Reddit reviews You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation

I will concede that an individual post cannot shout down another individual post, but I will also point out that I never claimed that was true. What I was claiming was that posts can and often are mass-downvoted or buried in a torrent of criticism not due to any fault of the content, but because the post expresses a minority view.

For example, go to r/radicalfeminism and claim that men are victims of sexism and observe that it doesn't matter how articulate and thoughtful your arguments are, it will be downvoted, resoundingly lambasted, and possibly deleted. Then go to r/mensrights and claim that men cannot be the victims of sexist oppression and watch how the same thing occurs. The crucial difference that makes these two situations non-comparable is that men's voices are not marginalized while women's voices are.

When I say that women's voices are marginalized, what I mean is that women's perspectives/opinions/experiences are systematically significantly underrepresented in the dominant discourse while men's perspectives/opinions/experiences have been normalized - assumed as the default. So, as I've said elsewhere, no one will be surprised when it turns out that there aren't any Hindu lesbians in the presidential debates, but if there were no heterosexual white protestant men in their fifties and sixties, it would be a bombshell. So normalized is it, that it literally goes without saying when a person in a position of power is male. That's why there are lists like this, and this, but there's no international men's day celebrating the 10 most influential men. That's not because no one cares about men, it's because every day is international men's day and the lists about the 10 most influential men are just called "10 most influential people". If any women do make it on to that list of influential people, it has to be remarked on because they're a woman. Similarly, look at how many non-white men there are in People Magazine's annual "sexiest man alive" list. So really, to quote W. Kamau Bell, "it should be Sexiest White Man Alive".

> You claimed you wanted "space" and when it was pointed out that there is unlimited space, you reveal that what you really want is a podium and a microphone for ideas you agree with. You don't really want space. You don't want a circle of equals where all ideas are judged on their merits.

It's clear that we're using two different definitions of "space". I've already said that while there's technically space for everyone to post everything, that isn't what I mean when I talk about "making space" for marginalized voices. What I'm talking about when I say that it's important to "make space" is that because marginalized voices are, by definition, under-represented in the dominant discourse, it's important for there to be places and forums where those voices are over-represented.

The reason a "circle of equals" is impossible is because sexism is so deeply entrenched in the fabric of social interactions and so built into the way we perceive and understand the world that you can't just declare an area a "sexism free zone". Since nowhere is free of sexism, pretending that contributions are discussed solely on their merit perpetuates sexism in the same way pretending that "color blindness" is possible perpetuates racism.

Even your assumptions about the purpose of discussion in a circle of equals is "male normative" in the sense that men and women are socialized to approach discussions differently. While this doesn't mean that all men approach discussions the same way all the time, it does mean that men tend to approach discussions in a way women tend not to. More specifically, men are socialized to see discussions as an opportunity to test the merit and consistency of ideas, while women are socialized to see discussions as an opportunity to share perspectives (see the previously mentioned book "You Just Don't Understand" for details). So when you assume that the purpose of a circle of equals is to test the merit of ideas, you're being male-normative in that you're assuming that the purpose of a circle of equals is not to simply share perspectives while acknowledging the inherent validity of each person's experience.

You Just Don't Understand and Men Are From Mars, Women Are from Venus completely changed my understanding of male-female communications. I suddenly figured out exactly where I had gone wrong in previous relationships and was able to understand women a lot better. Now I'm happily married and being a pretty darn good husband if I do say so myself.

Welcome to chapter 1 of this book.

I have used the Meyers-Briggs test extensively over the years when I was a team leader in order to get people to understand each others' proclivities. It's really good stuff. If you can, you should take a peek at the book, "Please Understand Me".

Once you find that INTJ, there's another book you might want to take a look at, too. It's called, "You Just Don't Understand", by Deborah Tannen. It's about how men and women actually communicate differently.

When I was courting my wife, early one day in the courtship I met her after work in lower Manhattan. I said, "I have a present for you."

And she said, "And I have a present for you."

We both reached into our respective bags, and each of us pulled out a copy of the Deborah Tannen book. LOL!

Anyway, good luck with your search.

It's a stereotype. Obviously all women are not indirect or passive aggressive. I think that the stereotype might grow out of the differences in how many men and women communicate, rather than something specific to women. Deborah Tannen writes at great length on this subject.