Women are crazy. Interpret this text exchange for me, please

[Jimmy Snyder]

You do have a choice, but you will definitely choose wrong. For example, when you chose not to have breakfast, the multiverse split in two directions, you are living in one of them. Here is a glimpse into that other universe.

Her: Let me know about breakfast cause I'll need to take stuff out of the freezer tonight

You: I'd love to have breakfast. Thanks

Her: You only love me for my cooking. I won't offer anything ever again

You: ?

Her: ?

You: I don't understand why you're mad. You don't have to make me breakfast.

Her: I'm not mad. That is not the point I know I don't have to cook breakfast. I find it rude if someone is doing something nice for you to take advantage of them. Like I said, I won't offer

You: I didn't know I didn't have a choice in the matter. If I wasn't allowed to accept breakfast, you should have told me

Her: U always have a choice, u just chose wrong. U can always do what u want. I was being nice.

You: I was going to wake up an extra hour early just so you can be nice. I don't think I chose wrong

Her: Ok ttyl

 

[256bits]

You do have a choice, but you will definitely choose wrong. For example, when you chose not to have breakfast, the multiverse split in two directions, you are living in one of them. Here is a glimpse into that other universe.

And then there is "EVIL" Universe

You: Are you making me breakfast in the morning?

Her: I am not making breakfast for you in the morning.

You: I'd love you to make me breakfast. It would be great.

Her: I am not making breakfast and that's it. OK. Got it.

You: ?

Her: ?

You: I don't understand why you're mad. You don't have to make me breakfast then.

Her: I'm not mad. That is not the point I know I don't have to cook breakfast. I find it rude for you to take advantage of them. Like I said, I won't do it.

You: I didn't know you had a choice in the matter. If I wasn't allowed to eat breakfast, you should have told me

Her: I always have a choice, u just chose wrong. U can always do what u want.

You: I was going to wake up an extra hour early just so you can be nice. I don't think I chose wrong

Her: Ok ttyl

 

[micromass]

Or the way it should have been:

Her: Let me know about breakfast cause I'll need to take stuff out of the freezer tonight

Me: I'd love some breakfast. Thanks for being so nice to me

Her: I love you, Pumpkin

Me: I love you, Hunny bunny

 

[autodidude]

haha @ the conversations in parallel universes

but yeah, overreaction in my opinion. i'd be like 'fwaaaaah?!'

did she seem pissed off BEFORE offering? was there any hit of sarcasm in her voice?

 

[Pengwuino]

Eh, I'm not really the relationship type anyway. If I stick it out for a few more months, the problem might solve itself. If I get accepted to a far away grad school and rejected nearby, we'll have to break up, and I won't look like a jerk for doing it.

What? Ok, so they say opposites attract, but it sounds like you're both jerks. Are you both children?

 

[Evo]

So people ... are all those crazy meters still going off - on her?

Yep. His feelings, or lack of, for her right now doesn't change her going psycho on him about breakfast.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Alright, so my girlfriend and I are planning to go to the Renaissance Fair tomorrow morning. I'd leave my house around 8:30 and pick her up at 9. She offered to cook me breakfast tomorrow morning before we leave, but I declined, since I'd already be waking up at 8am as it is, and I don't want to wake up even earlier.

I'm not saying she didn't overreact, but there was one glaring mistake you made given the dialogue you provided us. When you declined her you neither gave a comforting reason why (only later, and by then it was useless) nor praised her thoughtful idea ("thanks anyway" is not proper praise). You claim to have good dating experience but you have not learned this skill and still think being logical matters or winning an argument matters. It doesn't. The rest of the dialogue was her being reactionary and hurt. We've all acted like that. She might have been excited to do something nice for you and you just shot her down coldly. I'm not suggesting you play any games, it's just about being thoughtful towards people you're supposed to care about and learning how to show that even when you decline them something. You could have also after giving a comforting reason and praise, suggested a different date she could cook you breakfast and how much you are looking forward to it. There were so many things you could have said, so many!

