WHY CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE SO MADDENING

My husband and I bickered a lot more a decade ago than we do now.  Over time, we have learned each other's quirks and have adjusted accordingly.  But here is a classic example of the kind of thing that used to occur all the time.  In this example, we were driving home after a day out and about:

ME:  Do you mind if we stop in the grocery store on the way home? 

HUSBAND: Yes.

I get pissed.  Fight ensues.  Husband is puzzled as to why I even "asked his permission" in the first place.  I get even more pissed.  (As in: "I did not (&#(*!#*(! ask your #*(!*)! permission!")

Of course, I WASN'T asking his permission.  I was doing two things: (a) politely acknowledging that my desire to stop at the grocery store would affect him too; and (b) starting a negotiation in the event that stopping at the grocery store would be inconvenient for him.  To me an appropriate response would have been: "I am worried that if we stop at the grocery store, we won't get home in time to watch the football game.  Is it okay if we  go tomorrow, or is there something you really need to get tonight?"  In my view, just saying, "Yes, I mind," was not a negotiation and failed to consider or acknowledge my stated wishes.  But in my husband's view, I hadn't stated any wishes; I had merely asked a question, which he had answered.

The problem was that we were both playing by very different rules and interpreting each other's statements according to a very different set of assumptions.  To my husband, it would have made more sense if I had just said, "I am stopping at the grocery store." Then he would have known unequivocally my desire and it would have been up to him to state his wishes if he disagreed.  He used to think that my communication style was indirect and deferential.   I used to think his was abrasive and inconsiderate.  But really they are just two different communications styles-- styles that happen to correspond in general to one's gender, styles that clash when used in the same conversation.

While  I am generally skeptical of popular books about gender differences, I really loved two books on this topic by Georgetown University linguist Deborah Tannen:You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation and Talking from 9 to 5: Men and Women at Work.  My example above is stikingly similar to some of the examples in her books, and she has numerous other examples of maddening communication gaps between men and women that will surely seem familiar to all of you.  Her thesis is that misunderstandings arise most frequently when we speak to people with an opposite communications style, usually someone of the opposite sex.

As you can imagine, women's communication style can have devastating consequences in the male-dominated workplace where it can lead to women being erroneously perceived as less confident, less knowledgeable, less decisive, and more deferential.  Tannen insists however that neither style is superior to the other -- it's just a matter of learning the rules  by which your conversational partner is operating and adjusting accordingly.  Both men and women can benefit by understanding and adopting aspects of the opposite communications style. 

Of course, there are political ramifications too (which Tannen doesn't generally address).  Many public spheres of society remain male-dominated.  Therefore, misunderstandings tend to inure to the detriment of women in the workplace and in public settings.  There are also expectations, not always consciously realized, that women should or will act a certain way.  If we break out of that mold, our actions may also be construed against us.  The classic example is when the men and women in a group talk for an equal amount of time, but people perceive the women as being overly talkative because the expectation is for women to be quiet.  That maddening prejudice is touched on in posts here and here, in light of a recent stupid David Brooks column about how gabby women are.  There is also the point that women tend to be perceived as more gabby because our words are considered silly or insignificant by definition.  (I am reminded of that ghastly "wingman" commercial in which the guy gets to dance with the hot girl because his "wingman" sacrifices himself by listening to the hot girl's friend endlessly gabbing away.)

 

Comments

[Joel Monka]

I sympathize comepletely with your husband- my wife and I have had exactly the same conversations. Something else I've noted, also- I don't know if it's in the books you mentioned, but it should be. Men will hold a conversation with each other while working on something and not look at each other- but women assume you're not listening if you don't make eye contact. If you've never noticed it before, just watch for it in the future, and you'll see what I mean. I doubt it has the kind of implications in the workplace you describe, but it's an interesting phenomenon.

[Richard]

Husband, in the laundry room, calls up to wife: "Honey, do I wash this jersey in hot or cold water?"

Wife: "What's the label on the shirt say?"

Husband: "Vikings."

[Dodo]

Another prove how gender specific education leads to misunderstanding and disadvantages. The world should get rid of it.

[The Happy Feminist]

Joel, Tannen addresses the eye-contact thing as well as lots of other issues. Another maddening one is recounting events of the day. Another fight my husband and I have is that he thinks I don't get to the point quickly enough. He wants to receive information in one line, such, "Lawyer A is mad at Lawyer B." I am then pissed because he doesn't seem interested in what I am trying to tell him. To me, "Lawyer A is mad at Lawyer B" doesn't convey the information. What is crucial are the nuances -- what Lawyer A said exactly, how lawyer B reacted, what they each said to other people about the situation, etc.

It's also annoying when my husband comes home and tells ME "Lawyer A is mad at Lawyer B" and then is incapable of providing the details of what they each said. He honestly doesn't understand why it matters what they each said exactly.

Sigh. Honestly, even though I read Tannen's books and she insisits that no style is superior to the other, I can't help feeling sometimes (don't tell anyone I said this) that men are just a bit thick. But no, no, that's wrong and a terrible thing to say. It is just that they are using communication for different purposes (albeit rather literal and unsubtle purposes).

[powderblue]

I think your husband should have explained why he said “Yes.” to your “Do you mind…” question. However, sometimes at the end of the day I’m cranky, and could see myself just saying “Yes” too.

In the non-statistically valid world of my experience, women talk more – and more easily – than men do, at least among themselves. In mixed groups, some women but more men attempt to dominate the conversation. It’s a joyful experience to participate in a group discussion where people are more focused on what each other has to say. I belong to a mixed-gender church committee like that.

Conan O’Brien once remarked on a recently published study that showed that girls are more articulate than boys: “Well, duh!”

[The Happy Feminist]

I think my husband honestly didn't believe my question required any more than a one-word answer. I have certainly broken him of that kind of a habit, but it took a while. I have also trained him that when he wants to stop at the store, he needs to consult me rather than just pulling into the store parking lot.

Meanwhile, he has trained me to speak with him slowly and clearly and literally. "I NEED to go to the store. Got it?" Just as I would to a simple-minded child. (I am really just kidding about men being thick but sometimes that's what it feels like!)

[Sarah]

My husband and I have similar communication problems. He'll say "What do you want for dinner?" and I'll say "Do you want tacos?" and he'll say "Why do you always answer a question with a question?" What?!?! To me, if I just said "Let's have tacos," I would be imposing my will on him without making sure it was ok with him. I was I never thought that it might just be a gender difference; I thought he was a little dense. :-p

[Joel Monka]

My wife and I have had the conversation Sarah describes many times, and I finally explained it to her in this way: Men are (at least in this sense) pretty straightforward. When we ask a question, it's because we really were seeking information. There was no hidden agenda here; this was not an opening of negotiations. I had no idea what I wanted for dinner, so I asked you what you wanted; I don't care. By answering a question with a question, you have just muddied the waters- did you mean that you wanted tacos, or did you mean that you wanted fish, but since you know I like tacos you were willing to go along with it? I'm a big boy, capable of speeking for myself; had I wanted tacos, I would have said so and the question would instead have been "Are you ok with tacos?". Now, do you have a preference, or should we just look at restaurants on the way home and see if inspiration strikes?

[The Happy Feminist]

"Do you want tacos?" means "I want tacos but I would be willing to consider other alternatives if you would rather not have tacos."

Now you know!

[The Happy Feminist]

I think the more classic male way would be to say, "We're having tacos!" which means, "I have decided what I would like us to have but you're certainly free to speak up if you object."

But when the woman hears, "We're having tacos!" she interprets it as, "I have decided for both of us and I really don't care what you think about it."