I was very glad to see the "Stop Apologizing " post a few weeks ago, as I had often had the very same thought. I was also happy to see Rachel add to the conversation . And while I do agree with most of what's been said so far, there is an important nuance that I want to make sure we don't miss.
Women tend to use what are termed "feminine speech patterns". They'll say "What if we did XYZ?" or "I think we should try XYZ" rather than "XYZ is the best solution." Women are then told that this type of language makes them sound (to men, especially) that they are insecure or unsure, and it allows other people to take credit for their ideas. So women start practicing being more forceful and more direct, because clearly masculine speech patterns are more effective.
Wait, what?!? Since when do we just accept the fact that masculine equals better?
Turns out we shouldn't. Feminine speech patterns are much better than masculine ones at encouraging engagement and building consensus. If all that matters is you prove your point, forceful and direct is fine. But if you are trying to get people on board with an idea or create an atmosphere where everyone is able to contribute their knowledge, phrasing things in terms of a question often works better.
I recently participated in a workshop, where we split into male, female, and mixed gender groups and were given a simple project. At any given time, the groups with women tended to have more people participating. Also, midway through the activity we took a break and had to answer a few questions about what was going on. Groups with women tended to have more consensus about the way the project was going and about what the final solution would be (and the all-women groups tended to have the most consensus). If you asked a random person on the street "who are better communicators, men or women?", they'd likely tell you women. So why have we fallen into the trap of thinking that masculine speech patterns are more effective?
One thing to point out. Most men don't realize all this, and will likely still draw the conclusion that you are insecure if you use feminine speech patterns. The "safest" thing to do for credibility's sake may be to stick to more masculine speech patterns. So let's add this idea to the types of sexism we fight every day. The problem isn't the the way that women speak. The problem is the way men interpret it. That's not saying that many women (myself included) shouldn't learn to present ourselves more confidently. But let's also make sure we all see the value in feminine speech patterns and help others to see that value as well.
Oh, and basically this post is a punch in the face to patriarchy.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminine speech patterns.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12773
Nice. Punching patriarchy.
I've always found that I've preferred the subtle coercion to be a more effective means of communicating, myself. But my question is: How do we convince "men" that this method is effective, rather than submissive? I find it difficult to change the reputation of something from "weak" to "powerful" so easily. Thus why soft power (non-violent coercion) is overlooked in many political decisions when conservative/masculine parties are in power.
Women tend to use what are termed "feminine speech patterns". They'll say "What if we did XYZ?" or "I think we should try XYZ" rather than "XYZ is the best solution."
Whats wrong with saying 'What if' and 'I think' statements when you are in the consensus building stage of a project and and 'XYZ is best' when it comes time to implement and show confidence?
Why does it have to be either or?
I think feminine speech patterns are cooperative, while masculine speech patterns are selfish.
Selfishness will always have an advantage over cooperation. The problem with cooperative speech patterns is that they create a prisoners dilemma.
It's in every individual's best interest to be one selfish member of a cooperative group, and almost as good for every individual (likely better for the group/employer) to cooperate. But if everyone is selfish, everyone loses (but not as much as you lose when you are cooperative while someone else is selfish).
If you can count on some people being selfish (men), then as a strategy, you ought to be as well.
I agree with Steven. I often find myself siding with the "androgynist" middle ground when people say "men tend to do X, women tend to do Y."
Assertiveness and consensus-building are both valuable assets. A "feminine" speaking style can be good for networking, for building projects, for gathering feedback and data. A "masculine" speaking style can be useful when what is at stake concerns only yourself (the oft-overlooked right to be selfish!) or when someone should clearly be the authority figure (teaching school, presenting research findings, etc.).
What is ultimately at stake is that both genders tend one direction more than the other; neither gender is flexible enough to answer the multiplicity of situations that face the adult human being. Forget about simply teaching women to be assertive; let's teach men and women to be assertive and teach them when it's appropriate to be so. Ditto for consensus-building.