 

[Pyrrhus]

I'm not saying she didn't overreact, but there was one glaring mistake you made given the dialogue you provided us. When you declined her you neither gave a comforting reason why (only later, and by then it was useless) nor praised her thoughtful idea ("thanks anyway" is not proper praise). You claim to have good dating experience but you have not learned this skill and still think being logical matters or winning an argument matters. It doesn't. The rest of the dialogue was her being reactionary and hurt. We've all acted like that. She might have been excited to do something nice for you and you just shot her down coldly. I'm not suggesting you play any games, it's just about being thoughtful towards people you're supposed to care about and learning how to show that even when you decline them something. You could have also after giving a comforting reason and praise, suggested a different date she could cook you breakfast and how much you are looking forward to it. There were so many things you could have said, so many!

Similar to when you ask a girl out for the first time, but she's not interested at all and politely declines your offer with some excuse, and sometimes no chance for meeting again in the future

 

[mege]

To the OP - I think you may have a fundamental problem of communication in your relationship. That exchange reminds me of something that would have happened with an old girl-friend of mind. Basically we weren't on the same page about how to spend time together. Her expectation was that we spent every possible moment together regardless of the difficulty (and did as much together as possible, eat, etc). My expectation was that she was a very high priority in my life, but there were times when I needed time to myself or with other friends. She was an old high school friend and lived about 2hr away, so traveling after work (and again before work) wasn't totally trivial. This also factored into going down there to eat sometimes at 8p or 9p if I got off of work late - creating similar situations to yours above.

I call her on my way leaving work, I've already texted her earlier stating what time I expected to leave (so that wasn't an issue)
Her (at 8pm, I'm just leaving work): Want me to make dinner?
Me: Na, I'll grab something quick now.
Her: You don't like what I'm making?
Me: No, it's already way past dinner time and I'm hungry now!

I later found out that this really annoyed her, she expected to be able to provide a meal for me at times like this. Knowing this type of situation exists, with my future girlfriends (and now wife) I was able to identify this communications mismatch. I've basically solved it with the following:

Her: Want me to make you food?
Me: Are you going to be insulted if I say no? I'm really hungry now and it will be 2 hours before food is ready at your place.
Her: Oh, no problem - I will make food for myself and see you when you get here.

I think it's already been echo'd here - but learning to give your reasons immediately can be a success. Your current GF may be a little off her rocker if this is a continuing fight, but you have to understand that you basically just rejected her offer to provide something for you and reasoning after doesn't mitigate the hurt already caused. If she got over it immediately and didn't hold it against you, then I wouldn't worry about it so much. Learning each others methods for communication takes time and isn't always automatic.

 

[mege]

sorry, double post.

 

[cmb]

It might be appropriate to look at this in an entirely objective way, and recognise that it is an evolutionary mechanism by which a female checks the committment of males to her, and, thus by implication, her offspring. She needs to be confident that you will put her needs, and the needs of your offspring, before your own. Females appears to be unaware that they are even doing this.

Given the ease with which the male may go off to find another mate which may leave the female in a highly vulnerable situation, it is not unreasonable that the 'testing' is asymmetric. It is a proxy test to see if you are prepared to drop what you are doing to attend to her and your progeny.

It is therefore always a 'set-up' job that you can only either complete to a 'satisfactory' or 'fail' status. There is no good outcome! It is a 'false test' in that regard as it is only intended to be a facimile of 'required committment' that she would demand in the future, after successful mating.

Summary; it was a dress-rehearsal for family life, and [to her standards] you flunked.

 

[DaveC426913]

Summary; it was a dress-rehearsal for family life, and [to her standards] you flunked.

Yes. Unfortunately, I suspect that's exactly what many people are hypothesizing - which may be what's activating alarm bells.

The other side of the coin is: if you want a smooth relationship. don't over-dramatize incidents more than necessary. Sometimes breakfast is just breakfast.

 

[Lisa!]

Maybe she was suffering from PMS!

 

[DaveC426913]

Yep. His feelings, or lack of, for her right now doesn't change her going psycho on him about breakfast.

Sure it does.

Likely this isn't the first time he's been a (self-professed) jerk to her. Maybe she's almost fed up.

You have to concede that trying to (second-hand) analyze the actions of an almost fed up person - as told by the one doing the exacerbating - and in an otherwise in a vacuum of context - certainly lends itself to a biased assessment of who's nuts and who isn't.

