April 29, 2008

• Coincidentally I have just been reading a bit of a fuss on LJ where someone wrote a long screed about how to be (or not be) That Guy, the one who women think is either creepy or trying to get into their pants. One of the factors to consider was whether you, as a guy, tend to explain things to women because you think the woman doesn't have a full understanding of the topic. I'll try to find it later, if it's public.
• Or do some women assume that they are being condescended to because they are women, without realised that the condescender is just a damn annoying condescending person who condescends to everyone? I say this somewhat shamefully, as the person more likely to be the condescender than the condescendee, despite my healthy ovaries. Moral of the story - don't assume you know more than the person you are talking to. I'm not saying there may be no gender pattern, but I want to see some kind of sociology or social psychology paper which looks at conversation patterns between men and women. There have been some. I'm tired of some pundit's anedotes being passed off as serious social commentary. (not bad post - just annoying article.) There has been some research on differing conversation patterns between men and women, and men's conversation patterns are more assertive (both interupting and expecting to be interupted), which could lead to a great deal of friction. I have to point out that my male partner is pissed off at me that I have posted before him, despite the fact that he showed me the link, thus clearly showing that I think I know better than him.
• In other words, I've been condescending and stealing his ideas before he could put them online.
• I think the article was interesting because it was this woman's opinion of several experiences that has led her to believe that *certain* men exhibit more than their fair share of what might be deemed condescension. Consequently, I began to think how I approach women and how they might take my conversational style. Do I come across as *that guy* or am I the sensitive and sympathetic type? Or am I just me?
• Hold on a tick: how are we to distinguish between 'he was overbearing and argumentative because he thought I was an inferior woman' and 'he was overbearing and argumentative because he respected me enough to not treat me like a china doll'? Now I have no wish to deny that there are pompous, arrogant people in the world, some of whom are sexist. But to interpret all pomposity, all arrogance, and all poorly worked out or unfounded arguments as sexism is simply going too far. I, last time I checked, am a male, and I have experienced the whole 'somebody sounding off on something I know lots about' thing countless times. And yes, they sneered at me, and yes, they ignored my ostensibly brilliant reposts, and no it didn't have anything to do with my gender. I don't feel like this author is demanding equal treatment. I feel like this author is demanding special kid-glove treatment where being contradicted at a dinner party is classed as a humiliation and compared to the humiliation of rape and murder victims. This author, this writer and academic and public intellectual, is saying 'don't argue with me because I can't take it: I'm a girl.' That is not, I think, a message of empowerment.
• Smug pricks. They can be male or female. That the proportion is quite skewed is another thing. That we males don't think twice before downplaying a woman's capacities and insight, fueled by a lifelong conditioning from parents, religion, school, media and the workforce, well, guess that has something to do with it.
• I do this to my sister all the time. She knows it and so do I. Last time I visited her in Aberdeen I was busily explaining how Sudoku worked - and how I had messed up that day's in the Telegraph (after an hour an a few mistakes) when she told me she'd just finished the hexadecimal 4x4 version that morning in 20 minutes. Hexa-bleedin-decimal. She has learned to slow my brother and I down in mid-explain with a quick satire of our dad (GRHS) saying, "Well, actually, I've read an article in the Sunday Times Magazine and I think you'll find I'm a bit of a world expert now!". But it might not be a gender thing. Despite being in our 40's she is still 2 years younger than me - so is always (subconsciously) my 15 year old little sister. Perhaps Ms. Solnit was a victim of reverse ageism, not sexism. It might be that only men do the explaining thing, but if they do it to other men and women equally then it isn't sexism. It's just called "being a man". (And an old fart). And we should get special treatment for our disability. Now let me explain why...
• There's a possible confirmation bias (since I know a lot of them) but engineers tend to do this a lot (and most of them are male). It seems that people who are experts on some very technical subjects tend to think it makes them experts at everything.
• Men? Condescending? Nevar! Why, just the other day the men at the garage were telling little ol' me that I shouldn't worry my purty lil' head about such stuff.
• Sure, the host was probably a smug and condescending jackass but she comes off as smug herself and someone who was looking to work up a good head of righteous indignation, given the slightest provocation. At parties hosted by dull and rich old bastards (as she essentially described the situation in the first couple of paragraphs), a certain amount of annoying behavior seems likely. As to your question, f8x, the fact that you're asking it lends one to suspect that you're probably not *that guy*.
• Richer: yes.
• I am fairly convinced that in the long run women in academia will get served a disproportionate amount of condescending crap because of sexism, but I agree that particular instances may be due to personalities etc. I have a Japanese woman friend who has a PhD in anthropology and am well aware of the amount of patronising bullshit she's had to put up with over the years that is patently a mix of sexism and racism at some level. I did not RTFA though. I'm a man; obviously the last thing I need to do is hear what women have to say about sexism before I weigh in with an opinion.
