My problem, as Deborah Tannen pointed out, is that they tend not to be really good at taking conversational "turns."

Some interrupt. This doesn't especially bother me with my friends because I am perfectly capable of making myself heard. With strangers, it requires a bit more assertiveness with the tac-nuke "do you always interrupt, or is this a treat you save for women?" waiting to be used if the interruptions are particularly egregious.

Some, as Tannen said, go on and on and on: conversation turns into monologue, as the speaker in question becomes increasingly self-assured, intoxicated by his own polysyllables and theories. This annoys me. A woman would have been stopped from going on that long.

I haven't a problem with their ideas, most of the time. There are some subjects I zone out on, but then there are some subjects they zone out on. Fair's fair.

But, as I said, turn-taking is a problem. And they say -women- talk too much. My guess is that -any- time we take the floor, we consume a scarce resource -- attention -- that some of these people think should be reserved to them.

Question: Is Linney Uston male, female, or just a sullen grouch who doesn't like feminists?

A number of men here are outraged that this is a subject that would be discussed. Apparently, anything that isn't praise (or silence) is bigotry, but it's okay for them to say we talk too much.

To borrow the phrase I've heard from many men (the ones I don't find interesting): "Why are you getting all defensive?"

Ahhhh, payback.

The question of "appropriate" is a very slippery slope that I personally feel applies equally to men and women -- except as regards turn-taking.

Incidentally, Imogen, the book is Tannen's YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. It also explains why women can occasionally converse as a duet and what Tannen calls "high-impact" conversational style (such as can be found in NYC).

I love concerts. But I have less to say, and less interest in listening for extended periods, to people who love rock concerts. They, in turn, have considerably less interest in hearing me go on about opera, which I gather would be a topic some people might find a way of bragging about privilege (privilege, no. credit card wowsers, yes).

A sensible conversationalist knows you pick your subject to fit your audience. The man who goes on about accounting, the woman who goes on about baby poo, the man who talks constantly about sports, the woman who talks about shoes more than briefly in mixed company -- they're guilty, not of sexist, but of inappropriate conversational choices.

Some of the most boring people I've ever met have been (other) intellectuals because they don't always adapt their conversation to their audience and, unlike other people, seem to regard this as evidence of their high standards. For me, other bores consist of the Universal Arbiter type, who will not adapt.

For good conversation, you need equity, interesting subjects, and empathy.

"Why are you getting so defensive?"

Conditioning, if I may be permitted to suggest it.

There's a very old, very practiced dynamic here. It may even be instinctual. Distraction.

This topic is -loaded-. Accordingly, it's a topic that many people would prefer not be discussed. There are several ways of trying to get off topic:

1. Condemn it as bigoted.

2. Throw out a red herring, such as women raping men. The advantage of this is that it's preposterous; people get hot under the collar; and then the "defensive" charge gets made. OR, worst of all, some verbal sadist announces that s/he is playing with your minds. That kind of game is the worst disrespect in any conversation -- worse than interruption or monologue.

3. Divide and conquer, which plays on another tactic, the "I'm not like THEM."

4. More intellectual than thou.

ALL of these topics are off-topic, given the subject. When you get this much distraction going on, it's a sign that something is a hot topic. The usual distractor response to that statement is "you're making too much of this."

ALL of these distractions serve to take the focus off male conversational inadequacies and put in a place where many men and women find it easier to focus: intellectual snobbery; women vs. women; or defensiveness.

We model the behaviors we've seen because we've seen them reinforced.

P.S. I promise not to discuss clothes with you. I'll save it for my best friend from grad school, who loves shopping as much as I do. To me, knowing that someone hates a subject means that inflicting that subject on that person is just plain RUDE. The people who do it do so as an exercise of power. Similarly, the people who privilege subjects -- sports as a nobler subject than shoes; facts as more "masculine" than feelings -- are reverting to traditional power modelings.

If you enjoy believing that you touched a raw nerve by bringing up privilege, I can't stop you.

Class markers aren't restricted to male or female. Nor is reverse snobbery.

This is another attempt at distraction. I regret that you were shamed. I regret, too, that you chose to retaliate by verbal aggressiveness.

In your last sentence, you sound distressed that this subject seems to privilege female over male discourse. Does it? You -could- take it as an opportunity to see yourself as you're see, or heard.

But it seems to me that men are so used to having their own speech -- and the way they denigrate women's speech -- privileged that it provokes anger.

Why else would you be so hostile? (I mean, the Kzin adds provocatively, it's not as if I'm rattling on about my plans to fly out to Seattle to see the Ring in 2009...)That, incidentally, was irony.

That hasn't been my experience, Damnthatxanadu. My female friends are equally adept at discussing politics, the men in our lives (or why they're not there anymore), kids or not, various kinds of music, wine, etc. Sometimes while shopping, sometimes not.