Would you be convinced that Richard Dawkins is nuts, based on a ten line text exchange - with no other context - that Billy Graham posted? (Ooh. Except the subject line reading "Dawkins is crazy") Sure, that's not biased...

 

[Evo]

Sure it does.

Likely this isn't the first time he's been a (self-professed) jerk to her. Maybe she's almost fed up.

You have to concede that trying to (second-hand) analyze the actions of an almost fed up person - as told by the one doing the exacerbating - and in an otherwise in a vacuum of context - certainly lends itself to a biased assessment of who's nuts and who isn't.

Would you be convinced that Richard Dawkins is nuts, based on a ten line text exchange - with no other context - that Billy Graham posted? (Ooh. Except the subject line reading "Dawkins is crazy") Sure, that's not biased...

It would depend if Dawkin's offered to make breakfast.

I've known many girls/women that displayed this exact behavior, and they all were *nutty*. So, I'm just going by my personal experience of knowing too many of these types. Known a few men that were similar too.

 

[Jack21222]

It might be appropriate to look at this in an entirely objective way, and recognise that it is an evolutionary mechanism by which a female checks the committment of males to her, and, thus by implication, her offspring. She needs to be confident that you will put her needs, and the needs of your offspring, before your own. Females appears to be unaware that they are even doing this.

Given the ease with which the male may go off to find another mate which may leave the female in a highly vulnerable situation, it is not unreasonable that the 'testing' is asymmetric. It is a proxy test to see if you are prepared to drop what you are doing to attend to her and your progeny.

It is therefore always a 'set-up' job that you can only either complete to a 'satisfactory' or 'fail' status. There is no good outcome! It is a 'false test' in that regard as it is only intended to be a facimile of 'required committment' that she would demand in the future, after successful mating.

Summary; it was a dress-rehearsal for family life, and [to her standards] you flunked.

Well, she DID almost break up with me when I opined that I wished I was sterile, and that I can't see myself ever wanting kids (though I did offer the caveat that I can't predict the future and if I changed my mind it wouldn't be the first time on the subject). You might be on to something there.

Maybe she was suffering from PMS!

No, that should be next week.

 

[SamirS]

Well you're quite obviously the wrong type of jerk and/or generally not smooth enough.

Your first response to her had a ".. and by the way I totally don't care that you even would make me breakfast at all, also I don't care enough to give you a reason." swinging with it.

My girlfriend would get upset about the way answered too. The answer "Sorry I really don't want to get up that early because *insert a reason, like you're grumpy when you get up early or you want to get enough sleep before a long day*, but thanks for the offer" is no problem at all.

Thing is, no one wants a mushy feely-touchy guy, but when you are stating your interests (sleeping longer) while showing that you at least understand the spirit of the offer is often a diplomatic and smooth way to handle the subject. I'm generally quite rude and a jerk in general but you can't be like this AND be stonecold AND expect it to work. Every jerk needs at least a bit of diplomatic skills with women that are not all into being exploited.

Also announcing the time of her period in public may not do any actual damage, but doing something like that with my privacy would make me furious to say the least.

 

[MarcoD]

It might be appropriate to look at this in an entirely objective way

Objective and women don't work.

(With excuses to those women who are outliers.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Objective and women don't work.

(With excuses to those women who are outliers.)

Hm. Equal parts sexist and generalizing...

 

[Evo]

Well you're quite obviously the wrong type of jerk and/or generally not smooth enough.

Your first response to her had a ".. and by the way I totally don't care that you even would make me breakfast at all, also I don't care enough to give you a reason." swinging with it.

My girlfriend would get upset about the way answered too. The answer "Sorry I really don't want to get up that early because *insert a reason, like you're grumpy when you get up early or you want to get enough sleep before a long day*, but thanks for the offer" is no problem at all.

Thing is, no one wants a mushy feely-touchy guy, but when you are stating your interests (sleeping longer) while showing that you at least understand the spirit of the offer is often a diplomatic and smooth way to handle the subject. I'm generally quite rude and a jerk in general but you can't be like this AND be stonecold AND expect it to work. Every jerk needs at least a bit of diplomatic skills with women that are not all into being exploited.

Also announcing the time of her period in public may not do any actual damage, but doing something like that with my privacy would make me furious to say the least.

