Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Epiphanies 2023: Gender in the workplace /'womanspeak'

edited January 7 in Limbo
This discussion was created from comments split from: Scottish Gender Recognition Act and UK Block.

Comments

  • Gwai wrote: »
    Link to an article I find somewhat incorrect and somewhat misogynist but explains the general concept better than anything else I can find right now: https://www.divedeeperdevelopment.com/blog/linguistic-rituals

    That's an interesting article. I found myself saying "well, that's not very helpful, is it?" several times.

    For example, consider the phrase “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” that the article cites as an example of womanspeak in meetings. That's a completely useless statement. If you tell me which bit you didn't understand, or which logical step you think is unjustified, then we can have a productive conversation. That statement is a fairly meaningless "I need help" flag, and in all cases, I'm going to respond to it by saying "OK. Which bit didn't you follow?"

    The same goes for the dialogue that the writer refers to as "ritual opposition". If you make a good suggestion that I think can be improved, I'm always going to say something like "Great idea, but would it be better to change it like this?" Why would we spend valuable meeting time talking about the ways in which we agree?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    @Leorning Cniht Interesting post. Reading it I realize that gender in the workplace could probably be a thread of it's own. And if I reply to you we will derail this one, so I will resist.

    [new thread was made - so discuss away! L Epiphanies Host]
  • For example, consider the phrase “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” that the article cites as an example of womanspeak in meetings. That's a completely useless statement. If you tell me which bit you didn't understand, or which logical step you think is unjustified, then we can have a productive conversation. That statement is a fairly meaningless "I need help" flag, and in all cases, I'm going to respond to it by saying "OK. Which bit didn't you follow?"

    That's interesting. If I heard someone saying that in a meeting, I'd think they were politely telling a speaker that they hadn't made their point clearly. I might even have used a phrase like that myself. I'd definitely be nodding along if someone said that and I thought the speaker hadn't been clear. I wouldn't think that it was a "I need help" flag.

    I'm surprised to see it described as "womanspeak." I'd think of it as the way to ask a question at school / university, where you are deferring to the teacher / tutor / lecturer. You wouldn't tell a teacher "You haven't made that clear" or "You're waffling." You would use the "I don't quite follow that" form.

    I asked my husband how he would hear that question, and he said that he would assume that he had missed out something which was obvious to him. He would hear it as a polite request for rephrasing, rather than as a "I need help" flag.







  • That's interesting. If I heard someone saying that in a meeting, I'd think they were politely telling a speaker that they hadn't made their point clearly.

    I don’t like such pretences because they do nothing to help me, as the presenter, know what it is I need to clarify, present or explain differently. Assuming I was given enough time to do it, if I’ve put together a presentation then I already think I’ve explained the subject properly and in a way everybody should understand.

    My director does it regularly at work, and every time I’m just left baffled as to what it is I’m supposed to do differently. Fortunately my line manager is very good at jumping in with more specific direction as to what needs to change or be clarified.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I'm surprised to see it described as "womanspeak." I'd think of it as the way to ask a question at school / university, where you are deferring to the teacher / tutor / lecturer. You wouldn't tell a teacher "You haven't made that clear" or "You're waffling." You would use the "I don't quite follow that" form.
    I also see it as a more polite and deferential way of asking for further information and/or clarification of the point just made. An assumption that the person speaking is more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject and therefore my imperfect understanding is more likely than their mistake.

    The issue is why is this described a "womanspeak", as though deference to others is a female trait, and presumably men would be less deferential and more likely to address others as equals or even inferiors. I can't see how this could be anything other than a social construct, defining different and quite arbitrary roles to men and women.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Of course there are reasons women tend to be more deferential at work. If they don't, they get more trouble. For example, see what happened when a man and woman answered emails as each other at a resume-writing company.
  • I think a couple of y'all are getting hung up on a generic example - of course you wouldn't usually just say “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” without any further details.

