Conference 7.286::digital

    The list posted in .0 seems to match what I learned by reading a book
    entitled "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation" by
    Deborah Tannen (not sure of the author). It's a very good book. I think
    we will be better able to deal with the opposite sex if we understand
    each other better.
    
    	BD�

Please note as well, that these detailed differences apply to men and women in 
(for wantof a better term) American/European/White culture.  Things like 
touching or eye contact can vary widely across cultures.  

To my mind, creating this awareness that one CANNOT simply judge people's 
behavior as though others were carbon copies of oneself is what VoD is
(or should be) all about.

The folks who insist on looking at "only the individual" tend not to understand
how they may be misreading people of other cultures.

-dave

    The problem I have with lists like these is that they manage to totally
    lose the individual, to the point that they can end up *reinforcing
    stereotypes*.  How can you be "valuing differences" when you're claiming
    that individuals that fall within a specific group (such as female)
    have specific personality traits.  I think this does more damage than
    good.
    
    After a cursory look at the list of attributes that women supposedly 
    share, I think I must be androgynous.  And I suppose that people who 
    believe the stereotypes being taught will think there's something wrong 
    with me.  After all:
    
    I express anger.  I swallow hurt and disappointment.  And I
    never cry in front of people.
    
    When I sing, I'm a 1st soprano, but when I speak I'm somewhere between
    tenor and baritone.
    
    My writing and speaking tends to be cursory.  I get straight to the
    bottom line.  I go crazy when other people meander around forever
    before they finally make it to the point.  Sometimes I get so
    impatient, I interrupt and make the point for them.
    
    I'm very individualistic.  I define myself by what I do.  And guess
    what.  Relationships aren't my strong point.
    
    I end questions with questions.  I end statements with periods, except
    when I end them with exclamation marks.
    
    And so on...
    
    Mary

    The presenters made it a point that the list contained generalizations
    (something I neglected to mention in .0 I'm afraid).  
    
    As for differing modes of behavior in the workplace, might the
    potential productivity ($$) of a mode's behavior be a factor in
    deciding how well it should be accepted?  I mean, we're all here to 
    help DEC generate revenue, right?  If I'm an engineer interested
    in solving problems efficiently, the communications behavioral patterns
    which lend themselves to solve problems more efficiently might be
    more acceptable/appropriate.  On the contrary, if I were a salesperson
    interested in establishing trust and a raport with the customer,
    perhaps other behavioral patterns might be valued more.  In this light, 
    is it *fair* to spurn an engineer (let's say) for being impatient with
    communnications methods that he/she finds inefficient... or *fair* for a
    salesperson to be less tolerant of a coworker's insistance on reducing
    conversation to a statement of a set of problems (which need prompt
    resolution)?
    
    Do we see uneven distribution of the sexes across the corporation based
    on the profit making effectivness (if you will) of their respective
    behavioral patterns?  Is it discriminatory to maintain these uneven
    distributions?  Is this a case for affirmative action to attempt to
    resolve... regardless of the outcome?
    
    (more questions to fuel the conversation)
    

    I'm afraid that, at least in my case, the generalizations are so far
    off the mark as to be meaningless.  
    
    I didn't realize that modes had behavior! ;-)
    
    I don't quite get what you're driving at in the rest of that.  From my
    perspective, I'm here to earn a living.  From Digital's, I'm here to
    help generate revenue.  When was life ever fair?  Fairness can be
    almost irrelevent if people simply stick to doing their jobs. 
    Like, if I'm going to get the job done I have to be able to work with
    this person.  Whether or not I personally like the way they are.  
    
    I don't see acceptance as a matter of choice.  When I get stuck on a 
    team, I don't get to choose the other players.  Even when (god forbid!) 
    I get stuck in a "team leader" role, I don't get to choose the team 
    members.  
    
     

    You're right, mode's don't have behavior |-O
    
    Well, team members might sometimes misinterpret each other, or otherwise
    suffer communications problems due to the differences listed in .0. 
    Addressing this as a problem was (I believe) the main thrust behind 
    having the lecture in the first place.  Awarness of the differences 
    might help the situation etc... .
    
