|
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
A question to men
| 
Nov 24 16:32 UTC 1993 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 75 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 1 of 75:
|
Nov 24 17:31 UTC 1993 |
This happens to me all the time, and I haven't noticed it being a male
or female phenomenon, just people in general. What do I think when it
happens to me? "That g*ddamn SOB stole my idea. I hate that".
Guess I'll have to pay more attention to gender in the future.
|
md
|
|
response 2 of 75:
|
Nov 24 18:29 UTC 1993 |
I agree, it isn't really a male/female phenomenon. It's a matter
of the relative strength of the personalities at the meetings.
(Sometimes it comes down to whose voice is loudest.) You might
have it done to you at one meeting where you're "weak" in
relation to the others, and then do it someone at another meeting
where you're relatively "strong." Be yourself in any case, and
don't let it bother you.
|
mju
|
|
response 3 of 75:
|
Nov 24 19:17 UTC 1993 |
Hmm. I always try to attribute my source if I'm repeating what
someone else said, either because I agree with it, or because I
don't think everyone else in the room heard it. (This is quite
different from intentionally stealing someone else's idea, of course.)
I haven't really noticed this phenomenon occuring, but it's possible
that I just don't attend enough business meetings.
|
davel
|
|
response 4 of 75:
|
Nov 24 21:28 UTC 1993 |
I haven't noticed this, except in cases where it's been clear that the
noise level kept the original comment to a limited area. (OTOH, I'm somewhat
one of the hard of hearing, in particular regarding understanding things
where there's background noise. So I might well *not* hear the original
comment.)
|
scg
|
|
response 5 of 75:
|
Nov 25 04:23 UTC 1993 |
When this happens are the women (the group that laughed the first time)
generally sitting together, or spread out among the group?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 75:
|
Nov 25 04:46 UTC 1993 |
I've chaired many business meetings, so I've been able to observe many
such interactions. Many people pick up on the ideas of others.
Sometimes the original expression is acknowledged, but more often not.
I've never noticed boards listening less attentively to women than men,
but then, as chair, I made sure that everyone could speak their mind.
Telling jokes is a little different, even jokes as asides, than regular
business. I've observed that men "crack jokes" more frequently than
women. However the groups I have participated in very seldom had people
that told sterotypical "male" jokes (sexual, ethnic, booze, etc).
However, I think what happens depends very much on the "culture" of
the group, and I could imagine what popcorn described happening in some
cultures. What "culture" was it, popcorn?
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 75:
|
Nov 25 07:53 UTC 1993 |
I have notices what Valerie is saying. Not too many times, but I
have seen it. There are men out there who seem to classify anything
that a woman says as something not as important as what would come out
of a mans mouth. The one incident I clearly remember was in a
business meeting at PC Technologies, where a woman, newly inserted into
a technical management position stating something to her management peers
that didn't register during one of those long, drawn out meetings. When
one of the men said it again, perhaps 30 minutes later, it seemed to take
on more significance. I remember the look on her face--it was something
like "Didn't I just say that", to "I guess I'm not important around here".
She did ultimately leave the company for reasons I never fully understood.
|
tsty
|
|
response 8 of 75:
|
Nov 25 10:26 UTC 1993 |
I have witnessed, many times, what popcorn relates. I would suggest that
popcorn pay RealClose (tm) attention to the activities of the jerk
who re-told the story without attribution.
Since I've been trained to listen to content instead of source, it
becomes quite simple to watch/hear this political shit. In fact, with
my background it is easy to listen, also, to dynamics *regardless* of
content. Sooooooo many "meetings" run along "who" instead of "what."
And this fiasco flys directly in the face of the (ostensible) function/
purpose ofthe meeting, "what." That situation, allowed to continue,
is the hallmark of a failing organization.
As for the frequency (woman high / man low); women's voices are much
more directly centered in the "speech intelligibility" frequency
range than are mens, 2 KHz for the technically minded.
Women have the advantage, naturally, in intelligibility. What someone
(above) described as paying attention to only some voices is the
phenomonen of the "cocktail effect," wherein the listener is able
(by a mechanism yet undefined) to concentrate on a specific acoustic
pattern/signature amids the "background noise." But that phenomonen
is normally relegated to a single pattern, which might be the Chairman
of the Board ....
