It has occurred to people many times the different ways people think and communicate. We now have several personality and communication tests that try to examine and name different types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is one method used to try to name and communicate personality types.

However, there is a simpler test that I was introduced to in the military NCO school for us to better understand and lead different types of people: the Four Lenses. Until then, I never understood certain types of people. Basically, they break down the four major groups of how people act and like to communocate.

Of interest to me, and the reason for posting, is that it has been noticed that many American men, and likely Western men in general to a lesser extent, tend to be Greens. Greens are, as I like to put it, sarcastic bastards. They are normally very intelligent, booksmart, but very detached or uncaring about emotions. They will often tell you the truth, no matter how it hurts people.

Blues are the emotional type. Heart on the sleeve, very careful about what they say in case they hurt other people's feelings type of people. Facts are less portant than how it makes someone feel.

I think most people got the point I am making right there. It is my belief that the way we commonly discuss and communicate our issues is "wrong" to Blue types.

It seems to me that we have been gaining some Blue people lately simply because people are waking up to the fact that men are now facing widespread legal and institutional issues in the West.

But, I think a lot of people that passively, and even more, identify with feminism do so out of sympathy for the struggles of women in the past. Often, I imagine, because feminism plays up those issues and makes them so much worse and ignores any male issues at the same time.

For example, women being excluded from some jobs while men were expected to be sole providers. Women and rape throughout history (ignoring all male victims ever) and ignoring men being forced to serve as conscripts in battle throughout history.

Communicating with Blues often requires us to shift our communication style to suit them, and as mentioned above, real-world numbers and facts are simply not enough to sway their feelings. We often quote numbers by studies, explain issues men are struggling with as a whole or in sections, etc, but that only works on people like us or if it strikes somewhere in the sympathy center of their brain to consider men human, too.

I am proposing that we try to shift at least some of our communication tactics toward trying to extend men as people who face issues as well.

We could share personal stories of struggles, though this may often be difficult. We could try to establish less of an impersonal view by talking at a person-to-person level rather than a top-down facts and figures level. Hell, it could even help to let women know where we are coming from!

Several women I have spoken to in real life don't even know what Selective Service (signing up for the draft) is. They are not required to sign up at 18 like men are, and so it is a non issue. One way to approach the topic, for example, could be to start with your story, like so:

"My parents reminded me that I had to sign up for the draft, and on my 18th birthday my dad, an Army vet himself, took me down to the post office and watched me fill out and turn in the form registering me for the draft. Did you do that?"

Wait for their reply. If it is female, it is likely that they did not register. Move to impact:

"At 18, I didn't really understand what I did. I mean, I knew what Selective Servce and the draft is and what the military does. I mean, most men in my family serve. It is a family tradition. What I didn't understand is that I could possibly get a letter any day America goes to war forcing me to join the military, even if I didn't want to. No one in my family was never drafted, because we always join before a draft is needed or we previously served, exempting us. But what if I got a letter one day because our government wanted to invade Iran or something?"

Then you can try to segue into how this is similar to other men's struggles. Signing up at 18 and knowing that one war too many and you could be the next person storming the beaches of Normandy or fighting guerillas in a jungle somewhere.

Notice that I tried to sprinkle in emotions like pride, uncertainty, and fear in there, but I also educated them on a male issue. Then, we can discuss the draft over time, how many men died to it, etc. How men have struggles of their own. How men that aren't at the top, sons of people who aren't Senators and Presidents, struggle.

Now, I imagine people that are too far gone in the cult will not be affected by this tactic. The type of feminist that has constructed the Patriarchy worldview in her mind, and believes at a fundamental level that men are the oppressors and women the oppressed will not be affected. People tend to cling to their worldview, because their entire image will shatter if it is shown to be wrong.

We have to go after the passive and moderate feminist supporters in order to remove the support base at the bottom that is holding that hate movement up. One major problem may be first and second wave feminism shown in a positive light in public and their unwillingness to condemn those waves. We may have to try to separate third wave and beyond from the rest and show how the new waves have corrupted the "pure" movement in their heads.