    Some have to consider this type of thing on a daily (if not hourly)
    basis... like marriage councilors?   We were just subjected to what
    turned out to be a major political issue in this area with the
    Thomas/Hill thing (perhaps... and I don't mean to start a Thomas/Hill
    argument here).  I know I have to deal with this type of thing in 
    communicating with my girlfriend.  It must be present as a problem in
    the workplace... and... the stream of responses from the audience at
    the lecture is testimony to that.
    
    I think one of the things being suggested was behavior modification as
    a means to better work with coworkers of the opposite sex.  Recognition
    and Avoidance of the "Dysfunctional Behavior" patterns might have been
    suggested.
    
     

    I find lists like expressed here and in other "generalized behaviorial 
    traits" "stuff" is a waste of time.  I have never met a woman that met
    each of the items listed, or a man that did either.  All have been some
    from column"a" and some from column "b", forming a person with a
    variety of responses.  I find that by looking at each response, and
    recognizing that the person with whom I am dealing may have different
    reasons for reacting in the way that they are, gives me far more
    insight to the situation than looking down a list and putting someone
    away in a "pigeon-hole".  I deal with INDIVIDUALS never groups with
    traits.  But, then I like people...
    

>>	Ref 1661.7    -< Respond to People - not Groups... >-

>>    I have never met a woman that met
>>    each of the items listed, or a man that did either.  All have been some
>>    from column"a" and some from column "b", forming a person with a
>>    variety of responses.  

	I agree.  However, such a list might be a good start point
	from which to develop a personalized list of one's own 
	characteristics and those of a specific other party.  I can 
	see that such an approach might `unblock' certain situations.

	Jim

    re .7:
    
    It was claimed to be a generalization and admittedly may not be very
    accurate in describing individuals.  However, if you have or ever had a
    problem understanding or working with a member of the opposite sex,
    someone who you might not necessarily know ery well, remembering the
    list or other generalizations may be a useful aid in improving 
    communications and/or the working relationship.  I think that's all it
    was ever meant to be.
    
    I've seen or heard about generalizations similar to the one in .0
    before.  I can't help but believe that they're based on some body of
    study.  
    
    Another interesting point was brought up in the lecture. It was along
    the lines of workers fearing to include workers of the opposite sex in 
    certain types of non work related communications.  I guess the example
    given was when a bunch of guy passes a dirty joke around but refrains
    from including his female coworker in fear of stepping over the sexual
    harrassment line.  On the other hand, this female worker might feel
    excluded from the group as a result of his action.
    
    

>    The list posted in .0 seems to match what I learned by reading a book
>    entitled "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation" by
>    Deborah Tannen (not sure of the author). It's a very good book. I think
    
    Matches my recollection of the author's name. 
    
    The book does a very good job of showing how men and women tend to
    differ in communication styles, without insisting that these are
    anything more than tendencies, or denying that your milage my vary.
    At many points the author talks about how cultural differences interact
    with those of gender.
    
    	Andrew.

...that the discussion in here is very much like what went on in
    this session after the "list" was discussed.

   The list could very well have been designed to elicit just the
    type of discussion that has gone on - I used similar tactics
    when I did a lot of training.  It is very difficult to keep
    the sustained attention of adult students.

Barb

	Why not the title "Working with Men" ? ..... 

	It seems to me, yet again, as an attack on the way men conduct
	themselves in the workplace and that we should somehow value the
	behaviour of women as described in the 'differences' listed.

	Caution .... "INCOMING" !!!!!

	Chuck

    
>    The book does a very good job of showing how men and women tend to
>    differ in communication styles, without insisting that these are
>    anything more than tendencies, or denying that your milage my vary.
>    At many points the author talks about how cultural differences interact
>    with those of gender.

I read the book also.  If you look at the 'evidence' of various things the
author uses to back up her claims, you will find that a lot of them point
to works of fiction.  So, I do NOT agree with a lot of what was claimed in
the book.  Yes, there seems to be one or two studies done, but certainly
nothing approaching the number of claims made.  Just my opinion for those
who like to claim I am presenting this as fact...

