On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Jayne Docherty wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Wood Lee wrote:
>
>> It is my believe that cases where women are consciously overlooked or
>> bypassed are the exception.
May be I'm not putting this right, but I'm not trying to deny/belittle
what women endure on a daily basis.
I say this because I feel it's mostly when power is involved that
the players become vicious. Unfortunately, it is in such cases that
the impact to the victim is probably the greatest, like not getting
a deserved promotion.
However, I feel the more mundane, day-to-day occurences which could
be numerous and unconcious tend to be overlooked, probably because
they may be `too minor to make a big deal out of,' and one wants to
save energy for the `big one'. As a matter of strategy, however, it
would be nice if these more `harmless' occurences could be used to
establish an improved climate so that may be things can become easier
to deal with when power becomes involved. (More on this below.)
Cases where power is involved, when women are consciously overlooked
or bypassed, may be many and highly visible, but they are probably
still the exception when compared with daily occurences (such as
`friendly' exchanges between colleagues) which may be unconcious.
(Feel like drawing a parallel with sexual harassment here, but I
won't digress for now.)
>> Many times, the preferred communication
>> style of most women simply does not fit well with the traditional,
>> male-dominated, combative style. Most simply are forced to take a back
>> seat, though some women try to adapt to such a style. However, I suspect
>> that many do not do well and probably make unfavorable impressions on
>> their male colleagues, further complicating the overall problem.
>
> I would argue that it is not that we (women) do not "do well" when using
> this dominant style of discourse. Some of us do it *very* well, thank
^^^^
Precisely. Some may do well, but most probably don't.
> you very much. Even if we don't particularly like it. A *major* part of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what I meant when I said it's not the preferred style of most
women. In fact, it may not be the preferred style of some (may be
many) men either. The fact, however, is that we have been brought
up to behave in particular ways. It is possible that men and women
are equally capable of different styles of communication (though
with individual differences), but we have been coerced to adopt our
respective expected styles.
> the problem is that when we "do well" we are *heard* differently! If my
> male colleague uses the same style of speech and says the same thing, he
> is assertive. If I do it, I am a "ball busting bitch".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what I meant by futher complicating the problem. It may not
be a good way to put it, but I'm not `blaming the victim' here, as
some might have thought. As one netter already said, "It depends on
whether you want to get work done, or you just want to vent your
anger/frustration/..." (something to this effect). You may prove
(probably just to yourself since, as you point out, many of your
male colleagues probably can't hear you anyway) that you are as good
as them at `their game,' but are you `getting work done'? My guess
would be not since you have likely alienated yourself.
> I won't bore you with the details of my numerous experiences in this
> regard -- in the academic world and the workplace and the church -- I
> will simply say that for *me* the only solution has been to develop a
> large repertoire of discursive styles and to learn to use them in a
> consciously selective manner.
I am glad to hear this. Improving one's own repertoire is definitely
preferable to me than fruitless head butting, but ...
> Furthermore, I do not let other people (or
> the dominant environment) dictate which style I use. In fact, I am
> learning to select a style which counters the dominant one *and* then to
> both use it and build a bridge to those using the other style so that
> they feel invited to try a different mode of discourse as well.
> It is
> this "bridge building" component which is *essential* to getting people
> to try a new way of talking, thinking, etc. You cannot just tell someone
> the way they speak is unacceptable because it is "male" or "dominating"
> or whatever. First, all that does is *reverse* the order of dominance
> and silence others the way we feel we have been silenced in the past.
> Second, it doesn't help anyone *learn* a new way of talking, thinking,
> etc. These are skills -- which means they can be learned, practiced,
> improved, etc.
> One example. I was in a seminar course taught by a prof who graduated
> from Harvard Law School. His style is very "combative". People put
> their ideas out there and then everyone takes turns poking holes in it.
> The theory being that this makes the person build "stronger" ideas in
> response to challenges. My discomfort with this was compounded by the
> fact that he: 1) labelled me and others in the class (I was the feminist,
> idealist) and 2) he used those labels to dismiss my ideas and the ideas
> of others. After 3 or 4 weeks of leaving this class with a stomach ache
> and high blood pressure even though I was right in there being combative
> with the rest of them, it was my turn to "present". Rather than putting
> out my ideas in an "assertive" manner, I did two things: 1) I put my
> discomfort on the line and 2) I framed what I wanted to say as a series
> of questions with a range of possible answers and invited the class to
> discuss them.
> I did # 1 through a combination of "I" language (I feel uncomfortable)
> and a metaphor. I told the class that I felt uncomfortable, not because
> I "couldn't take it", but because I had a different vision of what we
> were there to do. I said that it felt to me as though we were in a
> competition to see who could build the biggest and best tower with our
> "Legos" (interlocking building blocks in case there are some on the list
> who have not been exposed to this culture specific entity ;-) ) and we
> were simultaneously trying to keep others from building a better tower.
> I, on the other hand, thought it would be more fun and more productive to
> see if we could build a tower together. I could see others in the class
> who had "pieces" that I liked and that would add to the tower in an
> interesting way if we combined them... etc. You get the idea...
> Fortunately, there were others in the class (not all women) for whom this
> metaphor resonated *and* the prof (because I did not *directly* attack
> him), was able to rethink the way we operated in the classroom.
... this is what gets the work done! And what I meant by helping your
male colleagues along. Of course opportunities do not always present
themselves readily. Like you said, it's no use just telling them in
their face that their style is no good. You have to be creative and
create/look for opportunities, be able to adapt like you do to take
advantage of opportunities. In the long run, the bridge building
will result in a different climate, one which may be more receptive
to different styles.
This has nothing to do with `being the victim and then being told that
it's your fault also' and having to bend over backwards to improve
things. It's a matter of whether you want to fight fruitless battles
butting heads, or you want to do real work. The obstacle is
considerable (which is the case with almost any real problem I
know of) so the real work is hard and tiring, but I believe it's the
best way to get results, as slow as they may come by. It's always
the case that pioneers would sow the seeds so that the progeny may
harvest. Expecting `instant satisfaction' (relatively speaking)
would only result in disappointment. We are in effect talking about
raising the level of human conscience here, and that's a tall order.
I wouldn't take things like that for granted.
>> Trying to adapt to a style that you really don't feel comfortable with
>> is probably not a good idea. In areas such as politics, sports, etc,
>> making your opponent play to your game/style is a major part of gaining
>> advantage. In what we are discussing, however, the rules/game/style
>> simply has been tilted against women, though unconciously in most cases.
>
> I am willing to go along with this, but I don't think it is a matter of
> winning or gaining advantage. I really think that it is a matter of
> "learning together" and building something new, different, and hopefully more
> just.
I think so too, but ... (also more on this in my reply to Barbara)
> This is not a war we are trying to win by defeating the enemy.
... unfortunately, this is traditionally how the power game has been played
and it may not change easily. Power corrupts. Things don't work the
same way when power is involved. In the long run, may be a change
in overall climate may change the way the power game is played as well,
but I have no clue at this point. Well, a journey of ten thousand miles
starts with one step.
> I would only caution against a genetic determinism here. Many of these
> same differences in style have been documented across *cultures* as
> well. Don't assume that the (white) male combative discursive style of our
> culture is universally "male".
>
> Jayne
Not at all, as I already stated above.
Wood