Literally, a person can "choose" to hear some sound and not others.
Selective hearing is normally the purview of children, some of
whom never grow up.
Sorry this happened to you popcorn. If might happen again, in which
case I would suggest popping up for yourself by +stating+ something
along the lines of "well gee, I +just+ said the same thing a few
minutes ago - glad to hear that you agree with my lead." ("lead" is
the key here, those sorts of meetings (politial anarchy disguised as
stability) are bare-knuckled (mental) battlefields. You can shrink
back or wrest the lead from the leader of the peck(ing order).
Good luck.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 9 of 75:
|
Nov 25 14:22 UTC 1993 |
I agree with all of what tsty said. When a person works on becoming empowered,
and becomes empowered, what they say is heard. Two major factors at play here:
who is saying it and how the message is being delivered. The actual content
is frequently secondary in the perception, especially in a large group, or in
a group of business persons where perceived power is highly significant. Years
ago, when I had difficulty being heard, I would have agreed that the gender
issue was major. As I have grown older, and command more respect, both
by my knwoledge and accomplishments, but also by "how" I say things, I am
almost always "heard." And, if I am not, to my satisfaction, I repeat what I
said until I am heard. I rarely have to say anything twice anymore.
Essentially, Valerie, start thinking about your delivery and put some energy
and power of your personality behind everything you say in public. You can
lower the register of your voice a notch, it does help, but its the conviction
behind the message, whether its an idea or even a joke, that makes the
difference.
|
srw
|
|
response 10 of 75:
|
Nov 25 16:44 UTC 1993 |
#9 contains very good advice. I can't add anything to it. Believe it.
I believe if your message isn't being heard, it is not directly because
you are a woman, but rather because of the lack of forcefulness of
your delivery. You must have conviction, and self-assurance.
Lowering the pitch of your voice should not be necessary unless your
attempts to be more forceful tend to cause you to sound shrill.
I doubt this is this case.
|
polygon
|
|
response 11 of 75:
|
Nov 26 00:47 UTC 1993 |
Actually, the depressing truth is that most people, most of the time,
just aren't listening, no matter who is speaking. People take for
granted what a person is going to say, and don't bother to compare that
to the words actually coming out.
In almost every meeting, the expectation is that the status quo will
prevail. Ordinarily that means approving every item on the agenda.
If the committee is supposed to solve some kind of problem, it means
that any action will be postponed until later. It takes a whole lot
of psychic energy to derail a committee from its bland inertia.
You may have a really great idea that you'd like to see implemented.
Most of the people you explain it to won't understand it (or probably
won't hear you at all) the first or second time. Don't be surprised
when you come to another meeting, explain it the third or fifth or
umpteenth time, and you suddenly see light dawn in the eyes of one of
the more attentive members. "Wow, that's a *great* idea! I wish we'd
thought of that earlier," he says.
I've been to well over 500 meetings in my time, probably closer to 1,000.
I am not joking about this.
|
tnt
|
|
response 12 of 75:
|
Nov 26 04:41 UTC 1993 |
You're not joking about what?
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 75:
|
Nov 26 05:51 UTC 1993 |
Well, polygon, that sure explains politics ...<g>.
I can fully concur with hheaddoc, srw and polygon's expansions.
All that stuff, even being accurate, has bugged me no end. I wish
there were some sort of solution - stuff would work better.
|
bap
|
|
response 14 of 75:
|
Nov 27 05:41 UTC 1993 |
I think there may be other forces at work here as well. The mind sometimes
hears things sub-consciously. The man may have heard only a word or two of
the discussion, and his mind picked up on the joke he had heard some time
previously, so he relates it to the group he is talking to and it recieves
another round of laughter. Not an intentional snub to the original source,
but it could appear that way. Also to be taken into account is the pecking
order. If he is superior to you in position, he is less likely to listen
intently to what you say. They hear only what they think you are saying.
|
danr
|
|
response 15 of 75:
|
Nov 27 15:11 UTC 1993 |
I have a book, _The art of talking so that people will listen_, by Paul
W. Swets, that I picked up at the Public LIbrary Book Sale. It has
some pretty good advice. I'd be happy to lend it to you, Valerie.
|
gracel
|
|
response 16 of 75:
|
Nov 27 15:33 UTC 1993 |
This has reminded me of an unpleasant occasion. Some
years ago Dave and I were both members of a church committee.