I'm going to assume that you don't know much English and you don't realize that "jerk" is an insult. Don't use the word when referring to another member again.

 

[SamirS]

I'm going to assume that you don't know much English and you don't realize that "jerk" is an insult. Don't use the word when referring to another member again.

As this characterization (with exactly that word) was used on this very page of the thread by an established and renowned forum member about a week ago without reprehension by a moderator, and is quite often used in American pop culture not as an insult but as a word for someone not very respecting of someone else's feeling but not actually damaging someone or something, I do not recognize this as an actual insult, no, even though I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the English language.

But I'll follow your advice.

 

[MarcoD]

Hm. Equal parts sexist and generalizing...

Most people are sexist in the sense that they acknowledge there's a difference between the sexes. I personally find it astounding that people want women in high position claiming full equality of the sexes, and at the same time claim that 'a women's touch' to leadership is beneficial to an organization. Note, I'm not against anything, but at least get your assumptions right.

Don't blame me for things you probably assume yourself.

 

[dacruick]

Look at it from her side.
She wanted to have breakfast together.
She looked forward to it and assumed you would like it too.
When you said no, she felt disappointed and perhaps a little rejected.
It doesn't really matter why you said no, she would still feel disappointed.
Explaining things rationally has little effect on feelings.

I think she needs to learn not to have too strong expectations.
And I don't think that for you there is really a "right way" to handle it.
Perhaps you could have been a little more diplomatic, considering how she may feel.
It certainly doesn't help to go defensive about it.

I agree with all of this except that explaining things rationally has little effect on feelings. Mr. OP, you probably should have given a nicer rejection. Something like, "Hey that's really sweet of you, but I'm feeling pretty tired tonight and I want to squeeze out every last ounce of sleep that I can get." Women in general I'd say want reinforcement. A lot of their esteem is based off of the exchange compliments and recognition. Thats why they're in a relationship with you, and as stupid as it sounds, its just the way it is. Even you telling her how sweet she was would be enough for her to feel appreciated, which is all she really wants. She feels like you shrugged off her gesture, which you did, and now she's upset. This type of thing has been a problem in a few of my relationships, as I find it hard to deal with large gaps in sensitivity between my girlfriends and I.

 

[DaveC426913]

Most people are sexist

Don't blame me for things you probably assume yourself.

And ... another two generalizations.

 

[maggiemaeu]

okay, how many women are responding here? men tend to think in the opposite direction women do. she most likely wanted to sleep in, too, and think about what she would have done for you. laboring over eggs and waffles thinking all the while that she's sweating into her breakfast for you. :!):!)

ps i am female and duh we're crazy!teehee

 

[Evo]

okay, how many women are responding here? men tend to think in the opposite direction women do. she most likely wanted to sleep in, too, and think about what she would have done for you. laboring over eggs and waffles thinking all the while that she's sweating into her breakfast for you. :!):!)

ps i am female and duh we're crazy!teehee

I am female and I take offense at your post's insinuation. (nothing personal) Women are not by default ditzy and emotionally unstable, and I dislike the negative stereotype.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am female and I take offense at your post's insinuation. (nothing personal) Women are not by default ditzy and emotionally unstable, and I dislike the negative stereotype.

I have no idea what the insinuation was. Not sure what parts are sincere and what parts are sarcastic.

 

[maggiemaeu]

I am female and I take offense at your post's insinuation. (nothing personal) Women are not by default ditzy and emotionally unstable, and I dislike the negative stereotype.

whoa, whoa. not like that. no insults intended, it was supposed to be all in good fun. i mean, who isn't crazy these days? in some way. again, meant in a harmless way. being crazy could mean being creative. crazy is a compliment!

 

[MarcoD]

And ... another two generalizations.

Bull, I claimed that most people are sexist in the sense that they accept there are differences between the sexes. That's not even a generalization, since I didn't claim everyone is sexist, and I think I can rightfully claim so.

The question is: Do you think there's a difference between the sexes?

(My personal opinion is that the sexes have equal rights, but are different. I just don't fret on it.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Bull, I claimed that most people are sexist in the sense that they accept there are differences between the sexes. That's not even a generalization

You're right, it's not. It's not even sexist. It's simply saying that most people are thoughtful about the subject. So why would you label that as 'sexist'?