-Joe

    re .14
    
    The use of fiction as evidence is perhaps just right, since what the
    authors are trying to document are our stereotypes about men and women,
    not necessarily real differences between real people.
    
    Dick

    Re .15:
    
    If what is being documented is _stereotypes_ about men and women, then
    the goal of studying the documentation ought not to be to accept the
    stereotypes and act as if we expected them to appear in the workplace,
    but to recognize and reject them as inapplicable to real,
    non-stereotyped people.
    
    
    Re .0:
    
    It is not good to stereotype people in this way.
    
    It is good to learn that there are differences among people -- among
    individuals.  The reason it is good to learn this is that it is true
    that people vary, and that treating different people in different ways
    will have different results, and that better results can be achieved by
    properly adapting our interactions to different people.
    
    It is bad to stereotype the differences according to groups, whether
    those groups are segregated by gender, race, nationality, political
    belief, sexual preference, intelligence, religion, economic status,
    body form, or whatever.  It is bad to stereotype because at best there
    are many, many individuals who do not fit the stereotype and at worst
    the stereotype is wrong even for a plurality of the stereotyped group.
    
    Such stereotyping pushes many people into molds they do not fit.  It
    makes their lives more difficult, it wastes their talents that are
    ignored, it stresses people where they are called upon to have
    attributes they do not, and it causes friction.  Stereotyping is a
    denial of differences among people in a group.  And when a person shows
    a difference that has been denied as proper for their group, human
    nature often reacts by responding with anger or fear to the difference. 
    Stereotyping causes sexism, racism, nationalism, and more.
    
    The stereotypes of .0 are the sort of thing that will be used to
    discriminate, to assign men and women to different jobs, to prevent
    individuals from obtaining the positions that their skills warrant.
    It is not good.
    
    
    				-- edp

There is a difference between mindlessly accepting cultural or gender 
stereotypes and trying to understand differences in behavior that are 
culuturally conditioned.

Yes, it would be totally wrong to assign differing jobs to people based on 
stereotypical characteristics of their gender or ethnic group.  On the other 
hand consider that in certain cultures, making eye contact is not considered
a necessary part of conversation and can be interpreted as intrusive or 
agressive behavior (like staring).  Is it fair to deny a job to someone from 
such a culture because your background causes you to read his behavior as
excessively submissive or even an indication of insincerity or dishonesty?


Cultural differences exist.  That's what anthropology is all about.  Gender 
differences exist (although they differ from culture to culture).  No, not all
individuals exhibit the stereotypical behavior.  But if we're going to live
in a multi-cultural world and workplace we need to be aware that "sauce for the
goose" may not be "sauce for the gander".

-dave

re .16 et al

>    The stereotypes of .0 are the sort of thing that will be used to
>    discriminate, to assign men and women to different jobs, to prevent
>    individuals from obtaining the positions that their skills warrant.
>    It is not good.

If information of this kind is used in the way you suggest then I agree it 
is not good.  I dispute though that we should dismiss it so easily.

Assume for the sake of argument that clinical trials show that men are on 
average better at skill A than women, and vice versa for skill B.  There is 
a degree of overlap, such that the woman best at skill A is better than the 
male average, but that the best male with skill A will always be better than 
the best woman with skill A, and vice versa for skill B.

Now assume that skills A and B are necessary vocational skills (vocations A' 
and B').

It follows that more men will work in vocation A' and more women in B'.

According to your argument these 'stereotypes' will be used to exclude women 
from A' and men from B', and therefore we should not take them into 
account.  I say that while they can be used in this way it does not 
necessarily follow, because we also know there will be some women better 
suited than some men for A', and vice versa for B'.  At the same time 
ignoring this information will lead to false expectations of equality in 
skills and therefore vocations, which I think is just as bad.

If we acknowledge *both* truths then we eliminate a lot of unnecessary 
suffering on both sides.  Some men and women will not fit the average model 
- and that's fine - but it also eliminates false accusations of 
discrimination because the respective populations are not equally 
represented in the vocations.

Re: .3, .5, .7, .16

The goal in a presentation like this is not to create or perpetuate
stereotypes.  The goal is to make people aware of some of the ways in
which different people behave in different ways.  As Dave has repeated
in these responses, the list of differences was described as a
generalization by the presenters.

