Women do not speak clearly, it is often said. Is this only because we are socialized to be very diplomatic, especially around men? Is it also because men are socialized not to take what we say seriously? Do these two phenomena feed upon each other? Why is there a newspaper article each year exhorting men to make women ‘feel heard’? Why is there no article suggesting that they take seriously the content of what women say? Are these articles about ‘feeling heard’ part of a master plot to maintain the status quo?
The notions that women have trouble being clear, and that we only need to ‘be heard,’ give rise to the following sort of conversation:
W: Could we please…?
M: No.
W: Let me put it this way: I refuse to tolerate…!
M: That is too bad.
W: What I mean to say is, I will have to disengage from this arrangement unless…!
M: I am sorry you feel that way. And I do not like to be threatened.
W: Well, I do, feel that way. And it is not a threat, it is fair warning.
M: I am not interested in that information.
W: Good-by.
M: What? Why?
W: Because as I said, I refuse to tolerate…!
M: It is not fair! You did not tell me!
W: I did tell you.
M: But I did not believe you. I did not know it was serious.
W: Whose fault is that?
M: It was not serious because it was not acceptable to me. And you did not say it clearly enough … or diplomatically enough. I thought you were just being irrational and would get over it. And anyway, it is mean to leave! Making a unilateral decision like that is oppressive. I have feelings too, you know, although I am too polite to bother you with them very often.
What I always wonder about this sort of exchange is, how one can be both sufficiently “clear” (since “clarity” appears to mean brutal firmness, as polite indications are “heard” but not believed) and sufficiently diplomatic at the same time. The meaning of it all is, of course, that these are some rhetorical strategies of oppression, and that is all. There is otherwise no reason to be placed in the unpleasant position of saying with a wooden face, “You just don’t cut it.” And yet when these rhetorical strategies are brought to bear, that is the only way of being clear.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
These words, at least, almost glow with clarity and stillness. (I thought at first that you were using a special font, but no.)
Do you read Walker Percy?
I haven’t read a whole lot, and none for a long time – I am sure I should revisit. Are you thinking of any particular text? –Z
Oooh, stillness, I like that. And I just had an illumination about that advice on “feeling heard.”
The common wisdom is: women just want to vent, they do not want advice or directions on how to fix the situation, they want to vent and “be heard.”
My modification would be: we already know how to fix it in a practical sense. We are talking about whatever it is because we are trying to analyze it, figure out what the phenomenon is, and very often, discern some hard to see dynamic of hierarchization or oppression.
I think the “make her feel heard” advice is essentially advice on how to seem polite without actually being very menschlig. Or even, on how to cover your tracks if you are dismissive and vaguely abusive.
I also note that men like to vent as well, and that many of them are quite decent conversationalists and do in fact listen to what their interlocutors say. They do not have to figure out ways of “making them feel heard.” That is yet another reason why I suspect the advice on “making us feel heard” may be primarily for … pervs and perps?!
I think what you said was very clear. What I think (and even I grow tired of the accusation, but the reality is, misogyny is everywhere) is that you were discriminated against for being a woman. Marriage or a heterosexual relationship does not magically transform the male from his world endorsed male privilege. Ugh, that was a bunch of words. To me it reads as “ah the little missus is just whining, nagging, complaining as she always does,” and then “oh shyt, she was serious.” But that will not be followed up with “my bad.” Instead, it will be followed up with all typical crap as this male did, “you did not tell me, yada yada yada yada.”
Use the exact same dialogue but change the sexes, to avoid making it homosexual, make it a work environment. Do you think the one male would have responded with so much indifference? No. It is because what women say to men is not important. It is what men want. Men want to withhold emotions when they need to withhold them, they want to expel emotions when they want the woman to be receptive, sort of like turning a switch on and off at one’s whim. Occasions as this really brings home how the woman is an object expected to accommodate men.
I wish women (heterosexual) would stick together and ostracize men such as this instead of the next woman picking him up and babying him. (How many times does a new wife hate the old wife even though she has never met her?) If women listened to other women, in the way of a marital resume, heterosexual misogynist men would have either to change or do without relationships with women.