    Borrowing the llama example lingo from Ask a Manager: if you had just listened to a coworker explain his new llama grooming procedure and thought he had forgot to rinse the shampoo out and add conditioner before combing, you would say something like "I didn't quite follow the sequence of steps for prepping the fur before braiding. Could you explain a bit further?”
  • (If he still doesn't mention conditioner the second time, that's when I would ask "Should we add some conditioner before combing, to make the fur more manageable?" And yes, I would ask it as a question rather than saying "We should condition the fur".)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    It is what is sometimes known as tact.
  • When I was working as a young lawyer, the Law Society brought in some new regulations which the senior partner wasn't clear about. I was asked to phone the Law Society to ask the questions as my boss said it would reflect badly if he admitted to not understanding, but wouldn't reflect as badly if a woman didn't understand. It was partially a seniority thing, which was fair enough, but neither of the men working at the same level as me were asked to, as my boss put it "play the daft lassie."
  • That's interesting. If I heard someone saying that in a meeting, I'd think they were politely telling a speaker that they hadn't made their point clearly.

    I might even have used a phrase like that myself. I'd definitely be nodding along if someone said that and I thought the speaker hadn't been clear. I wouldn't think that it was a "I need help" flag.

    Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the phrase means "I understood you, but you were unclear, so please explain again a bit slower for some of the confused people in the audience" or "I didn't understand your reasoning - please be clearer"?

    'cause the latter is exactly what I mean by "I need help", and the former in general isn't helpful.

    If we're having a meeting to review the presentation that someone is going to make, I'd certainly talk about how this explanation went by rather fast and needs more detail, as an editorial comment to help the speaker prepare a better presentation.

    But in the meeting proper, I either follow it or I don't, and if I don't follow it, then I want clarification on a particular point. "Just do everything again a bit slower" isn't helpful at all.
    Borrowing the llama example lingo from Ask a Manager: if you had just listened to a coworker explain his new llama grooming procedure and thought he had forgot to rinse the shampoo out and add conditioner before combing, you would say something like "I didn't quite follow the sequence of steps for prepping the fur before braiding. Could you explain a bit further?”

    "Did you miss a step from your slide, or is there a reason we shouldn't rinse and condition at this point?"
    I'm surprised to see it described as "womanspeak." I'd think of it as the way to ask a question at school / university, where you are deferring to the teacher / tutor / lecturer. You wouldn't tell a teacher "You haven't made that clear" or "You're waffling." You would use the "I don't quite follow that" form.

    It's the non-specificity that I find harmful.

    "I didn't understand / I didn't follow how you got from step 5 to step 6" is a perfectly sensible comment, of the sort that I have made, and I am happy to receive from people. It tells me to break down the logic between 5 and 6 in to chunks and check with the questioner that they followed each bit. It's a constructive, productive question.

    Or sometimes "I get A and B, but why do you assume C?"

    The more specific a question is, the more useful it is. "I didn't follow" with no details is unhelpful.
  • Specificity in identifying what you didn't understand is an acquired skill. I could tell when I was starting to "gel" with a class when they got out of the habit of saying "I don't get it" and were able to say "how did you get from that to that?"
  • Gwai wrote: »
    Link to an article I find somewhat incorrect and somewhat misogynist but explains the general concept better than anything else I can find right now: https://www.divedeeperdevelopment.com/blog/linguistic-rituals

    That's an interesting article. I found myself saying "well, that's not very helpful, is it?" several times.

    For example, consider the phrase “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” that the article cites as an example of womanspeak in meetings. That's a completely useless statement. If you tell me which bit you didn't understand, or which logical step you think is unjustified, then we can have a productive conversation. That statement is a fairly meaningless "I need help" flag, and in all cases, I'm going to respond to it by saying "OK. Which bit didn't you follow?"

    The same goes for the dialogue that the writer refers to as "ritual opposition". If you make a good suggestion that I think can be improved, I'm always going to say something like "Great idea, but would it be better to change it like this?" Why would we spend valuable meeting time talking about the ways in which we agree?

    It can be useful to demonstrate where the points of agreement are sometimes because it shows the speaker has been accurately heard and also that such common ground exists. "A great idea but here's something else... " is fine. But it's often just another way of saying "Yeah, OK. But here's my idea which is, I think you'll agree, an improvement." Even if that actually is the case, it's much more convincing if the responder has shown they thoroughly understood the original idea.

  • Borrowing the llama example lingo from Ask a Manager: if you had just listened to a coworker explain his new llama grooming procedure and thought he had forgot to rinse the shampoo out and add conditioner before combing, you would say something like "I didn't quite follow the sequence of steps for prepping the fur before braiding. Could you explain a bit further?”

    "Did you miss a step from your slide, or is there a reason we shouldn't rinse and condition at this point?"

