It's funny. This started when someone opined there was NO GENDER inequity to that 78% is too high a number.
It's funny. This started when someone opined there was NO GENDER inequity to that 78% is too high a number.
[QUOTE=57Brave;309385]In general I've seen 3-8% as the "unexplained" portion of the gapOriginally Posted by acesfull86
Can We Just, Like, Get Over the Way Women Talk?
By Ann Friedman
Like, have you ever noticed that women apologize too much? Sorry, but just humor me for a second here. What if, um, how we’re speaking is actually part of what’s undermining us in the workplace, in politics, and anywhere in the public sphere where we want to be taken seriously? I think it could be time for us all to assess how we’re talking. Does that make sense to you, too?
It makes sense to tech-industry veteran Ellen Leanse, who explains that women overuse the word just, which sends “a subtle message of subordination.” Essayist Sloane Crosley and comedian Amy Schumer tell us not to say "sorry" so often. A career coach warns the readers of Goop that women use too many qualifiers (“I’m no expert, but …”), which undermine their opinions. Radio listeners complain of "vocal fry" that makes it impossible to listen to women. And according to a Hofstra University professor, women who suffer from upspeak — also known as “Valley Girl lift”? — reveal “an unexplainable lack of confidence” in their opinions when they turn declarative sentences into questions.
As someone who’s never been shy about opening her mouth and telling you exactly what she thinks, this barrage of information about the problems inherent in women’s speech has me questioning my own voice. Here I am, thinking that I’m speaking normally and sharing my thoughts on campaign-finance reform or the Greek debt crisis or the politics of marriage, when apparently the only thing that other people are hearing is a passive-aggressive, creaky mash-up of Cher Horowitz, Romy and Michele, and the Plastics. I’m as much a fan of these fictional heroines as the next woman, but I want people to hear what I’m saying and take me seriously.
At first blush, all of this speaking advice sounds like empowerment. Stop sugarcoating everything, ladies! Don’t hedge your requests! Refuse to water down your opinions! But are women the ones who need to change? If I’m saying something intelligent and all a listener can hear is the way I’m saying it, whose problem is that?
“All the discussion is about what we think we hear,” the feminist linguist Robin Lakoff tells me. Lakoff is a professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley, and, 40 years ago, pioneered the study of language and gender. “With men, we listen for what they're saying, their point, their assertions. Which is what all of us want others to do when we speak,” Lakoff says. “With women, we tend to listen to how they're talking, the words they use, what they emphasize, whether they smile.”
Men also use the word just. Men engage in upspeak. Men have vocal fry. Men pepper their sentences with unnecessary “likes” and “sorrys.” I haven’t read any articles encouraging them to change this behavior. The supposed distinctions between men’s and women’s ways of talking are, often, not that distinct. “Forty years after Lakoff’s groundbreaking work, we’ve learned that all such generalizations are over-generalizations: none of them are true for every woman in every context (or even most women in most contexts),” writes feminist linguist and blogger Debbie Cameron. “We’ve also learned that some of the most enduring beliefs about the way women talk are not just over-generalizations, they are — to put it bluntly — lies.” Maybe we don’t sound like a pack of Cher Horowitzes after all.
Still, I care about good diction — I want to be heard and understood. When I’m writing, it’s easy to do a control-F for “I think” and delete all of the wishy-washy words that are diluting my opinions. When I’m speaking, it’s much harder to notice which linguistic tics I exhibit. And until I started co-hosting a podcast, I was fairly oblivious to my own vocal patterns. Then the emails and tweets started rolling in, advising me and my co-host that we would sound a lot smarter if we could just pay a bit more attention to our speech. The list of complaints mirrors the advice-driven articles I’ve seen scattered over the internet lately. “Fingernails on a chalkboard,” wrote one reviewer on iTunes. “One has up-talk, the other has vocal fry and both use the word like every frigging third word. … These are the ladies Amy Schumer goofs on.”
