It’s not that I feel that it’s irrational to be angry at someone who is a dick - though that may not be terribly useful unless you’re in the midst of processing why you’re angry at someone, that reaction is fine and even expected. What I find irrational is not talking about it. Choosing to remain angry with a person without taking any steps towards resolution is something that I see often depicted in films, particularly by female characters. Is this an unfair stereotype of how women treat some (most?) conflict, something that a person who actually spends time with non-males would recognize as having a basis in truth? Or is this merely an illustration of the way some conflicts are resolved in the real world no matter what gender, and is simply a style of resolution conflict that I personally find to be unrealistically paced for the sake of narration?

I’m trying to figure out this character flaw, because I can honestly say that I’ve never encountered it in the real world from either gender - it may simply be a coincidence that the last few movies I’ve seen show women exhibiting it. It seems different than a grudge - it’s like the person who’s angry feels like they are punishing the person they’re angry at by subjecting them to the presence of them being unhappy. Aside from true emotional trauma or things that require time to process, wouldn’t it make more sense to say right away “Hey, I think you were wrong back there, and I’m upset because of it - let’s talk about it”?

I’m trying to figure out if this is a) a behavior particular (though not exclusive) to the female mind, and I have yet to see such behavior in person because I literally do not interact with women, like, ever (because something something cooties), or b) a completely or partially invented character flaw modeled in film and literature that gives impressionable (female?) viewers permission to stew and pout and make no attempt at resolving interpersonal conflicts, because choosing to remain angry has the potential to be tactically advantageous in getting what you want without actually bringing attention to an issue - in effect modeling behavior that essentially says that it’s okay to solve problems with passive-aggression instead of adult recourse.

Because if it’s B, then holy shit, let’s talk about that. But if it’s just the way some members of the female persuasion tend to process anger and resentment (“Women just want you to be psychic and know what you did wrong! LOL!”), then, shit, I think I got the better end of the deal (re: bangin’ dudes all the time).

It’s not that I feel that it’s irrational to be angry at someone who is a dick - though that may not be terribly useful unless you’re in the midst of processing why you’re angry at someone, that reaction is fine and even expected. What I find irrational is not talking about it. Choosing to remain angry with a person without taking any steps towards resolution is something that I see often depicted in films, particularly by female characters. Is this an unfair stereotype of how women treat some (most?) conflict, something that a person who actually spends time with non-males would recognize as having a basis in truth? Or is this merely an illustration of the way some conflicts are resolved in the real world no matter what gender, and is simply a style of resolution conflict that I personally find to be unrealistically paced for the sake of narration?

I’m trying to figure out this character flaw, because I can honestly say that I’ve never encountered it in the real world from either gender - it may simply be a coincidence that the last few movies I’ve seen show women exhibiting it. It seems different than a grudge - it’s like the person who’s angry feels like they are punishing the person they’re angry at by subjecting them to the presence of them being unhappy. Aside from true emotional trauma or things that require time to process, wouldn’t it make more sense to say right away “Hey, I think you were wrong back there, and I’m upset because of it - let’s talk about it”?

I’m trying to figure out if this is a) a behavior particular (though not exclusive) to the female mind, and I have yet to see such behavior in person because I literally do not interact with women, like, ever (because something something cooties), or b) a completely or partially invented character flaw modeled in film and literature that gives impressionable (female?) viewers permission to stew and pout and make no attempt at resolving interpersonal conflicts, because choosing to remain angry has the potential to be tactically advantageous in getting what you want without actually bringing attention to an issue - in effect modeling behavior that essentially says that it’s okay to solve problems with passive-aggression instead of adult recourse.

Because if it’s B, then holy shit, let’s talk about that. But if it’s just the way some members of the female persuasion tend to process anger and resentment (“Women just want you to be psychic and know what you did wrong! LOL!”), then, shit, I think I got the better end of the deal (re: bangin’ dudes all the time).