Introduction:
Note: This essay is written from the perspective of a person with SOGI as a heterosexual cisgender male, based on personal experiences. I do not wish to impose my views on readers.
As Professor Butler’s concept of performativity suggests, identity is established through repeatedly performing societal expectations. Gender is not a binary opposition but exists on a spectrum—diverse and not fixed.
However, biological differences and hormonal influences should also be considered as factors that affect communication styles. I have therefore simplified my writing. I honestly acknowledge to the reader that this expression emerged because describing the spectrum rather than binary opposition or stereotypes is not the theme of this work. If possible, I hope this contributes to your happiness, and I would be pleased if you could adapt the reading to align with your own pride and identity.
Everyone is different, and everyone is important. Reflecting on history, I think this simple statement has been remarkably difficult to realize.
I know how hard it is when two people can’t seem to understand each other—even when they want to.
That’s why I wrote this. It’s something I’ve been thinking about deeply, not as a therapist or academic, but as someone who values relationships and has seen what happens when communication breaks down.
This isn’t about gender essentialism, and while I’ve simplified the examples with “men” and “women” for readability, the ideas here apply to any partnership. LGBTQ+ and non-binary couples face similar patterns of misunderstanding, over-expectation, and silent disappointment. The core issue is trust and communication, not gender.
Love and happiness might look different depending on your culture, your language, or your values—but isn’t it kind of beautiful when you can look at your partner and just think, “I’m glad it’s you”?
That’s the feeling I want to protect. And to do that, I think it helps to identify—and avoid—the traps that derail honest, equal communication.
If there’s anything in here that feels useful, I’d be glad.
Even more so if it brings a bit more peace to your home.
1.
Men and women have complaints that they’re being asked too much of each other.
Men ask: “Is money all that matters to you?”
Women say: “I’m not your mother (treat me as a wife),” “I’m not a housekeeper,” “Take responsibility and be involved in child-rearing,” “I have my own job, career, and dreams too.”
Does it seem like women complain more? That’s not the case. There’s a gender gap. It’s not an issue of individual responsibility but a problem of social structure.
2.
Can’t the complaints in “1” be summarized as “I want to be seen, acknowledged, and treated as a partner”?
Then, how can we solve this problem?
This is what I think.
3.
3-1. If we think of mutual communication between partners as a game that nurtures a feedback loop of trust—essentially developing the reward system in the virtual brain of the “two-person” pseudo-organism—we can act as “us” without opposition.
3-2. Society and human history have forced the burden of species continuation onto women through myths of free labor, goodwill, and maternal instinct. If it were me, I would apologize and acknowledge this was unfair.
3-3.
Therefore, male or female partners need to understand the necessity of encouraging women. The difference between women and men is like comparing iron clogs to high-tech Nike sneakers—both are running, but the conditions are not the same. If this were a 100-meter sprint, everyone would wear sneakers. But our social structures don’t work that way. Some are forced to run in iron clogs, and if you do that long enough, your body breaks. That’s why I believe we must aim not only for equal rules, but for truly equal chances.
3-4. Sperm exist in vast quantities to survive, and theoretically could create many fertilized eggs, like something out of science fiction.
3-5. Women have the strength of guaranteed blood connections unless they’re surrogate mothers. Men, no matter how science develops, can only believe based on some evidence. (Even if they could analyze DNA themselves, would they be convinced?)
3-6. Because of the differences in “3-4, 3-5,” women need to be selective about partners. Men, with individual differences, may seek quantity over quality. These are just tendencies—both have partners who keep promises and those who don’t and pursue other relationships. Since it’s difficult to distinguish between them, here too “we have no choice but to trust each other.”
3-7. Understanding what it means to believe can draw on religious knowledge. Just provide criteria for judgment.
For example, organizations that aren’t controlling, allow free entry and exit, and only request minimal donations for utilities, rent, and basic wages for leaders—demands beyond this might indicate a cult. People can lie, and behaviors can be performed, but few can maintain consistency.
(There are people in the world, like bureaucrats, who ignore consistency. Profiling unnecessary.)
Therefore, just continue to present consistent judgment criteria to each other. Housework, child-rearing, contributing salary to household finances, caring for your partner, providing reassurance, enjoying conversations—all are criteria. It helps to understand 3-1 and reframe from binary opposition to a marriage development game.
3-8. The most important thing: If you keep looking for differences, shifting blame, or denying each other, you might be better off divorcing. To strengthen the feedback loop of trust without divorcing, I recommend switching to problem-solving thinking and not pondering existence like metaphysics. Philosophy lovers who can discuss deeply with their partners are exceptions. Rather than questioning the existence of God, since you’ve decided to become a family together, solving problems will make you overwhelmingly happier.
3-9. For difficult matters, organizing thoughts into a one-page document in Pages, Google Docs, or Word and having your partner read it prevents “he said/she said” situations. Sharing Google Docs and marking “I’ve read this” or “I can’t agree with this part” makes conflicts of interest or emotions safer when text-based.
3-10. If possible, have multiple paid AI systems analyze by saying, “We thought this, but please analyze each speaker’s contribution, check the quality, and review the entire dialogue.” To protect marital privacy, fictionalize the problem structure: “A is the wife, B is the husband, they have this background and relationship, and are discussing this issue.” Generalize proper nouns and make it abstract—this allows for perspective, and AI can analyze given the structure.
This will reduce misunderstandings between men and women, enable happy communication, and focus on problem-solving, making you financially prosperous as well.
If there are useful points, share this article with your partner and decide together on the best tactics and strategies for nurturing happy communication. That will become your own “culture and history.” You are the protagonists.
Have a good journey.