• This is interesting. I agree it's not purely sexist - I've certainly been on the receiving end of ill-founded explanations from blokes who knew nothing, about stuff in my own professional sphere. There is surely a difference between the sexes, though. I've also recognised and fought against the same explanatory tendency in myself, picking up the irritating habit of delivering the lecturette anyway and then saying ritualistically "Of course, I could be wrong, I don't really know much about it." Or I deliver the explanation with side remarks about how they surely know all this anyway, which just makes it even more patronising. Still further work needed, but I believe I am now better at keeping it brief at least, and not moving on from the etymology of a word to Latin in general and then the full history of the Roman Empire, as partially recalled by me on the spur of the moment.
• I get things explained to me all the time from both men and women - I must look like a dim bulb or something. It does seem to happen more frequently from men, but I think the real difference is that it's socially more acceptable from men. Most of the women who do it seem to apologize or at least regret it once they find out they hadn't needed to explain, but it goes right over the men's heads that there's anything wrong with it.
• Muybridge was pretty great, especially because of his work with horses, but he could also be ego maniacal (not stopping even at murder to get his point across, according to a wiki article). Clearly the lady is fascinated by such men. Even that guy in Colorado gets to star in one of her articles...
• I do find that people of one gender seem more likely to present opinions as absolute truth. I also find that the sort of person who does this is likely to do it with equal ease when speaking to males or females. MonkeyFilter: I've read an article in the Sunday Times Magazine and I think you'll find I'm a bit of a world expert now.
• it goes right over the men's heads that there's anything wrong with it. Maybe that's why this article has touched such a nerve with me. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. To me, explaining things is a symptom of loving ideas. Explaining things is wanting to share. Similarly, vigorous argument is about the joy of tossing around ideas. I kind of sympathise with people who 'don't like conflict', but I find it very hard to understand them. Or to put it another way: I feel as if every child should be taught to debate, so that they don't conflate abstract ideas with ego and thus learn to be more intellectually flexible and less dogmatic. In other words, I am that guy. I feel bad every time I realise that my extroversion has made somebody else feel bad. But I also feel indignant that the shy or the introverted or the person who seeks to avoid ideas (separate categories all) should be classed as my victim. Surely there should be accommodation on both sides?
• It's alright explaining things when you really are a world expert, Dread: the problem is explaining things when you don't actually know that much and in all probability no more than the explainee. What we're talking about here is not debate, or the vigorous adumbration of ideas: it's an over-ready assumption of ignorance on the part of your (especially female?) auditors.
• I'm a bugger for doing that off of reading a book review or something Plegmund. And the few things I am an actual bona fide expert on I find difficult to say anyhting coherent about at all :D
• Men do this more than women, it's true, but they do it to other men, too. And it's not a "man thing" per se. The best public speakers, teachers, and leaders do it all the time, even the female ones. Of course, if your facts are wrong you're just being an idiot, but if you know your stuff you'll get your point across better with an air of authority. Here's my advice: If someone explains a concept to you, don't assume that they think you're an idiot (or worse, just a dumb woman). I tend to explain simple concepts to people as a rhetorical device to help explain a more complex point, or sometimes just to outline things in my own mind...sort of thinking out loud. Interestingly, almost all the people who take offense to this are women.
• Male Answer Syndrome is a play for conversational dominance. If Arthur asks Ben a question, Arthur has put himself in a submissive position. Ben - as the one both holding and providing the answer - has gained the conversational high ground. Some people are so eager for conversational dominance that they provide answers to questions which haven't been asked. Sometimes they simply provide answers at random. This behavior is the result of insecurity. Be aware that responding in kind can quickly escalate the conversation into "attack and defend" mode. Correcting or extending the original explanation is a signal that you are prepared to engage in a fight for dominance. Things can get ugly. I find that diffidence is an easy, non-confrontational way to short-circuit this attempt to gain the high ground. A simple, bland "uh huh" can - if used correctly - be utterly devastating.
• But I also feel indignant that the shy or the introverted or the person who seeks to avoid ideas (separate categories all) should be classed as my victim. I don't think we (or the woman in the article) are talking about anyone who is shy, introverted, or seeking to avoid ideas (I personally have never met anyone of the third category). I think we're talking about the person who can't get a word in edgewise. Before I explain something to someone, I need some kind of signal that they actually will benefit from, or be interested in, having it explained. It can be as smiple as me saying, "Hey, have you ever heard of X?"