It quickly became apparent that if we were to take the advice of all of our detractors — carefully enunciating, limiting our likes, moderating our tone to avoid vocal fry — our podcast would sound very different. It would be stripped of its cadence and its meaning; it would lose the casual, friendly tone we wanted it to have and its special feeling of intimacy. It wouldn’t be ours anymore. “This stuff is just one more way of telling powerful women to shut up you bitch,” says Lakoff. “It makes women self-conscious and makes women feel incompetent and unable to figure out the right way to talk.” She adds, “There is no right way.” Especially if you want to sound like yourself, and not some weird, stilted robot.
Indeed, as with salary negotiations in which women are damned if they don’t ask for a raise and penalized for being overly aggressive if they do, tweaking speech to be more direct and less deferential comes with its own consequences. “When women talk in ways that are common among women, and are seen as ineffective or underestimated, they're told it's their fault for talking that way,” the linguist Deborah Tannen, who’s written several best-selling books about gender and language, told me. “But if they talk in ways that are associated with authority, and are seen as too aggressive, then that, too, is their fault when people react negatively.” Asking women to modify their speech is just another way we are asked to internalize and compensate for sexist bias in the world. We can’t win by eliminating just from our emails and like from our conversations.
Lakoff argues that the very things career coaches advise women to cut out of their speech are actually signs of highly evolved communication. When we use words like so, I guess, like, actually, and I mean, we are sending signals to the listener to help them figure out what’s new, what’s important, or what’s funny. We’re connecting with them. “Rather than being weakeners or signs of fuzziness of mind, as is often said, they create cohesion and coherence between what speaker and hearer together need to accomplish — understanding and sharing,” Lakoff says. “This is the major job of an articulate social species. If women use these forms more, it is because we are better at being human.”
Language is not always about making an argument or conveying information in the cleanest, simplest way possible. It’s often about building relationships. It’s about making yourself understood and trying to understand someone else. As anyone who’s ever shared an inside joke knows, it’s fun. This can be true even at work or in public — places where women are most likely to be dismissed because of the way they speak. To assume that our verbal tics are always negative is to assume that the goal of all speech is the same. Which of course is patently ridiculous.
Maybe women are undermining themselves a bit when they, like, speak in a way they find more natural. But only in the sense that they are seeking to articulate their thoughts more authentically and connect more directly with the people listening to them. Next time I read some advice from a podcast listener or from some self-styled expert on the internet about how women are too creaky-voiced, too apologetic, or using a word too much, I know exactly how I’ll respond: As if.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
One of the first things my bosses told me in my first week on the job was "stop apologizing"...and "stop undermining your own opinions if you want people to take you seriously"
and I'm a man!
Some anecdotal examples here... but I have 4 major client accounts. 2 of them, my counterpart is a man, and the other 2 are women. I can't tell you much time I spend going over weekend plans and relationship stories and just general bull**** with the ladies before getting to the business... With the men, the calls always end early because we get to the point and move on. In my own head, I think the guys are more productive because they are more data focused than the women, who tend to be more emotional focused.
Last edited by sturg33; 05-20-2016 at 10:09 AM.
cajunrevenge (05-22-2016)
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Runnin (05-23-2016)
How's that working for them
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
What a misandrist thing to say
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
What a misogynist thing to say
cajunrevenge (05-24-2016)
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
It seems you are not familiar with what the 10th amendment is... Not surprising observing your views
well... it was two different words... And it seems to be thrown around a lot by the left when they get shut down in policy arguments... Please don't be offended!
What I find interesting about this viewpoint - which zito bizarrely shifted to something really weird and unrelated... is that it's true that a libertarian society allows for dissension and different ideas... if a little community wanted to go full on socialism - have at it! But the opposite is not true... in a socialistic society, there is no room for dissent, and a community could not opt out or else they would be jailed or worse. Why is that the case? If the government philosophy is so good and so strong, why not allow the liberty to opt out if they so choose?
I think you aren't familiar with the 10th Amendment. As it states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As you're taking the expressly delegated opinion as was popular with some after the Constitution was ratified, but as the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison said "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia." Or as the Supreme Court has ruled, the 10th Amendment added nothing to the Constitution.
And to get a little more specific, from Cornell's law site.
"Under Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court’s most recent ruling directly on point, the Tenth Amendment imposes practically no judicially enforceable limit on generally applicable federal legislation, and states must look to the political process for redress."
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