    To me this comes across as much more confrontational than I would usually be in the workplace. Starting out with "Did you miss a step in your slide" feels to me like it would put the presenter on the defensive - especially if he's male and I'm female. I would put it more like "Can you please tell me what is the rationale for not conditioning the fur at this stage?" That is, pretending that I think the presenter is leaving out the conditioner on purpose, when I know very well he probably just forgot it.

    One compounding factor is that I've always had low-status jobs (customer service rep, cashier, secretary). So usually it's not just a male-female thing, but a "lower-ranked woman speaking to a higher-ranked man" thing. I'd be interested to hear from female managers how their experiences differ from mine.
  • I'm surprised to see it described as "womanspeak." I'd think of it as the way to ask a question at school / university, where you are deferring to the teacher / tutor / lecturer. You wouldn't tell a teacher "You haven't made that clear" or "You're waffling." You would use the "I don't quite follow that" form.
    I also see it as a more polite and deferential way of asking for further information and/or clarification of the point just made. An assumption that the person speaking is more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject and therefore my imperfect understanding is more likely than their mistake.

    The issue is why is this described a "womanspeak", as though deference to others is a female trait, and presumably men would be less deferential and more likely to address others as equals or even inferiors. I can't see how this could be anything other than a social construct, defining different and quite arbitrary roles to men and women.

    It can also be used passively aggressively by anyone wanting to make a point when seemingly not making one. If someone - anyone- habitually chooses that form of words, then there may well be a wider issue to explore. It can, for example, be a way of prolonging a discussion.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Borrowing the llama example lingo from Ask a Manager: if you had just listened to a coworker explain his new llama grooming procedure and thought he had forgot to rinse the shampoo out and add conditioner before combing, you would say something like "I didn't quite follow the sequence of steps for prepping the fur before braiding. Could you explain a bit further?”

    "Did you miss a step from your slide, or is there a reason we shouldn't rinse and condition at this point?"

    One compounding factor is that I've always had low-status jobs (customer service rep, cashier, secretary). So usually it's not just a male-female thing, but a "lower-ranked woman speaking to a higher-ranked man" thing. I'd be interested to hear from female managers how their experiences differ from mine.

    I am not a manager, but I have respectable and equal rank to most people I interact with regularly. My experience is that it took active work to speak in a way that came across as confident when I was of equal rank to the guy. I would regularly write an email and then ask my husband whether hthis was still in womanspeak. Often even though I'd edited it to make t seem more confident he would suggest further edits. My career is much more advanced than his. And yet he is the one who knew how to write confidently.

    For instance, I was in the habit of introducing a new fact as a question to be polite. But that was seen as unsure. Similarly I have stopped "I think we should do this" I instead say "I hear that. Let's considering doing Y too." I think I, probably we, have been conditioned to defer to men. In such a case, I would try to say "I think we should condition the llama in step X. Do you agree?"
  • To me this comes across as much more confrontational than I would usually be in the workplace. Starting out with "Did you miss a step in your slide" feels to me like it would put the presenter on the defensive - especially if he's male and I'm female.

    That's interesting, because to me it reads as less confrontational.

    Missing out a step from some stupid copy-and-paste error, or getting a phone call in the middle of composing the slide or whatever is a normal human mistake that anyone might make, and so to me, there's no difficulty or shame in admitting "yeah, you're right, of course you condition at that point - I don't know how I missed that out", and "did you miss a step" gives the presenter an "easy out" to claim some kind of mechanical error rather than having to admit to forgetting it. And in the case where the presenter did just make a copy/paste blunder or whatever, everybody gets to agree that they all understand llama care, and here we are, a group of competent colleagues agreeing llama care together.
  • I like this thread. The topic seems important.

    LC mentions the occurrence of a "normal human mistake". Two of the possible reactions to such a mistake are "That could happen to anyone" and "that was really stupid". Many women will react the first way and at least some men will react the second way. There are other possible reactions.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    HarryCH wrote: »
    I like this thread. The topic seems important.

    LC mentions the occurrence of a "normal human mistake". Two of the possible reactions to such a mistake are "That could happen to anyone" and "that was really stupid". Many women will react the first way and at least some men will react the second way. There are other possible reactions.

    Like I tell my kids all the time, both things can be true. (It's usually when they're blaming some bad outcome on bad luck, and I agree with them that it was unlucky that this important thing broke at exactly that moment, but the fact that it broke at all points to this design flaw in the important thing, and we should talk about how to design a better one.)