• Addendum: it's also not uncommon for an explanation to be misread as a dominance move. If Ben explains something to Arthur, and Arthur bristles at the explanation, Ben may want to act quickly to defuse the situation. Ben can do so by deftly asking Arthur a question (thus making it clear that this is a give-and-take situation, not a one-way street). Ben can also tilt his head to the side and look down at the ground, while making apologetic hand movements (i.e. a submission posture). If they are both standing, Ben can pull over a chair and sit down. In an emergency (such as a high-risk dinner party, or if Arthur is Ben's boss), Ben can quickly change the subject to a topic on which Arthur is an expert, or cede the floor to another speaker entirely.
• TUM's approach is perfect! Note how it hands control of the conversation over to the explainee.
• I personally have never met anyone of the third [seeks to avoid new ideas] category I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant people who seek to avoid novel and uncomfortable or contradictory ideas.
• That was how I understood it, Dread, but I still can't recall meeting any of them. I've met plenty who will never ACCEPT those new ideas, but none who won't even hear them once. Of course, it's entirely possible I just don't get out enough. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
• I think she's drawing a pretty clear distinction between normal conversational give-and-take and the experience of talking to a brick wall who refuses to even consider the other person might have something worthwhile to contribute. In normal conversation you don't have to repeat yourself three or four times before you're heard, especially when you're saying something like "That's HER BOOK." She also didn't describe herself as "humiliated" by being "challenged" at a dinner party -- she could barely hold off laughing at the guy long enough to get out of his house. He wasn't disagreeing with her ideas, he was dismissing outright that she had any ideas at all. Big, BIG difference.
• I still can't recall meeting any of them. I've met plenty who will never ACCEPT those new ideas, but none who won't even hear them once. You must be a far better person than I am. There are certain pundits and politicians to whom I simply cannot listen. They make me so angry.
• Of course, it's entirely possible I just don't get out enough. More likely, you hang out with a better kind of people. There *exists* that kind that bristle at the very concept of an idea that might tarnish their cemented worldview, oh yes.
• interesting...I have lots of nerdy friends who tend to explain things a lot. (me too) I always tend to assume friends are merely very enthusiastic about the topic at hand (ie, not condescending) altho I do worry that I may seem condescending to others when I explain things (with my brilliant ovaries) because I know that I do come off that way sometimes. or, I have never really felt intellectually condescended to on account of gender. I have, however, felt condescended to "emotionally" if you will, in a way that I could not avoid considering sexist (and condescending) ie, mr medusa, who is a really great guy and not at all sexist (strictly speaking) will let me I am being irrational if I am emotional (ie crying) during an argument. I don't agree that is an automatic correlation (ie, it's possible to experience your emotions yet think about them clearly). when I tell him he's being sexist, he gets upset and doesn't really understand how I can consider his behavior condescending/sexist/rage-inducing whatnot... my point? just that this is a very gray area of dynamics....some people need to be less touchy or looking for insult, and some people need to be more aware of how their communication strikes those around them. and some people really are condescending bastards.... me, I cannot STAND someone telling me how I feel (ie that they know my feelings more than I do) or even worse, of dismissing my feelings, invalidating them or brushing them off. to me that is the ultimate condescension, but I also know that I have an "issue" re that dynamic and just maybe I am a little aggro about sensing a potential insult. or, we are all a bunch of precious little snowflakes who need to stop whining and play nice. or somehting.... /am I babbling?
• She also didn't describe herself as "humiliated" by being "challenged" at a dinner party -- she could barely hold off laughing at the guy Well in the first case, what she actually said is that, being a woman, she went away and laughed at him behind his back. Aside from the fact that this, in itself, is a rather sexist twist of the knife that makes neither men or women look good, it also doesn't encompass the full range of her reactions to overbearing conversational partners. Most of the debate, here, seems to be focussing on the second anecdote, later in the article. Quote: His scorn was so withering, his confidence so aggressive, that arguing with him seemed a scary exercise in futility and an invitation to more insult. Now maybe this guy really was so aggressive that a full-grown adult used to the cut and thrust of academic debate was genuinely too fearful to correct him. Yet, and at the same time, there were plenty of ways she could have responded that would not have involved a) making the assumption that this guy is a dyed in the wool sexist (a very serious charge) and b) allowing the 'insult' of his rather understandable error (McCarthy was censured in 1954) to stand. For example, she could have simply said 'actually, I know that HUAC existed at that time, because I've read primary sources, conducted interviews with people involved, and ultimately wrote a book on the subject'. Less confrontationally, she could have said 'actually, a lot of people make that mistake, but HUAC went on for years before and after McCarthy'. Instead, her response was as follows: Perhaps the translator was peeved that I insisted on playing a modest role in the conversation ... Dude, if you're reading this, you're a carbuncle on the face of humanity and an obstacle to civilization. Feel the shame.