Observations like those presented in the basenote (and in the book,
"You Just Don't Understand") need not be based on a rigorous scientific
study to be valid or useful.  In fact (as .15 points out), literature
can provide insights as good as or better than formal scientific research.

Re: .13

What are you worried about?  You're right!  The title "Working with Women"
is inappropriate.  Somebody simply failed to think through the ramifications
(now ain't that a purty word?).

Maybe we should offer the presenters a list of alternative titles?  Come on,
everybody, this ought to be fun!  How about "Working Across a Gender Gap?"
Or "Communicating with the Opposite Sex in the Workplace?"

				- - Steve

    RE: .19  

    > The goal in a presentation like this is not to create or perpetuate
    > stereotypes.  The goal is to make people aware of some of the ways in
    > which different people behave in different ways. 

    Agreed!

    An example of where this 'awareness' would help:

    I once worked for a manager who graded me on my ability to exhibit most
    of the personality styles listed on the male side (of the list presented
    in .0).  In his mind, since nearly all the people he'd managed in my
    position were men, he had grouped their personality styles with the
    skills necessary for doing the job (as if the personality styles were
    also part of the job.)

    I had many of the styles he wanted, but I was acutely aware that he
    was missing something by insisting on every single one of them (when
    there are other personality styles AMONG MEN AND WOMEN that work just
    as well.)

    He probably gave as hard a time to many of his male employees when it
    came to insisting that they follow these personality styles - so a
    presentation like the one in .0 would have helped him a great deal!!!

    I'd tell him about it, but I don't know if he still works for Digital.

    re: .1 and .13
    
    The title of the seminar was "The Effective Partnership: Men and Women
    Working Together."
    
    I think it's interesting that the basenoter described it as "Working
    with Women", which to my mind implies that women are *the* issue here.
    
    RE: the lists, the facilitators pointed out several times that there
    are limitations to any lists of "male" or "female" characteristics.
    They also stressed that prior to the last few years, most studies of
    development and behavior patterns were based on what little boys did
    (example: Piaget's developmental work) and it's just recently that
    these studies have also focused on what boy do as compared with what
    girls do; amazingly, differences have been found!
    
    Also re: the lists: one interesting topic of discussion was, what 
    happens when a woman repeatedly exhibits behavior that is traditionally 
    identified as male, ("having a bottom-line, crisp style" was the
    favorite in my group) or vice-versa (e.g. "being nurturing," for men")?
    
    My group's conclusion (in the all-women discussion section) was we're
    damned if we act like traditional women in the workplace (i.e.
    perceived as not being business-oriented "enough"), and damned if we
    act like traditional men (i.e. bottom-line orientation, grabbing the
    floor in conversations, etc. means we're not "feminine enough.")
    
    The most useful part of the seminar, IMO, was the one we devoted the
    least amount of time to - the final exercise, in mixed groups of men
    and women, discussing how each gender sees itself, how it sees the
    other gender, and how we think the other gender sees us. Now *that* was
    useful, not so much that we gained any startling insights (at least in
    my group), but because it was a safe place to make connections about
    issues that are charged and bothersome to all of us.
    
    Lynn

    Re .16 (edp)
    
>    The stereotypes of .0 are the sort of thing that will be used to
>    discriminate, to assign men and women to different jobs, to prevent
>    individuals from obtaining the positions that their skills warrant.
>    It is not good.
    
    I agree that the generalized descriptions presented in .0 could be
    abused, but that's not to say that knowing about them is valueless. For
    example, I fit many of the male characterizations and my wife fits many
    of the female characterizations; since reading the book we're now doing
    better job at understanding and dealing with each other.
    
    	BD�

    Re: .13
    
    >It seems to me, yet again, as an attack on the way men conduct
    >themselves in the workplace 
    
    If you accept the argument that women tend to conform to masculine
    standards in order to fit in, then it would also be an attack on the
    way women conduct themselves in the workplace.
    
    >and that we should somehow value the behaviour of women as described
    >in the 'differences' listed.
    