    I was making breakfast this morning. I poured milk on my cereal, poured a glass of orange juice, and was heading towards my cup of tea with the carton of orange juice in my hand when I realized that something wasn't quite right. That is both a normal mistake, and really stupid.
  • Like the time when I opened the door of the washing machine (next to the oven) and nearly put in the morning rolls to warm ...
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    I like this thread. The topic seems important.

    LC mentions the occurrence of a "normal human mistake". Two of the possible reactions to such a mistake are "That could happen to anyone" and "that was really stupid". Many women will react the first way and at least some men will react the second way. There are other possible reactions.

    Like I tell my kids all the time, both things can be true. (It's usually when they're blaming some bad outcome on bad luck, and I agree with them that it was unlucky that this important thing broke at exactly that moment, but the fact that it broke at all points to this design flaw in the important thing, and we should talk about how to design a better one.)

    I was making breakfast this morning. I poured milk on my cereal, poured a glass of orange juice, and was heading towards my cup of tea with the carton of orange juice in my hand when I realized that something wasn't quite right. That is both a normal mistake, and really stupid.

    I wouldn't use stupid for that. Stupid to me is making a decision based on applying limited intellect. Stupid would be thinking orange juice belongs in tea.
  • This kind of thing seems to me to be emotional labour (the true meaning of that phrase anyway!), ie the added emotional work usually expected of women in the workplace but also within a cishet marriage, extended families etc.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I wouldn't use stupid for that. Stupid to me is making a decision based on applying limited intellect. Stupid would be thinking orange juice belongs in tea.

    Fair enough. In my use a "stupid mistake" would be one where the person knows (or should know) exactly how to do it right, but did it wrong. If, at some point in the middle of a complicated algebraic proof, you added 2 and 2 and got 5, that was a stupid mistake. If you're a person who is learning basic arithmetic, then adding 2 and 2 to get 5 isn't a stupid mistake. It's still wrong, of course, but it's an expected sort of mistake given your competence.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    This kind of thing seems to me to be emotional labour (the true meaning of that phrase anyway!), ie the added emotional work usually expected of women in the workplace but also within a cishet marriage, extended families etc.

    It's not clear to me which bit of the discussion you're referring to as "this kind of thing".

    There's an interesting discussion on the language various people use and the way other people hear it, and on which forms of wording sound more or less confrontational than other forms of wording, and there isn't complete agreement about which form of words is the most deferential, least confrontational, or most helpful.

    I think what you are describing as "emotional labour" is carefully monitoring your choice of language and your conversation partner's response to it, in order not to provoke an unwanted emotional response (anger, fear, etc.) in them. In other words, you take on full responsibility for managing the emotional flavour of the conversation. Is that what you mean?

  • Yes sorry, that is what I mean - also often things like fulfilling other non-spoken social niceties, like how women in a cishet marriage are typically the ones who manage the family address book, sending Christmas and birthday cards, etc.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Yes sorry, that is what I mean - also often things like fulfilling other non-spoken social niceties, like how women in a cishet marriage are typically the ones who manage the family address book, sending Christmas and birthday cards, etc.

    I'll agree that those are both things that are often (stereotypically, perhaps) done by women, but I don't think they're at all the same thing.

    Managing domestic correspondence would be part of household management, and the wife's job in the "traditional" setup where the husband works outside the home and the wife manages the household. And we all know that the shift to more women working outside the home was not accompanied by as large a shift towards men doing their share of the domestic responsibilities.

    Controlling the emotional tone of a conversation is hard work, and may well be a skill more generally associated with women.

    But are you implying that making vague statements like “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” rather than being specific is performing emotional labour? Because I don't get that - if that is what you're saying, can you explain why you think it?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    You not getting that, may be a gendered experience.
  • I am not a sociology expert, so anyone who is more knowledgeable than me, please feel free to give a correction. I believe the first sociologist who described emotional labor defined it as having to perform certain emotions as part of your job, when the emotions aren't necessary to the work itself. (Like, an actor acting happy or sad wouldn't count as emotional labor, because performing emotions is the job of an actor.)

    The classic example is flight attendants - they have to pretend to be happy to bring you coffee, no matter if they're grieving or ill or their feet hurt. But you could fill in pretty much any customer service role for that.

    I don't have exact data, but most of the kinds of job where you have to act as though you're feeling a certain way are overwhelmingly staffed by women.
  • But are you implying that making vague statements like “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” rather than being specific is performing emotional labour? Because I don't get that - if that is what you're saying, can you explain why you think it?

