05 April 2001, 803 words
The philosopher Paul Grice has pointed out that communication is an act of cooperation. Someone talks and someone listens. On the other hand, wives and husbands talk and listen all the time - i.e. wives talk, husbands listen - and there is still a failure to communicate.
But Grice's point was that listeners tacitly expect speakers to be informative, truthful, relevant, clear, unambiguous, brief and orderly. This list alone explains the difficulties men and women have in understanding each other. Women are never orderly: a conversation about the best way to roast chicken can easily degenerate into complaints about their mother-in-law.
Women are also never brief: a complaint about leaving the cap off the toothpaste can take over an hour. As for unambiguity, it is impossible for any female above the the age of 14 to have an argument without using the phrase, "Well, if you don't know what's wrong, I not going to tell you." (Indeed, this phrase is women's favourite way of starting an argument.)
Clarity is also a no-no. A discussion about past lovers, say, will invariably involve sentences like, "Peter was a part of my life at a time when I was a different individual with different needs, but you seem to think Sushilla retains the same appeal even though she's got those folds under her shoulder-blades and acne scars, she thinks that you think you still feel the same way now that you did then, or even afterwards but before me, so tell me which is it?"
In any personal discussion, women clearly consider relevance to be a sign of weakness, while truth is useful only if it bolsters their position. Only in being informative do women conform to Grice's criteria, and that's only because the information overload totally confuses us men.
Women also find men do not communicate properly, but they find us so precisely because we conform so well to Grice's criteria: we are far too relevant ("Could we talk about this later? I want to watch the match"), too orderly ("And make a sandwich for me nah"), and too brief ("Ahgh").
As for being informative, truthful, clear, unambiguous: that's the last thing women really want us to be ("I'm having sexual fantasies about my 22-year-old secretary, she's got the best rear end I've ever seen in my life, sex with you is boring and, Christ, you're getting fat").
It is not that Grice's criteria are wrong. (Yes, I know it sounds like I was saying that: see what a bitch communication can be?) But his criteria apply only in a cooperative interaction, whereas marriage is frequently an adversarial relationship. What he should have done was divide his communication criteria by sex.
Take information and brevity. When a woman says, "My period is due next week", a wise man knows he needs to tread lightly, don't make jokes, and wash the dishes for the next seven days. (After that he can return to being loud, silly and lazy.)
In similar fashion, if a man casually mentions that they're bringing the Test Match on TV, the woman should know not to expect sex till late, if at all; not to expect him to come home before nine; maybe even not to expect him to leave home for work. The plus for her is that she needn't cook: fries, beer and mango chow will be the perfect diet as long as the series lasts.
This brings us to truthfulness. As a factor in communication, truth between couples is highly overrrated. I am speaking here of objective truth. Forget objective truth. Most people can't handle real truth. What people, especially people in a relationship, want is subjective truths. So the two most important truths to be communicated in a marriage are these: "No, you don't look fat" and "Yeah, baby, you were really good".
Next is relevance. This means different things to men and women. For a woman, a relevant communication is one about feelings. For a man, a relevant communication is about sex. Understanding this saves everybody a lot of wasted talk and time.
Ditto with being clear and unambiguous. Many women are still hesitant about taking the initiative, sexually. Don't be, but don't be ambiguous when you do so. There's little point in saying you want to "make love". For men, that could mean anything from talking sappy to necking to doing it in the missionary position.
Instead, just sit him down and tell him in the clearest, most unambiguous words what you want him to do to you. (Note: men are not allowed to be clear and unambiguous, although we are so much better at it.)
Finally, there's the matter of being orderly. This, too, is a good idea; and all you need are leather boots and a whip.
Copyright ©2001 Kevin Baldeosingh