Men and Women Communication

Communication is an essential part of any human relationship. The level of communication between men and women differs significantly due to their gender differences. From the early age girls and boys demonstrate differences in their behavior which becomes a reason for various communicational approaches. Men and women hold out these differences in mature age. These variations can affect the relationship between two genders, especially in marriage. Ironically, most of the American men are more talkative in public, while they do not talk much at home. This fact has become a reason of havoc in a marriage. The difference in the conversational habits identifies misunderstanding between men and women.

Crooks and Baur argue that most of the women consider a lack of communication as the main cause of divorce. However, only few men support this idea. Failed conversations between men and women do not make their relationships stronger. A great number of married women complain that they lack conversations with their husbands, because they do not talk or listen to them. This reason is more important for women than the other ones, such as cooking, cleaning, and other casual life-support work. The research asserts that most men do not talk to their wives, and instead they prefer to watch TV, search the Internet, play computer games or read a newspaper. Thus, men use a couple of sentences while talking to their wives. It seems that they talk more to their female colleagues than to their counterparts at home.

As for the listening skills, male and female peculiarities also work differently. Naturally, men are used to solving problems, and they listen just to understand how they can manage the situation. In conversation, women are more emotional and like a lot of details. On the contrary, men are not interested in details, they prefer facts. This makes them come faster to the solutions than women. Women like switching topics from one to another. It is another reason why men do not listen to them. Unlike men, women like to talk about the feelings that are very important to them. Men’s indifference toward women’s conversation creates an imbalance between them and leads to divorce.

Tannen assumes that both men’s and women’s conversation habits are frustrating to each other. Men prefer silent attention when speaking, while women like overlap and anticipate what others will say. Most men lack women’s attention in conversation. When women talk to each other, they realize support. It goes differently with men, because they like to use anti arguments, which makes women mad. Instead of receiving expected support, they suffer from frustration. This behavior often becomes a reason for divorce. Women need a friendly relationship in their marriage, while men are often busy. Lack of communication leads to the lack of love and intimacy. As a result, married couples cannot live together and are forced to divorce. Both men and women recognize that lack of understanding in communication ruins their relationship.

Women like long conversations full of memories and emotions. Men, unlike women, prefer an agonistic format, e.g. they turn their conversation into a debate or a challenging competition. Their conversation style irritates women and leads to the imbalance in their relationship. As a result, both women and men feel a failure of their intimacy. However, many married couples who try to adapt to each other and understand the importance of conversation can strengthen their relationship. Married couples who want to find understanding with each other should comprehend that the ways in which men and women communicate differ because of gender differences, which are natural.

The essay was written by the professional writer from https://papers-land.com/ - Betty Bilton.

The Use of Recycled Heart Devices
There are many controversial issues in the healthcare, and some of them seem so debatable that it is difficult to chose which side to support. One of such issues is the use of recycled heard devices – implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that were previously used by people who could afford them and changed them to a new model or died. These devices are still in good condition and have some battery life remaining. Scientists like Pavri, Hasan, Ghanbari, Feldman, Rivas, and others suggest that these ICDs can be reused by those patients who cannot pay for them.
The issue has caused many arguments. Federal regulators and ICDs manufacturers in the United States prohibit the practice of such a reuse; however, it is allowed in India, where very few people can afford defibrillators. The use of recycled ICDs can be regarded as inferior treatment to the poor. People who cannot pay for the expensive devices still deserve the healthcare of the highest quality as any wealthy person. For this reason, other means of providing healthcare to poor people should be found as it is unethical to make them feel humiliated or deprived of medical aid guaranteed to them by the Declaration of Human Rights. Harvard medical experts claim: flagship projects must remain free of the taint of the secondhand, in part by making it clear when devices can safely be reused.
These scientists also doubt the safety of ICDs reuse. Despite the fact that all devices are carefully transported and sterilized, there is still a danger of infection transmission. The experts, for instance, claimed that three people died because of stroke, heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Though it is not proved to be caused by recycled ICDs, there is no evidence about the relevance of the reused devices to these deaths. It can be presumed that the failure of the defibrillator did not prevent the problem. In general, their findings prove that the alternative reuse of ICDs is a comparatively riskless life-saving practice.
There is another side of the problem as well. It is obvious that human life is sacred; it is given to one person only once, so it should be protected and preserved by all means (humanlike, of course) possible. If there cannot be another way out found, secondhand ICDs should be applied to patients who cannot pay for their treatment. If the world is not able to supply underprivileged patients with free devices, richer countries can, at least, share what they do not need anymore. One may draw a parallel between recycled defibrillators and secondhand clothes. There is nothing shameful about wearing things that were used by another person. Many organizations supply children in poor countries with garments in a good condition that richer people do not wear anymore. For the same reason, reused defibrillators in a proper state can be implanted to those patients who cannot afford new devices and will not be able to survive without them. Underprivileged patients in some developing countries receive alternative treatment of drug therapy, which, in this case, can be regarded as inferior method. Apparently, if to consider the situation from this viewpoint, recycled heart devices should be used as they allow saving people’s lives.
The use of recycled implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is illegal and risky as they are classified as single-use devices. Moreover, despite the fact that the results of researches on the topic proved to be positive, there were cases when some people with recycled ICDs died because of stroke, heart failure, or myocardial infarction. It is unethical to break the law, but at the same time, person’s life is more important. If there is no other possibility to save a person, this method must be applied.
The article was prepared by the qualified qriter Betty Bilton from https://papers-land.com/