    I don't think that's exactly performing emotional labor, under the original definition. But it's performing subservience, which is also often expected in cishet male/female romantic relationships. It's saying "I'm the problem, I failed to understand you" instead of "You made a mistake".
  • You not getting that, may be a gendered experience.

    Well, it might be. But in this case, what I meant was "I don't follow your logic - can you explain why you think making vague statements is emotional labour, and who is benefiting from it."
    But are you implying that making vague statements like “I don’t quite follow that. Could you explain a bit further?” rather than being specific is performing emotional labour? Because I don't get that - if that is what you're saying, can you explain why you think it?

    I don't think that's exactly performing emotional labor, under the original definition. But it's performing subservience, which is also often expected in cishet male/female romantic relationships. It's saying "I'm the problem, I failed to understand you" instead of "You made a mistake".

    I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I agree with you that saying "I didn't understand this bit" has the structure of accepting the subservient position, whereas "you didn't explain it well" is a dominant statement.

    But neither of those things is a helpful statement.

    If I am confused by something a speaker has said, I will always, under every circumstance, be specific about my confusion, because that is a helpful and efficient way to move towards a resolution. So I will probably say something like "I didn't understand the logic of getting from step 3 to step 4 - can you explain that?" or "can you explain why it's reasonable to make this assumption here?" Most questions to speakers are formed in this formally-subservient sort of way, and IME this is true regardless of the gender of the speaker or the questioner.

    The only circumstance under which I have ever told a speaker something like "you didn't explain that well" is during a practice talk, where the entire purpose of the talk is for the assembled group to give feedback to the speaker and help them prepare the best possible talk to give to a big audience. And even then, it will be specific - "You need to explain X - that won't be familiar to most of your audience" or whatever.

    I have, on occasion, told speakers that something that they have said is wrong. And I've had people tell me that I am wrong on occasion. It's not exactly fun to have this happen, but it's usually civil, and comes with detailed explanations of why some assumption is a bad one, or which effect got missed, or how that can't possibly be correct, because a correct answer should behave like this, or whatever. And IME, even telling people that they are wrong is usually structured as "I don't think this is quite right", or something similar.
  • Re "emotional labour": one of my husband's friends describes me as the "parallel processing unit." My husband has the Big Thoughts which drive his career and I do the parallel processing - food in the fridge, Christmas, when the M.O.T. is due, taking pets to the vet, remembering people's names, where we keep the spare batteries / string / envelopes, which of our neighbours has our spare key etc etc.

    My husband is a big believer in efficiency and, as he says, it's much more efficient to store all that stuff in my brain than to have it cluttering up his brain.

    I would describe the stuff which my husband stores in my brain as "emotional labour."
  • Hope you aren’t holding down a paid job as well, NEQ.

    If so that would be a onecway ticket to a nervous breakdown.

    Been there, done that.
  • Not full time, Sojourner.

    Financially it would make sense for him to do less and me to do more - but it's not about money.
  • No it’s about you
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    There have been times when I was explicitly told, by female friends, colleagues, managers, that we needed to adjust our language when dealing with men, sometimes men in general, or sometimes a particular man, because of their egos, because they will treat us better if we do. That in a relationship, the woman is supposed to be the emotionally aware one, that men expect this, because it's harder for them, and so we train them emotionally. In a workplace with a rather temperamental and sometimes bullying male manager, the female assistant managers would explain they have to butter him up, and that I needed to do the same, because then he'll be in a good mood.

    I have literally never been advised to treat a woman that way. It's always men. Men themselves don't explain in so many words that this is how they expect to be treated, but it is a common thing for men to get quite verbally aggressive, or belittling, when a woman is direct with them, so the women are of course learning from experience and advising each other.

    I have also observed many times that, while a woman talking directly to a man above her (student to tutor, employee to manager), to question or challenge something, will be treated in a hostile or belittling way, a man doing the same will be treated in a friendly, jovial, man-to-man way.

    So, of course this is why women adapt their language more. And it is frustrating when men then say 'Oh, it's so annoying when women do that - why can't they just be direct, like a man! You know where you are with a man!' Like, seriously? And besides, as a direct person in a female body, I observe it is often those very same men who respond negatively to directness from a woman.