Certainly masculine does not equal better, but it is an ugly reality in most of the world's cultures that it does equal "more powerful." It is hard not to respond to that reality, and to therefore yearn to adopt behaviors associated with the social construct we call "masculinity."
I worry when the process of marking one group as less-than through prescribed behaviors is seen as somehow more about sex than power. It makes me wonder if the speaker is actually giving credence to the concept of masculine and feminine. Both concepts are social constructs, but patriarchy relies on our thinking they're real and inborn. They're not. Patriarchy certainly relies on there being a sex class--a class designed for abuse--which always contains women and children, but the survival mechanisms and other behaviors demanded of the sex class are submission behaviors designed to soothe a violent Master, rather than anything actually to do with one's physical sex.
In other words, let's throw "masculine" and "feminine" into the garbage where they belong and start demanding that other folks treat us like people, and that we be allowed to do the same. That would include our engaging in both assertive and meek behaviors, because in a world not obsessed with power, a real human being would exist on an ever-shifting continuum between the two.
Right on!
In our last presidential election, the American people had to choose between "macho" and "cooperative" and we chose cooperative, so THERE.
I understand what you're trying to do here, but it's very important to note that not all women speak using "feminine" patterns and not all men speak using "masculine" patterns. Feminine and masculine are mostly social constructs. Most of the women I know who aren't white and/or middle class don't use what-ifs or I-thinks on a regular basis for communication. Passive speech is a luxury in some ways, a luxury reserved for people who have the time to prove their point if the other person resists their suggestion. According to this model, I'm masculine and my male partner is feminine.
In my opinion, the important thing is to use particular speech patterns consciously. When you want to build consensus, you use "feminine" speech patterns; when you want to get your point across, you use "masculine" speech patterns. Rather than saying that one group of people needs to do more of one or the other, I think we need to say that everyone should have a balance of both, and also be able to recognize it in others.
Well, the cold hard problem is, the "feminine" speech patterns reflect women's traditional role as being the ones who are dominated and who have to follow the orders of others.
While the "masculine" ones reflect men's traditional role as authority figures.
So, while it may not be the "feminist" thing to do, it would help women if they adopt the more "male" method of speech.
Otherwise, you'll just be reproducing the traditional role of women being submissive and only men getting to be in charge.
BTW what's so great about "consensus" anyway?
In my live experience as a political activist, "consensus" usually is a product of a disguised hierarchy, who manipulate people into agreeing with them - by dragging out a meeting for 4 hours, so everybody in the room who has a regular job to go to is forced to agree with the "professional activists" who don't have to get up at 6 AM tomorrow to go to work.
In my experience, more often than not, the "group consensus" is usually achieved by lots and lots of behind the scenes arm twisting and other passive aggressive forms of manipulation.
[Incidentally, manipulation and passive aggression are the only socially acceptable forms of female anger and hostility].
I much prefer the model of people forcefully giving options "Here's my plan, and here's why I think it's going to work, let's vote YES or NO" - because it puts the power relationships right out there on the table.
It's unfortunate that it's only socially acceptable for men to be that direct and confident in their views - the REAL feminism would be to claim that directness and confidence of will as universally HUMAN and acceptable for both men and women, rather than just a privilege reserved for men!
I totally agree with you, Gregory, especially with your insight on passive aggression in 'consensus' style communication.
This "feminine style of communication" is a myth, rooted in actual hatred of women and a desire to see them fail intellectually.
Feminism would be much better served by women adopting effective communication tactics, than trying to be the best 'woman qua woman'.
So much feminist discourse seems to be centered around this idea that women have trouble being sexual. This is just patently not the case. Women have trouble being respected for their intellect. The solution? A feminism that advocates effective strategies for helping women gain power and intellectual autonomy.
Oh, and adopting 'more male' types of speech, behavior, dress, etc. is about as feminist as you can get. Simple, consistent and comfortable attire, loneliness and dedication to one's work, confident speech and behavior are effective strategies for success.
There's actually a lot of anti-woman sentiment floating around in mainstream socio/gender feminism today, it's interesting to find it and point it out.