    Are you saying that the "female" behavior is not valuable?

    Re: stereotyping
    
    In the context of the meeting, I don't believe there's much danger of
    people being forced to conform to stereotypes.  Of course, when you
    take something out of context, the results are usually different.

    I'm just now reading the book and it really has helped me to better
    understand some of my experiences in dominantly male environments
    during the almost 20 years, which I have been in this profession.
    
    The book does not try to say that either male or female behavior is
    better, it merely tries to help to understand different behaviours.
    Furthermore, as a side comment it reminds that using the behavioural
    pattern of another sex does not necessary help you because people
    feel uncomfortable in such a situation. Even if anyone of us does not
    fill the stereotype list people tend to have an unconscious expections
    of men/women behaving in certain ways. I myself regocnize several male
    characteristics in me and it has not always been to my benefit even
    when those same features have been valued to be good in men.

>Maybe we should offer the presenters a list of alternative titles?  Come on,
>everybody, this ought to be fun!  How about "Working Across a Gender Gap?"
>Or "Communicating with the Opposite Sex in the Workplace?"

	Forget "female" and "male" traits.


	Call it "working with people".

	The behaviours and traits can be seen - in any mix - in most people.
	If your approach is not working, then maybe it doesn't fit with
	the the person you are with.

	Traits and behaviours are INDIVIDUAL, you cannot assume anything just 
	because of gender. 

	Heather

    re: .25
    
    But the point is not whether "male or female behavior is better."  The
    problem is with labeling behavior as male or female.  That is
    stereotyping.  That is not valuing differences, it is creating them.
    
    re: .26  agreed, 100%
    
    Mary

re: .27
        
� But the point is not whether "male or female behavior is better."  The
� problem is with labeling behavior as male or female.  That is
� stereotyping. That is not valuing differences, it is creating them. ...
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
    
    	Are you saying that *valuing differences* is the opposite of
        creating differences? I thought it *recogized* oft' *celebrated*
        differences?  If we don't call a thing by a certain name, how can
        we refer to it? (i.e. male behavior)
    

    "oft' celebrated" differences are stereotypes.  I, for one, am not
    interested in celebrating stereotypes.  They destroy individuality.

    If I recognize, often celebrate, and value differences in the char-
    acteristics of male behavior and female behavior, I am most assuredly
    NOT stereotyping. Everybody knows no two people are the same. I'm 
    trying to draw a distinction between viewing all males as behaving in a
    particular manner, (form of stereotyping) and appreciating the existing
    differences between male behavior and female behavior. I feel that
    (for instance) lumping all "IM&T employees" (male and female alike) 
    into one behavioral grouping is *stereotyping*.   

re:  .25

>    The book does not try to say that either male or female behavior is
>    better, it merely tries to help to understand different behaviours.

Except that the book tries to define a list of things that are 'male'
behavior and 'female' behavior.  The author says something like 'men are
more likely to interrupt women' and then uses fictional references as proof of
this.  After I read the book, I took a look at people in the caf at ZKO.  In 
groups where there men and women talking, yes... men did interrupt women... 
The same men also interrupted the other men at the same table as well.  
Additionally, I also noticed that the women ALSO interrupted about the same 
(yes, I was keeping count :-)) amount.  When I asked several women who had
been at the table about it, they said that the men had done the interrupting
much more than the women.  Yet the count was only 1 off between the
interruptions.  

Basically, I thought the book was indeed setting up stereotypes.  Of course
different people take things differently... That is how I viewed the book....

What does this have to with Digital?  Well, when such lists are presented, they
have all the problems associated with stereotypes.  People have been prejudged.
And this prejudgement also has the effect of putting blinders on people.
People now comment that yes, the book was right because they HAVE noticed that
men interrupt women.  The blinders come from the fact that only that is looked
at and not the fact that people are interrupting people (of both genders).
Sometime at a meeting or two take a concious effort to look at who really
interrupts and who they are interrupting.  You might be surprised.

-Joe

    Re: .27
    
    >The problem is with labeling behavior as male or female.  That is
    >stereotyping.
    
