.'

I think gender plays a part in the way we resolve our conflicts. In my experience most conflicts come from anger or emotions. Most men use anger to win (specially when under the influence) Most women are going off pure emotion. Something you did to anger her last week might not come out til you do the same thing all over again the following week. Then it's about emotion, anger, 'and' to win the argument.

I see Tera does not think there are any differences, EXCEPT FOR VIOLENCE. I think that conflict solving technique is brought into sharp relief by crime statistics everywhere. I know nothing much of the particulars in sexual variance here, but I would think it is quantifiable. Yes, Tera, I know psychologist do not agree on much. I was speaking from a scientific perspective. From that perspective we understand the ultimate causes for violence and do not let the proximate causal triggers that confuse psychologist confuse us.

I really don't believe gender has anything to do with it. It has more to do with personality types. Creative people tend to trust their gut more than linear types.

There are three important factors to answering this question. The first factor is the inherent neurological and psychological difference in men's and women's brains, and the differences that exist from individual to individual as well. The second factor is cultural. How people are expected to resolve conflicts differ from culture to culture, and age to age. For example, in eighteenth century Europe pistol or saber duals weren't uncommon among "gentlemen". The third factor is relative to an individuals experiences, upbringing, and socialization. In eighteenth century Europe pistol or saber duals may have been common for main stream society, but perhaps for others there were "other" ways to deal with an insult; like using wit and humor for example. Human behavior is very difficult to analyze, even with the use of the scientific method. There will be no one set rule to base a conclusion on. You may witness a phenomena within your own circles, but who is to say that this observed difference is based on an inherent trait?

I absolutely do. I think women's argument style is more about focusing on feelings, whereas men's tends to be getting proving someone wrong, and getting the last word. They are both equally logical in their reasoning, but two people can provide impeccable lines of logic and still arrive at opposite conclusions. I think that women suffer more emotionally from arguments, at least in domestic situations, but the whole idea that women are emotional IN the argument whereas men are "logical" has NEVER been observed by me.

YES... men have two methods: 1. Logic 2. Punch your lights out Women have one method that leads to many behaviors: 1. Emotional : Silent treatment, Storm off, childish yelling, crying or hitting, revenge or blackmail. Some girly-men also react like that.