A matter of HE says... SHE says...
By ahgong
@ahgong (10064)
Singapore
November 5, 2007 2:55am CST
When it comes to arguments between a man and a woman, as a third party witness to the argument, it is always a matter of he says and she says.
He will claim that she has done such and such a thing that is why they quarrel.
She in turn will claim that he has done such and such a thing that cause the disagreement.
When you are roped in as the third party (neutral) to mediate, how do you know who is the main cause of the problem?
Who would you believe in this case?
Looking and listening to him, he lays out a very good case of his argument.
Listening to her, she also lays out a very good defense of her arguments.
Given that you have listened to both parties, how do you decide who to believe?
Does the argument subject matter?
As in, if the argument is about money, who would you believe more?
If the argument is about infidelity, who would you believe more?
If the argument is about violence and abuse, who do you believe more?
6 responses
@raijin (10345)
• Philippines
6 Nov 07
I really don't like to see people argue, as much as possible I'd suggest them that they'd settle their differences in a peaceful manner. If I was to asked, it would be best if they'd talked about it without pointing fingers at each other or by simply blaming onbe's fault. Be it money, relationship, etc. There are no problems that can't be solved if both parties just worked things out in a healthy conversation, since no one wants to admit their short-comings..
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
The very reason people get into argument is because they cannot see eye-to-eye in the first place. How would you suggest them to settle peacefully as a neutral mediator?
It is easier said than done to get two people who cannot see eye-to-eye with each other to work things out in an argument. This is especially so if one party is more stubborn than the other.
In such a situation, what would you, as a mediator, do to resolve the conflict?
@applefreak (3130)
• Singapore
5 Nov 07
hmm so far i've learnt that it's better not to be involved in quarrels between couples. at the end of the day, if they make up they'll blame you. if they didn't make up the sore party will still blame you. if possible, keep out of the matter as there's nothing much you can do. when it comes to matters of the heart, it can never be objective. feelings are involved and there'll always be undercurrents you are not aware of. unless you are 'appointed' to become the mediator, then maybe you'll have to look at the matter and slowly peel away the layers of arguements. more often than not, it's not about the matter at hand but more of grudges from long time ago.
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
Well, in the case I am thinking about, what would you have done if you do not know the couple on a personal level?
What if you are a stranger to the couple but have been appointed to mediate the argument between the two?
How would you make a judgment to say who is right and who in wrong then?
Would your judgment be influenced by the way the couple is dressed? The way they put forth their argument to you? By how articulate they are when presenting their side of the story to you? Will your judgment be influenced by any stereotypical mindset that you may already have? (eg, if the dishes are not done, the woman is at fault as it is her duty... or if the door is not fixed, it is the man cos it is his duty... etc etc)
@applefreak (3130)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
oh when it comes to mediation it's a totally different ball game. had the pleasant experience of learning from a mediator. she is really good in her job, in my opinion, and she is not afraid of sharing her skills and experience with us. when doing mediation, it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that there is no right or wrong. the purpose of mediation is to help the couple find a common ground from where they they can make important decisions together. the most important thing is to ensure that they understand where each other is coming from, and thus not think it a personal attack.
mediation is an art, one where fine lines demarcates good and bad, success and failure. cheers
1 person likes this
@abi1005 (194)
• Philippines
5 Nov 07
hi there ahgong..in my opinion, as a mediator, you should stay neutral so as to give a fair advice. once you've heard both sides, you don't have to believe any of them. you give them advices without telling them who you believe more. don't get yourself involved in their arguments. just listen..listen..and listen...
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
Ok... that is what I am thinking as well. If you are appointed as a mediator, what would you do then?
Would you just follow a fixed set of rules to settle the argument? Or would you make a judgment based on the argument put forth by each individual involved in the argument?
I was sitting down and thinking about this when it struck me. As a judge in any dispute, he is initially not involved in the argument. Then he gets assigned the case to settle the argument. He does not know both the plaintiff and the defense personally. So in the position of the judge, he only has the arguments put forth by the two sides. How does he/she make judgment on who is right and who is wrong?
@sang2k2 (1833)
• India
6 Nov 07
hi ahgong,
i feel one shouldnt enter as a mediator into any ones arguments as they should solve the problems all by them self. i have always heard that the one who enters the middle of the argument is always blamed for no reasons.
If if given a thought about involving as a third person in an argument i think i as a third person would be a looser as even if i am on girl's side then my relation is gonna spoiled with the person i differ with.
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
Assuming you are given no choice in the matter, you HAVE to mediate to resolve the conflict between two people?
You must remember, you do not know them on a personal level... that is why you are roped in as the neutral mediator.
What would you do to resolve the conflict between these two warring party?
How would you go about doing it?
How do you know who is telling the whole truth? How do you differentiate between the truths and half-truths that are being presented to you by each individual in the conflict?
@spacecreature (114)
• United States
6 Nov 07
I think it would be really hard to decide that unless of course there was evidence of it. If it was about money i think it would be really hard to tell exactly who was in the wrong. For example, I was once in an argument between a friend of mine. She was upset because her husband was not making enough money so she could have nice things but he worked hard and gave her every thing she needed it just was not enough for her. In that case i thought she was in the wrong. Now if it was about infidelity I would not want to be in that one I think that should be between the two of them. If the argument is about violence and abuse that would be a very easy one to tell. With that one it is not very easy to hide. There is always a sign of it if it is true.
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
ha ha ha... I know exactly what you mean.
With abuse, it is more or less easy to tell.
What happens if the claim is that of emotional abuse? How do you prove emotional abuse?
And infidelity is really a tricky issue to tackle.
If you were to ask to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong in an argument about infidelity, how would you go about making a fair judgment?
Will your judgment be influence by any personal experience?
You do not know the couple on a personal basis, how would you derive at your judgment?
It is always a case of he says she says, how would you know who is telling the truth and who is telling the half-truths to make himself/herself more credible?
@clarkmr2000 (3)
• United States
6 Nov 07
Your best bet is to stay nuetral on this. You listen to both sides and can respond accordingly, but you dont have to form opinions. you try to help in the way you can with out getting personally involved
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
15 Nov 07
That is exactly what I mean. You will try to do that. But if asked to indicate who is right or wrong based on the arguments put forth by the couple, will you be able to do so?
How would you arrive at such a conclusion?
Why did you arrive at the conclusion you did with regards to the argument at hand?
Does the conclusion you gave got influenced by any of your own personal experience?