    This is surely about men needing to understand the impact on women of toxic masculinity over the years, and taking some responsibility to take on emotional labour themselves. Generally, if someone says they don't understand, it's quite easy to say 'Which parts weren't clear?' and try to unpick it with them.
  • Originally posted by fineline:
    There have been times when I was explicitly told, by female friends, colleagues, managers, that we needed to adjust our language when dealing with men, sometimes men in general, or sometimes a particular man, because of their egos, because they will treat us better if we do.

    This. Plus the "new staff warning" to new female members of staff re which men are handsy, which men you need to keep away from at staff socials, which men you should avoid sitting next to in a car. My daughter has never had these warnings, and says her generation expect to be able to work without being harassed, but for my generation, acronyms such as NSIT (not safe in taxis) or NSIL (not safe in lifts) were commonplace warnings passed on from woman to woman. It meant we were constantly, slightly, on our guard.
  • fineline wrote: »
    This is surely about men needing to understand the impact on women of toxic masculinity over the years, and taking some responsibility to take on emotional labour themselves.

    Such as?
    My daughter has never had these warnings, and says her generation expect to be able to work without being harassed

    Does this not suggest that much of what you are saying needs to change has, in fact, already changed?
  • fineline wrote: »
    So, of course this is why women adapt their language more. And it is frustrating when men then say 'Oh, it's so annoying when women do that - why can't they just be direct, like a man! You know where you are with a man!' Like, seriously? And besides, as a direct person in a female body, I observe it is often those very same men who respond negatively to directness from a woman.

    I think we're talking at cross purposes. I understand placing the blame on yourself a a social courtesy in conversation, and I understand conversations where you have to manage your partner's emotional state by careful choice of words and nuance.

    The thing I'm not understanding is how being vague does any of that.

    As far as I can see, "I don't understand - can you clarify further" and "I don't understand step 4 - can you explain how you get there from step 3" take ownership of the blame in exactly the same way. In both cases, the questioner centers the problem in themselves. It's "I have a problem, I didn't understand X, can you help me with that please" rather than "you suck at explaining things".

    But the second question is a useful question, and the first one is just a mildly annoying question. But you seem to be suggesting that there's an advantage, when dealing with particular kinds of men, to using the first form. And that's the bit that makes no sense at all to me.

    (And as a matter of fact, the problem is always "I don't understand X". It doesn't actually matter whether the speaker was exceptionally clear or very confusing - what's important to me is whether I understood the point that the speaker was trying to make. If I didn't, then my problem is my lack of understanding, and I'm going to tell the speaker what I didn't understand, in the hope that they can help me.)

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2023
    The first one makes it sound like your lack of understanding is your problem - thereby less confrontational - the second implies you haven’t explained the transition between step 3 and step 4 very clearly. However, I think you are over fixating on the specifics of this one example.

    @Marvin the Martian not having to warn people they are likely to be sexually assaulted in lifts is really quite a low bar. I work in healthcare which has a female majority workforce (especially at the lower paid end) and a mysteriously disproportionate number of male senior managers compared to men in the workforce as a whole. The attributions people make about communication style affect how listened to you are in meetings, promotion opportunities, what comes across as a good interview style etc. not least because women and men saying the exact same things can also be interpreted differently because assertiveness is often seen as appropriate for men and not for women.
  • This. Plus the "new staff warning" to new female members of staff re which men are handsy, which men you need to keep away from at staff socials, which men you should avoid sitting next to in a car. My daughter has never had these warnings, and says her generation expect to be able to work without being harassed, but for my generation, acronyms such as NSIT (not safe in taxis) or NSIL (not safe in lifts) were commonplace warnings passed on from woman to woman. It meant we were constantly, slightly, on our guard.

    I haven't heard acronyms, but there are certainly still whisper networks of women warning each other of unsafe men. I'm glad your daughter hasn't worked in a place where they're necessary!

    One example of a workplace whisper network that got a lot of media attention early in the MeToo movement was the Shitty Media Men list, of male journalists who were named as being creepy or dangerous.
  • The first one makes it sound like your lack of understanding is your problem - thereby less confrontational - the second implies you haven’t explained the transition between step 3 and step 4 very clearly. However, I think you are over fixating on the specifics of this one example.

    I just don't hear that at all - but I'll take your word that you do. If the second version says "you didn't explain the transition between step 3 and step 4 well", then the first version says "you didn't explain any of it well".