Gracias, Kitty, and yes to all. Especially, I wish the program outlined in your last paragraph were considered socially “correct” in all quarters – or is there a way to do it discreetly enough, do you think?
In my most recent serious relationship, I knew the ex pretty well. I had not thought he treated her very well, but I also did not see her as a very stable/reliable narrator. I would have loved to talk to a couple of other exes – ones I think could have given some objective info – before going further. When things started to go bad, I fantasized about interviewing them.
But I have been taught that is rude, intrusive, and so on, and to consider that “those were different relationships at a different time.” I actually disagree with all of this, particularly that last part: I do not think people, especially men, change that much, and certainly not by the time they hit their late thirties.
“That is yet another reason why I suspect the advice on “making us feel heard” may be primarily for … pervs and perps?!”
Well, that may be how it ends up.
That’s so cold, to just “make someone feel heard” without actually listening, on such central things. It’s just a lie. And then, as you say, why was he lying? A hack, a way to beat the system? Something he heard in the locker room: Chant the following meaningless codes and get sex? (Not all men, etc.)
It scares me. And it scares me to see advice on listening being perverted in that way. I hope women do protect themselves, especially as a group. I have a daughter. Hmm, I’m freaking out a little bit.
I’m not, er, it doesn’t seem to be my task to try to make anyone feel good about us middle-class white men. Frankly, in any situation where there’s something important to gain, we sometimes watch each other pretty carefully. If I could rewind my life I would watch MCWM more carefully myself.
On the writing, Percy occasionally seemed to get a kind of clarity close to this. The last couple of pages of Lancelot, maybe. (It’s also a strained, asymmetrical conversation. Maybe the resemblance is only superficial.)
Interesting, y’all … and I’ve got to look at Percy!
And this is why I have so much trouble getting into relationships in the first place. I have decided over the past few years that I will just say what I mean from the get-go. Not viciously. Not “diplomatically.” But just simply. Truthfully. Without rancor, but in a non-emotional and unapologetic fashion. (Example: I once told a person who wanted to be considered as a possible mate, “I don’t need anything I don’t already have.” It turned out to be a deal-breaker. He apparently needs to be needed.) The up-shot, of course, is that I’m alone. For now. ;^)
CS, does this work for you at work and in other non romantic situations, though? It does not me – assertive and professional doesn’t do it – jumping up and down is what it takes.
(Prof: on Percy, I like to read him but there’s plenty to dislike too. All kinds of madness and it’s not always so clear how much of it is limited to just the characters!)
Extreme Catholicism is the strong Percy vibe I got when I read some of his writing years ago, before ever moving to Louisiana. Now that I do live here, and part of it is in ruins, and I keep having run ins with American Catholic values (I am in Spanish and Portuguese, so I deserve to be an honorary Catholic just for that, a Ph.D. exam in the middle ages is more comprehensive than any RE class, but these American Catholics are different somehow) … I am sure I would be fascinated to read Percy even if I find things to dislike or decide he is mad! 😉
Yep, that’s a big part of it. So he goes through some agonizing (and fun) analysis of what’s wrong with society, and then on page 347 he takes communion and everything’s ok. In principle I’m Catholic myself, though I’ve about had it with those people. But it even bothers me. (Eyes nervously skyward.)
(Sorry, my little Percy rut has just opened up into an abyss, or at least a crevasse.
I was starting to say that an even worse thing about the books is that sympathetic characters (Tom More in Love in the Ruins for xampl) tend to be smug liberal racists. And then I realized, well, hm, in fact More actually keeps seeing the Devil in men’s-room mirrors, so possibly I’m selling the author short!)
Yes – I remember this from Love in the Ruins! And also The Moviegoer if I remember well enough. Also, getting catty now, there is a certain type of man here, blond, prosperous, “nice,” liberal racist, repressed Catholic, who speaks in the gay accent but is married – these are the people who most remind me of Percy characters.
My favorite thing Percy ever did was get A Confederacy of Dunces published – it is brilliant and he saw that.
I hadn’t heard of C.o.D. Looks like one I should read!
I think you’ll really enjoy it.