At one meeting, we and at least one other person raised an objection to
something, and the point was discussed and accepted as a valid minority
opinion. (I'm being so vague because, mercifully, I don't remember)
At the next meeting the chairman had forgotten all about it; I spoke up;
there was general non-comprehension; Dave spoke up; the chairman looked
at Dave and said more-or-less "Since you're the only one who thinks
that ..." It had a chilling effect on me, but I did not attribute it
to my gender, rather to the obtuseness of the chairman.
|
jon
|
|
response 17 of 75:
|
Nov 28 13:38 UTC 1993 |
#0 indicates a common problem of trying to make a social tendency into a
discrimination against women issue. This does not help the women's movement.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 18 of 75:
|
Nov 28 16:13 UTC 1993 |
Legitimate inquiry and testing of hypotheses doesn't hurt anyone or any
movement. Valerie has had an unsettling experience and is trying to understand
it. In that process, she has formulated a hypothesis and is checking it out.
This is vastly different then making an unsubstantiated statement about the
reasons behind behavior. The "women's movement" will not be aided by a lack of
inquiry.
|
steve
|
|
response 19 of 75:
|
Nov 28 17:49 UTC 1993 |
Jon, you're dismissing all such occurances as just social tendencies?
I think it is a lot more complicated than that. I've seen what Valerie
talks about. When certain behavior is consistently aimed at women
something "interesting" is going on.
Now, while I agree that there are women who might complain about this
when perhaps there might be other reasons, but that doesn't preclude
the existence of asshole men.
|
srw
|
|
response 20 of 75:
|
Nov 28 19:57 UTC 1993 |
I agree with you, STeve, that it's more complicated than the way Jon
put it, and I wouldn't want to deny the presence of such men.
However, I still think that the problem observed by Valerie is much
more common than the number of such men would cause. I believe more
of the cases when this arises can be traced to a natural tendency of
some women to be insufficiently forceful and assertive in their
speech. Also I should point out that their own behavior is
something they can control more easily than the men's behavior (not
to excuse the latter).
|
meg
|
|
response 21 of 75:
|
Nov 29 12:54 UTC 1993 |
I have not only seen this happen in person, but I have experienced it in
bbsing. Some of you all might remember the Mark Smith business on M-Net
a while ago. Just as a lark, I took out my one and only pseudo that I
ever used for bbsing, and spent a month or so responding as a 'male' in
certain non-frivolous conferences (the tech confs, theo and politics, as
I recall) I made very sure that I never actually *said* anything that I
hadn't said before as myself. I found that I definitely got a different
reaction as the pseudo than I did as myself. Somewhere I still have the
conf files, one of these days maybe I'll look 'em up. I decided after
that that perhaps Mark Smith *did* have a point after all.
Only recently there was some discussion or other where I was in a dissenting
position on some issue, as was janc. He entered a full screen of reasoning
why he was dissenting on it, and I merely entered "I agree with janc"
For some reason, the person we were disagreeing with chose to jump on *me*,
totally ignoring the fact that while I was agreeing with janc's points, I
wasn't the one who made them or worded them or typed them in. In fact, his
attack ignored janc altogether. Now that might be attributable to the fact
that this person and I don't generally get on together anyway, or it might
be more. Needless to say, I was somewhat taken aback.
(I'm so used to having assorted bosses take an idea I'd come up with six months
previous and suddenly laud it as their own idea and "why didn't someone think
of this before?" that I don't even notice it anymore. Prerogative of bosses, I
think)
|
jon
|
|
response 22 of 75:
|
Nov 29 13:26 UTC 1993 |
There are two issues. One is that people who are not as well respected
(perhaps they have less experience or have less rank) and people who talk
softly don't get much attention at meetings. This is not a sex issue, it
happens to everyone.
A second issue is that women often don't get the respect they deserve (or
have to work a lot harder for it). This is a problem.
|
zaphod
|
|
response 23 of 75:
|
Dec 2 05:11 UTC 1993 |
I think it was Tim Allen who had the ricochet theory...
Everything a woman says just kinda ricochets off a mans head
before finding his ears.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 24 of 75:
|
Dec 24 15:50 UTC 1993 |
This response has been erased.
|