    But to my hearing, neither of them says that - the second version is most likely to be "there's a standard assumption that most people in the room know about that makes the 3->4 step valid, but my education/background is lacking, so please tell me what the assumption is", or something along those lines.

    My original complaint about the "womanspeak" cited in the article that spawned this thread was exactly this kind of vagueness - and it makes no sense at all to me that it is supposed to be less confrontational.

    I understand women being socially conditioned to be submissive and conciliatory and all that - I just don't understand why anyone thinks that vague statements do that.

  • I understand women being socially conditioned to be submissive and conciliatory and all that - I just don't understand why anyone thinks that vague statements do that.

    Why do you keep fixating on the idea of vagueness being a problem, when several people have given much more specific examples of how they speak? It was a bad example and not given by anyone posting here. Let it go.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    Whisper warnings were alive and well in the last place I worked. One particular manager was known among the young women as "DSK".
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    What does dsk stand for ?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I understand women being socially conditioned to be submissive and conciliatory and all that - I just don't understand why anyone thinks that vague statements do that.

    Why do you keep fixating on the idea of vagueness being a problem, when several people have given much more specific examples of how they speak? It was a bad example and not given by anyone posting here. Let it go.
    ISTM that the discussion is about whether a "I don't understand" statement is more submissive than phrasing essentially the same comment as "you haven't explained" or even "you're wrong". Which I think is probably the case, an "I don't understand" defers to superiority of the person being addressed (and, for example, is the way almost all my students address me when they raise a hand during a lecture - they don't often specify what they don't understand when it's the point I've just been making, though almost always more specific when coming up to me after the lecture ... the specificity of the particular phrase doesn't change that relationship that results in the "I didn't understand" phrasing as opposed to "you didn't explain that clearly").

    As I said a long time back, if in a context of near equals (eg: a team meeting where everyone is more less equally qualified and experienced) women are conditioned to express comments to men in deferential terms ("I don't understand") but men express comments in more confrontational terms ("you didn't explain" or "you're wrong") then this is a symptom of an underlying issue of women being undervalued (or, even worse, thinking of themselves as having less value) or men being jerks.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    What does dsk stand for ?

    Dominique Strauss-Kahn
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    fineline wrote: »
    This is surely about men needing to understand the impact on women of toxic masculinity over the years, and taking some responsibility to take on emotional labour themselves.

    Such as?

    Such as the sentence I wrote right after that one: Generally, if someone says they don't understand, it's quite easy to say 'Which parts weren't clear?' and try to unpick it with them.

  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    fineline wrote: »
    So, of course this is why women adapt their language more. And it is frustrating when men then say 'Oh, it's so annoying when women do that - why can't they just be direct, like a man! You know where you are with a man!' Like, seriously? And besides, as a direct person in a female body, I observe it is often those very same men who respond negatively to directness from a woman.

    I think we're talking at cross purposes. I understand placing the blame on yourself a a social courtesy in conversation, and I understand conversations where you have to manage your partner's emotional state by careful choice of words and nuance.

    The thing I'm not understanding is how being vague does any of that.

    Well, there can be several reasons. Softening language often does make it vaguer, particularly when you have a problem with someone. In so many life situations where women need to confront something, men can get hostile at specifics, because they feel more personal. Maybe not in this particular sort of situation, but when a person is needing to do it in all sorts of other situations, they are less likely to realise that specifics might be helpful here.

    Besides, just because you like specifics doesn't mean everyone does, and some people do get belittling or hostile when specifics of what wasn't understood are pointed out. And also, bear in mind that when a person is in a situation where they feel the need to be on guard, prevent danger, etc., it is harder to think very clearly and give specifics. Certainly for myself, being a naturally direct and very specific person, when I feel anxious, unsafe in some way, it is much harder to express myself.

    So again, what about my point that when a person is being vague, why don't you (the generic you, but also you specifically) take some initiative in asking them which parts they didn't understand? I work with students, and sometimes they are anxious about expressing that they didn't understand something, or they simply lack the ability to formulate their confusion into more specific language (confusion can have this effect in general, especially if it's the overall concept the person doesn't grasp, rather than specifics). If they come to me saying they don't understand, I ask them questions - 'Which part in particular didn't you understand? Did you understand this bit?' and if they are just generally confused, I find a way to break it down for them.

