For women only

I bought this book last year, when in a state of some perplexity, and have been dipping into it again lately. I’m not into frothy, sappy, women’s books at all, and might otherwise have been deterred by this one, but was inspired to read it by intelligent, non-nonsensical bloggers like Amy and Wendy recommending it. I figured that I need all the help I can get when it comes to understanding men, as I seem to be completely hopeless at it. And it’s been illuminating!
Obviously there are parts in it that pertain particularly to being in a “relationship”, but other parts that are relevant to men in general. It’s helped me realise the times I have inadvertently communicated the wrong thing, taken the wrong approach, or simply made big mistakes, in interactions with men (and wondered why they seemed to be so extremely difficult to fix). And I actually like that you are forced into reading it so selflessly, because it’s a book that is entirely about men and what they need/want, based on interviews with a thousand men (so it’s written to give you information to help you genuinely understand something of men (stressing that it is based on majority statistics and isn't mean to be sweeping generalisations) even if you might think some of it is a wee bit ridiculous, as I am sure men think some things about women are a wee bit ridiculous (the author states humourously at one point "It's a wonder any relationships work and that the human race didn't die out millennia ago"), and it doesn’t discuss what women might need at all – there is another book for that, for men to read). If you, or any friend you know, has ever been a tad confused about men, this is a helpful book.
Here is a little example, that comes under 'respect in communication':
Hearing attacks
I got an excellent example of how our words can be misinterpreted as an attack when Chuck Cowan and I were discussing a survey question I had drafted: “Do you know how to put together a romantic event that your partner would enjoy?”
Chuck: “That question won’t work because you’re starting off in attack mode.”
Me: “Huh?”
Chuck: “You’re starting off suggesting the man is inept.”
Me (thinking to myself): Suggesting the man is inept? What is he talking about?
Chuck: “Soften it a bit – put it into a context that isn’t so blatant.”
Simply by adding a context sentence to the beginning - “Suppose you had to plan an anniversary event for your partner. Do you know how ...?” - the question was deemed totally appropriate not to step on male toes or question a man’s adequacy”.