    What you imply, but do not say, is that the list creates stereotypes by
    labeling behavior.  I disagree.  The stereotypes exist, regardless of
    whether the list exists.  The list documents the stereotypes; it does
    not create them.
    
    Nor am I convinced that stereotypes are *always* evil.  People have a
    way of organizing and classifying what they encounter; stereotypes are
    simply one manifestation of this.  Stereotyping is a problem if you
    will not recognize that you have created a stereotype and are unable to
    cast aside its boundaries to recognize the individual as they really
    are.  Someone has used the term "prototype" to describe a useful sort
    of sterotyping -- Dr. Brannen(?), the author of _Dealing with Difficult
    People_ (which is one of my favorite books).  He describes several
    prototypes -- the bulldozer, the sniper, the Sherman Tank -- by listing
    their characteristics.  He points out that not all snipers will fit the
    exact picuture, but will _tend_ to have those characteristics and
    behave in similar ways.  By your definition, he is stereotyping, but I
    believe the classification has a useful purpose.

Which is effectively what I said way back in .18, but that's too rational for 
the agenda pushers.  There is a mountain of evidence about male and female 
behavioural traits, but it's PC to deny that differences exist.

    My own problem with the list (and many other similar ones that I have
    seen) is that I believe it is even wrong in describing general
    behaviour patterns; i.e., not just that individuals may vary from what
    the list supposes is a "norm".
    
    True, it may describe "stereotypes". If so, I would say that the male
    part describes a sort of 19th century view of how macho men would like
    to be perceived. (Perhaps the same could go for the female part; I
    would, however, let the women speak for themselves on this point).
    
    If I were to go by my own experience in dealing with both genders
    (admittedly a fairly non-scientific viewpoint, but I HAVE seen written
    material supporting it), I would actually reverse some of the so called
    "gender characteristics" enumerated. Now, sit back. Think about your
    own experiences (NOT what you have read, but of what you have observed)
    and see if the following point does not have some validity:
    
    IN GENERAL (obviously with exceptions), I find that the conversational
    patterns of women are more "goal-oriented", concrete, specific or what
    have you. Males tend to be somewhat more wishy-washy in their approach.
    This is not only in meetings (where the women could be accused of being
    "manager-types" and therefore "exceptions") but in dealings with women
    vs men in most general work situations. If I have stereotypes of women
    (which I certainly admit to having), they include the image of the
    typical woman as one who "wants to get on with things, and not waste a lot
    of time". Men will probably want to discuss the matter a couple of
    rounds first. Possibly as a consequence of this, women tend to be
    basically more honest than men (though NOT necessarily more tactful).
    Women have a real hard time misstating the truth (they even have a hard
    time embellishing a story to make it "interesting" in the re-telling).
    They are just about incapable of a direct lie (they have great
    conscience qualms on the rare occasion that they do). Some fictional
    evidence? How about "Elektra" (also modern versions)?
    
    True, the relationship issue I find a bit truer to the mark. Men are
    indeed concerned with their ranking with respect to other men, and
    their conversations will often reflect a "positioning" (Ha, I got you
    on that last issue---see, I'm smarter than you). I am not utterly
    convinced, however, that women are the "soft and caring creatures" that
    our modern pro-feminist literature seems to wish to portray. I would
    more tend to believe that the difference in cultural conditioning that
    men and women experience in their growing up merely makes the WAY in
    which women try to control THEIR relationships through conversation is
    different than the way most men make the same attempts.
    
    Ego-ism is a trait as strongly developed in women as in men. If you
    want "evidence" from literature, take a range from Stendhal through
    Ibsen to Ayn Rand. (Personally, I find it a very positive trait in
    women, though at times it requires a male's "softening" effect so that
    it does not totally run rampant).
    
    Mauritz
    
    (yes, Scandinavia is considered Western Europe)
    

re .34

>    more tend to believe that the difference in cultural conditioning that
>    men and women experience in their growing up merely makes the WAY in
>    which women try to control THEIR relationships through conversation is
>    different than the way most men make the same attempts.

I don't have time for a thorough examination of this, but just having 
finished some case studies on 4 & 5 year old children if it is just cultural 
conditioning then it hits them *very* early and *very* hard...