    If you have said something that someone hasn't understood, the onus isn't totally on that person to break down exactly why it was confusing. If you are expecting that, this may explain why you are not being understood, because communication is a two-way thing, where you work together, and you look for non-verbal feedback as you are speaking, to read if the person is following or looking confused, and you can ask questions as you go along to check understanding. This is a skill you can develop, and the more you develop it, the easier it will be for people to feel more comfortable around you and let you know as soon as they are confused. Because, when there is a power imbalance, the onus is more on the person with greater power to find ways to let the other person know they are listening and encouraging them to give feedback, and aren't going to get defensive or hostile if the person says something to imply their explanation wasn't clear.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I understand women being socially conditioned to be submissive and conciliatory and all that - I just don't understand why anyone thinks that vague statements do that.

    Okay, consider a relationship.

    When a man has been aggressive or belittling to a woman, and the woman tries to point it out, explaining how exactly what he said was hurtful, to ask him to behave differently in future, to improve their relationship, this can make a man defensive, or hostile. And the man will often say angrily that the details are petty and the woman should move on. I see this again and again in friends' relationships with their partners, even when the relationship is overall positive. Women often feel the need to learn to tiptoe around men, and this often involves saying soft, sweet, vague things to make the man feel better and treat her better, to have a better atmosphere. Women often learn to avoid certain specifics to keep the peace. A woman can be absolutely exhausted, doing all the work around the home, but when she tries to talk about specific things the man could do, this can result in an eruption of anger, or irritation, as she is seen as a nag, and spoiling his life. In short, specifics can, in many situations, trigger a man.

    To give an example (and to show this is all kinds of relationships, not just partners), I have a pretty good relationship with my dad, but it has taken a lot of emotional legwork on my part. He has often been aggressive, hostile and dismissive, and made me very upset. I felt it very important to confront this in adulthood, as it was happening again and again, whenever we visited each other, and it was impacting badly on my mental health. I knew he loved me and wanted to have a good relationship with me, but we both have our issues, and, like many men, his approach was denial, avoidance and aggression or mockery.

    Trying to get him to talk about any incident we had was very difficult. Mockery and hostility, and an impatient 'Just let's forget about it and move on!' were his knee jerk responses. And of course, we didn't move on, because the same thing kept happening each time I saw him, especially when he'd had some alcohol. I tried to talk to him about things like how getting yelling at me when I have a dizzy spell and collapse is actually worse for my health and will not help me get up. How making belittling jokes about my autism diagnosis is unhelpful, it's not funny to me, it makes me feel bad about myself, and feeds into the lack of confidence that he also was criticising. Many such specific examples, and it was exhausting having these conversations, because he would always respond with great resistance and act like I was being difficult.

    Eventually I discovered something that worked and helped. And that was vague positives - 'Dad, I know how much you love me, and I really appreciate that. I can imagine you must feel helpless when I am unwell or I struggle with things that you find easy, but you know, you are helpful when you listen and let me talk to you.' I had to use these vague positives in the hopes of cancelling out all the very specific negative behaviours.

    Now, moving onto a work setting. I work in a college supporting students, and sometimes lecturers are very vague in their explanations, or they simply omit vital info, or assume something is known when it isn't. If I don't understand it, then the students are unlikely to either. So I ask. My questions are always very specific.

    I have found that if it is a female lecturer, I can ask her for clarification and she explains willingly, seeming glad that I asked, glad for the opportunity to clarify something she forgot to mention. No ego is involved. She speaks to me as an equal. There are several female lecturers, and this is the norm.

    If it is a male lecturer, the response is variable. There are a couple of great male lecturers who I feel completely confident going to, and they explain in a clear, thorough way, treating me in a respectful way, as an equal. There are some who explain dismissively and incompletely, seeming a bit irritated that I asked, as if they have far more important things to focus on. The specifics I ask can seem trifling to them, despite the fact that the students need to know. Some seem barely to acknowledge my humanity, like I'm some annoying fly to swat away as quickly as possible, by quickly giving minimal info and turning away. Bear in mind, men get away with much poorer people skills than women do. Some don't even seem to understand my very specific questions, because they themselves are the vague ones, and they get annoyed with me and turn it round as if it's somehow my fault, like I'm pinning them down with my petty specificity, when their minds are on much bigger, more important things.

    So. There is my very specific answer about why women may avoid specificity.

  • Possibly everyone else is aware of this, but there actually are scholarly studies that are relevant here. For instance, Deborah Tannen wrote "Gender and Discourse." I have about six of her books on my shelves, but I certainly have not read all of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.