men are from mars women are from venus

Click here: => ralsiuplaskens.fastdownloadcloud.ru/dt?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzA6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZHRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6NDU6Ik1lbiBhcmUgZnJvbSBtYXJzIHdvbWVuIGFyZSBmcm9tIHZlbnVzIGRhdGluZyI7fQ==


A study has found we share a vast range of identical traits. He says women use a points system which few men are aware of.

About still under the side of the Conflicting - Tatars and with their vital, Moscow began to stop its taxing in the User Rus' in the largely 14th solitary, gradually becoming the thing force in the direction of the Rus' trips' masculinity and white of Russia. However, some societies explicitly incorporate people who adopt the gender role opposite to their biological sex, for example the Two-Spirit people of some indigenous American peoples. In den kalten Wirbelstürmen des Zeitgeists braucht es Menschen, an denen wir uns festhalten können: Oliver Polak und Micky Beisenherz.

How men from Mars and women from Venus CAN make the most of their differences

In stressing the differences between men and women, this book was controversial. Many people felt that it was and. It's controversial to stress differences? And who called it sexist? And for what reason? And how does it express hatred for women, for a male author to explain to men how to stop hurting their wives and start satisfying their emotional needs? I'm not arguing, and I didn't deleted this text. I moved it here to get answers. Please provide the answers and put the section back. The Rebuttal from Uranus is a good site for presenting the anti-Gray case. Essentially, Defending the Caveman looks at what it means to be a man in normal middle class American society. He explains in vivid detail how men are hunters and focus on a single idea or task at a time. Women, conversely, are gathers who relish conversation, multitasking and togetherness. This oversimplified anthropology is so cliché ridden as it depicts men as ignorant, selfish and narcissistic. It may not be too scientific but it does present rich fodder for adroit comedy. It's not a criticism of the work, it's a criticism of the author if even that. And it doesn't follow the flow of the previous paragraphs at all. I've deleted the trivia about John Gray's PhD from this article because I feel it's irrelevant to this article. This book was published in 1992 while John Gray did not have his PhD until 1997. While it is interesting that the author may have an illegitimate degree, it doesn't detract from the value of this book published prior to the PhD issue. Was not this book published by John on his claims to having a doctorate degree that was later found to be bogus? The fact taht he didn't actually receive the phony degree until later further casts doubt on credibility. According to the article, he got his degree in 1982 not 1997. I also question the claim that at the time of his graduation, CPU was highly respected in its field. Readers can go to our author article see to get all the details about his education: he earned two degrees in meditation from a university run by people who promote a certain kind of meditation - God only knows how that uni managed to get accredited, but they did! As for the PhD claim, our author article explains he got a PhD by correspondence, which everyone knows is not the normal way. You have to defend a thesis in front of a board, don't you? But he got an honorary doctorate. This appears to give men the active role and women the passive role. This passage would be better, if sourced: WHO called it sexist or chauvinistic? And WHY do they feel it is sexist or chauvinistic to stereotype men and women as problem-solving cavemen and talkative waves? But I am placing the on the critics. I also added a positive comment from a review by John Grohol, and tidied up the section a bit. Hopefully this make it more balanced and verifiable. I just made a few cuts and additions. I've read the book twice - though not, I admit, recently. I don't recall Gray distancing his descriptions. However, he hammers home the point that women in his view and men need love in several different ways. Such as, women need respect, and men need approval. I'm going to have to leaf through my copy and type in a few quotes. I tidied up the first paragraph to make it read a bit smoother. It was a bit convoluted as it was and I think it's now easier to read. Again, it's been years since I read the book and I wasn't a big fan but I remember that communication difficulties was one of his major themes. Tannen takes an academic, descriptive approach. Her research focuses on different ways males and females communicate even beginning in childhood. She does not assert that these differences are innate; nor that they are created by the culture. She just reports what she heard, based on detailed transcrits of recorded conversations. Neither the article nor this talk section is about whose books are better or what someone might prefer. He's also not a scholar but a therapist or counselor? The difference between Tannen and Gray is that Tannen is describing actual differences between the sexes in a scholarly way. Gray, of course, is not a scholar, and never stops talking about dozens of different ways he recommends people try to change their own behavior based on generalizations. I don't recall Gray distancing his descriptions. Wikipedia articles should be based on sourced material, not people's distant recollections. They disregard the rest. I'm unaware of claims that Gray makes that go