A common reaction to such yak, however, is to discredit it as immature babbling and to brand its originator as irrational or insecure. A similar consequence looms when women exaggerate or dramatise things, for example by generalising situations (“You never help me with the dishes”, “You always leave clothes in the washing machine”, “Nobody else would ever do such a thing”, “Can’t you listen to me for once?”), distorting facts (“You are acting like a three-year-old”, “I have already asked you ten thousand times”, “You haven’t taken me out for years”, “You do that all the time”), or presenting her feelings in an overly spectacular manner (“You don’t understand me at all”, “Her new hairstyle looks terrible”, “My colleague bought the same dress as me, I hate her”, “I can’t stand his mannerism any longer”). Men are allergic to such formulations because they are confusing (did she really mean it when she said that she would never want to talk to me ever again?) and make it difficult to enter into a reasonable debate. With a little bit of distance, though, most women employing such figures of speech will admit that their words should not be taken literally. Instead, the magnification is meant to reinforce the emotional character of their declarations, which is so important for the representation of her inner state of mind. Like in a film, her hyperboles are there to amplify the effect of her story so that external listeners understand her better and sympathise with her. What counts is not only the information to be conveyed, but also the feelings she wishes to share with others.
Herein lies a major difference between male and female communication. No matter the conversational partner (relatives, close friends, lovers, etc.), the first priority for a man is almost always to bring across a specific message. Emotions only play a minor role here. This is precisely what women object to, namely that men are not there with their hearts when conversing with other people. To females, it always seems that guys are not talking enough, or when they are, the communication takes place in a narrow-band mode where the reception and transmission of feelings are weak or inaudible. Some men even find the all-important word combination “I love you” very hard to speak out. Another common complaint related to this one is that men can be rather crude in their diction. Some insensitive males let slip questions such as “Have you gained weight lately?”, “Are you pregnant?”, “Are you PMSing?” or inadvertently diminish the feelings of their loved ones (“Why do we have to go over this again and again?”, “Don’t be such a drama queen”, “Don’t worry so much”, “Get to the point!”, etc.). Other faux pas in this regard include not answering the phone after she tried to call several times, giving a short or cold reply (e.g., “Okay”) to long (written or oral) monologues, answering in the affirmative any question like “Do I look fat in this outfit?”, or replying “Just fine” to the inquiry “How do I look?” at which he does not even bother looking at her. If she senses a distance in his words, she may interpret it as a personal derogation or as an invalidation of her emotions. Likewise, feedback such as “Up to you”, “Do whatever you want”, or “Why can’t you just let it go?” reveals that he does not care about what she wants, which can let her feel ignored or neglected.
The poor listening skills of males represent another source of frustration for women. As mentioned above, the latter sometimes need to talk just for the sake of talking. In that case, however, some men will not limit themselves to hearing out the problem, but also want to fix it. For them, discussing is not enough; they have to not only talk but also do something about it. Yet this not what women expect in a conversation. Instead of suggestions and solutions, they hope to hear listening sounds or phrases (e.g., “Hmmm”, “Oooh”, “I see”, “Really?”, “That’s terrible”, “Tell me more”, etc.). These are enough to reassure them that the interlocutor is attentive, and therefore a good, empathetic “listener”.,
 Pease / Pease (2002), pp. 168-169
 Pease / Pease (2009), p. 196
 Gray (2012), pp. 144-145
 Pease / Pease (1999), pp. 115, 165
 Gray (2012), p. 121