• What Dreadnought said. The author describes several instances where a)Some man is condescending; b)She unilaterally assumes some sexist motivation for his behaviour; c)She reacts as if her assumption is true; and d)paints all males with the same broad brush. This is the same trend that comes up often in discussions of the US south or religion: i.e. the actions of individuals are used to justify preconceived prejudices of an entire group.
• it's also not uncommon for an explanation to be misread as a dominance move. ... Ben may want to act quickly to defuse the situation. Yes, I think that this is definitely true, but I still think that it puts far too much of the onus on Ben for this to be universally good advice. In many situations it would simply be inappropriate for Arthur to take offence at Ben's explanation, and it would seem cloying and, yes, condescending for Ben to defer so much to Arthur's sensitivities. I don't think it's possible to come up with a general rule that works in all cultures and in all situations. Only the most insensitive clod would lecture a bereaved widow at a funeral. Only the most insecure bundle of nerves would resent a lecture in a parliamentary debate. Most other situations fall somewhere along that scale, and depend both on the circumstances of the situation, and on the culture of the people involved. Sometimes Ben has to be careful about not sending the wrong signals to Arthur. Sometimes Arthur has to try and understand Ben's need to talk things out or just ramble. Sometimes, yes it's true, sometimes Arthur just needs to toughen up a bit and not take it so personally. ... As I read back over this comment, and others, I realise that I am coming perilously close to arguing from the moral low ground. I have no wish to deny that there are overbearing jerks in the world. Sometimes these people can, it's true, really set out to dominate and socially humiliate you. I just think that these people are few and far between, and I resent that this writer is tarring a randomly selected 50 percent of the population with that brush. It's a bit like she wrote an article saying 'I know lots of nice women, but a couple of times I was emotionally blackmailed by a woman. Emotional blackmail is a woman thing.' It's a cheap stereotype.
• Oh, and as jb reminds me, we actually do this to one another so much that we have a verb-phrase for it. We call it 'over-explaining', as in 'you're over-explaining again, dear, get to the point'. I can assure you that neither one of us thinks the other one stupid or ignorant. I tend to explain simple concepts to people as a rhetorical device ... or sometimes just to outline things in my own mind Well said, rocket88, well said.
• It sounded to me like she DID try to say something like that, Dreadnought, but that he wouldn't hear it. The carbuncle thing? She's having a little fun, after the fact. Not in the same league. I'm just trying to make the point that there is a species of conversational bully out there that takes "explaining things" to an extreme that I don't think any of us self-described condescenders/explainers (and MCT at least would put me in that group) ever get to. I work for one. It can be miserable, and it absolutely prevents any real exchange of ideas or knowledge. As for her saying that because she's a woman, she waited to laugh at him ... I don't believe that condemning truly malignant sexism requires absolute fidelity to the notion that there are no differences in the way men and women behave. Maybe she's not perfect, but it doesn't mean she doesn't have a point.
• OH FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU JUST GO ON AND ON AND ON IT'S LIKE A BUZZING IN MY HEAD MAKE IT STOP
• Um... sorry, mct I'll.... go away now...
• You're not my wife!
• Aren't you supposed to be cooking my dinner right now?
• Monkeyfilter: my brilliant ovaries
• No, Medusa, you are not babbling. I agree--Don't tell me my emotions/feelings are "wrong." You may explain that there are other ways that I may choose to view a particular situation, and that may change my emotions/feelings as well as my perception, but ultimately, our emotions are the product of the past, the present, and the anticipation of the future, and the intellectual and the emotional do not always correlate. MonkeyFilter: it goes right over the men's heads that there's anything wrong with it
• At the zoo today, me and the kids were at the monkey cage, and I was making some monkey noises so they could giggle and laugh at me. A lady near us decided to correct me and explain that I was making the wrong kind of monkey noises. Apparently I was making chimp noises when I should've been making orangutan noises. If I was like the author of the article, I would say that her gender made her be a smug know-it-all about monkeys, and I would make a claim that she's always treating my gender like we're stupid. I'm not like the author of the article, however, so I won't pretend that I know what made that lady be so snooty. But I am pretty damn sure that whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with that person's genitalia, or how it's different than mine. The article itself is just as guilty of the same type of behavior that it is complaining about. It's smug, snooty, and talking down to me in exactly the same manner.
• Did you ask her to demonstrate the monkey call? Repeatedly? Then walk away shaking your head and making snide comments to other zoo-goers? Well then, you missed your chance!
• Can you explain which side of the cage bars were you in, Mr. K?
• I wish I thought of that, BlueHorse. Though I think I should've just thrown some poo at her.