beyond. Nearly all his observations are like this. If there is a criticism that Gray relies too much on everyday observation, let's quote such a critic. Should be easy to find one by googling. Also, does Gray claim that men and women are inherently different or just that Americans and Canadians often conform to stereotypes? Or even do critics charge him with claiming that men are more different than they really are? It would help if we quoted a critic. I heard that some feminists scholars almost got a Harvard president fired for daring to suggest that researchers look into whether men and women have mental differences such as aptitude for math and what might cause such differences heredity, upbringing, social pressure. I wonder if Gray's critics are asserting that there are no differences because they oppose the very idea of members of either sex treating the opposite sex differently. This will probably be harder to google. However, the evidence for a large gap in communications culture as Gray and Tannen claim is not so strong. AIR Gray does claim that his theories are based on years of research although he does not give details. You might be interested in by Steven Pinker. This knowledge allows any man from any culture to understand, love and appreciate any woman from any culture regardless of her age, race, religion, political persuasion, geographical location or levels of income, education or sophistication. I think the two paragraphs above, which I noticed were cut from the article, could go into an article about or. A man has a different attitude to problems — he is all for solving them with some quick action. A woman may take time to just consider the whole thing — she may not even want the whole thing to be solved before it is due! Such differences have a definite impact on communication. Although this part of his work is the one most under attack by feminists for gender equality, many of whom accuse him of creating fresh stereotypes around men and women, which is also very significant. When men go into their cave, they are actually going through a phase of their relationship with a woman, when they want to be left alone. In fact, I find, John Gray does portray women to be the strong, resilient creatures. It is only his recommendations of how women should make sure they get their way — underlining a certain manipulative streak, which might have troubled feminists. I was inspired by John Gray's two-planet classification system to expand it into a four-planet system. I have devised a proposal for a new transportation system , and I am concerned about all its implications. I determined that interest in this invention can be classified into four categories for four different kinds of people — Mars gee-whiz technogeeks , Venus those concerned with society, family, and lifestyle , Mercury economics , and Earth eco-greenies. Two of these categories are borrowed from John Gray, but the meanings have been changed. This seems like it violates and. I'd like to collaborate on reducing these sections. Just the opposite - it requires that we include all significant points of view with weight according to prominence. It's usually better to add material than delete it. Perhaps any perceived problem could be solved by adding more non-critical material? I see you have combined the two sections, that's good. I'm going to check the sources and make sure they are properly represented and that all points of view are being represented in a balanced way per NPOV. Thanks for your input. There is one paragraph that is a critique, there MUST be more than that available about this silly book. The site's server went dark in 2009, but the essays have since been republished in the form of a blog. The website is self-published, so it violates. Further, there's no independent source for the claim that it was the first published critique. If we had some reliable secondary sources which refer to this website as being significant then we might be able to mention it. We could cite one of those, and even repeat their quotations from the site. I intend to add enough information to the lead to balance that out. That is, they put words into Gray's mouth and then rebut those words. For example, Gray never said that men and women cannot understand each other; rather, the book is based on the hope that by understanding each other they can get along better. I think criticism of Gray's book is primarily based on his refusal to accept the position that there are no important, fundamental, or inherent differences between men and women. Anything that looks like a difference is merely a cultural artifact; i. I recently fixed up another article about a book whose critics put words in an author's mouth and then accused him of racism for holding such socially irresponsible views see. I observe that ; I have restored it. Summarizing the contents of a very notable bestseller is not promoting a fringe theory; it's describing a book which was a mainstream read: Not fringe cultural phenomenon in the 1990s. That in mind, I have restored the summary of the book's contents.

He need to know she still values him. The bottom line: Make it an experience you both enjoy. And most women are looking to lessen stress by connecting with their partners, not pulling away. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism. Here are some random suggestions: 1. To get along well they need to stop expecting the other to be the same and understand each other instead. Arrange some help with household chores. I invite you to read by Brene Brown for deeper research on perfection seeking and vulnerability.