Letters to the Editor
-
Yawn....
>Women are trained to bat their eyes and look fascinated when men are boring.<
Your stereotypes and assumptions as to what women are "trained" to do are boring, but I'm not batting an eye. (Jeez, where did you get that eye-batting crap? Next, you'll be swearing women faint when they hear bad news. :P)
>Men are trained to change the subject to themselves when women are boring.<
Stats, please. Again, we have the usual Broadsheet trolls giving up anecdotes as hard evidence--the _exact_ same thing they are quick to yell about when female posters give examples from their lives.
-
Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted, Trolling Tracy?
Are you trolling your own blog again Tracy?
Does Ms. Walsh threaten you folks if you don't get a certain number of hits?
Better quality, that's the answer, not losing a bit of credibility and relevancy with each post but making it up in volume.
-
zactly
Are you trolling your own blog again Tracy?
Does Ms. Walsh threaten you folks if you don't get a certain number of hits?
No kidding.
-
Women are trained to bat their eyes and look fascinated when men are boring
Women rarely disguise their contempt for men; they don't have to, men want them anyway. MEN on the other hand had better put on a VERY convincing show for women or they will be SOL.
-
not all are chatty Cathys
"Given that just being enrolled in college courses requires one to participate verbally"
Having taught college for nearly a decade, I can rebuff that statement. Sure, students who participate in discussions make a stronger impression on me, generally gain greater understanding of the material, and tend to earn higher marks (participation being 10% of their grade). But plenty of taciturn students write beautiful and thoughtful papers. Others manage squeak by without being verbose or great writers.
-
Potential flaw in the study
The students were equipped with recorders, so they were obviously aware of the study. What exactly were they told about it? If I were in their position, knowing that my words were being recorded, I would probably subconsciously alter my speech patterns. Men might have upped their verbal content so as not to have a lot of "dead air." Women might have lowered theirs by speaking more carefully so they didn't come off as ditzy. In other words, if the subjects knew they were being recorded, I would hardly say the results are valid.
-
Yet it still SEEMS like women talk twice as much.
Perhaps that's because they are always talking about really trivial girlie stuff.
-
Banal
I've noticed that whenever studies come-out showing differences (or similarities) between the sexes, and if a variety of adjectives can be apply to interpreting the results, the editorial preference is to pick the most negative possible adjective to apply to men and the most positive adjective to apply women.
I see it as a primarily condescending attitude towards women because it's designed to flatter them and make them feel goodas if women always need a little ego boost in order to make it through the day.
A psychologist might see this as a sign of an inferiority complex.
-
think again
Thanks to readers for some needed balance here.
1. This was a highly selected sample with unknown selection bias. It is clearly not generalizable.
2. The subjects carried digital recorders and knew their vocalizations were being recorded.
3. Features of verbal communication like number of words used or literal meaning of those words are a small fraction of what comprises the behavior of communicating.
4. Lack of statistical significance is a function of sample size and often results from limited sample size. The larger the sample size, the more likely true differences will be detected.
In short, we are a safe distance from this particular stereotype expiring. But we appear to have some confirmation for another – science tends to elicit our phobias and insecurities around biological differences between men and women, with associated media frenzy.
-
Ummm
Women are trained to bat their eyes and look fascinated when men are boring
Women rarely disguise their contempt for men; they don't have to, men want them anyway. MEN on the other hand had better put on a VERY convincing show for women or they will be SOL.
--Anonymous
This can be none other than Brightstar.
-
again, think
Boy that’s a relief !
Just proves what we knew all along – that women don’t really talk more than men. Cuz if they actually did ? That would pretty much show that women are airheads, blabbing all the time about nothing. Cuz if you’re talking all the time, that means that . . . um. . . . well . . . whatever.
Women are NOT different biologically from men. At least not in their intellectual orientation or predispositions. That’s how we know and prove that neither gender is inferior or should be granted less respect, dignity, opportunity, and autonomy.
Thank God for science.
-
And another
Can we please now put to rest that women have a certain advantage in the workplace due to 'superior communication skills'... I know I am not the only person to surmise that this is far from the case.
-
to J.C. Miller
>Women are NOT different biologically from men. At least not in their intellectual orientation or predispositions.
This study showed that they talked about different things, even if the volume was comparible. Isn't that an orientation or predisposition?
>That’s how we know and prove that neither gender is inferior or should be granted less respect, dignity, opportunity, and autonomy.
That is a VERY weak basis for equality, and is just asking for another study that can "prove" women should be a subclass. A much better basis of equality would be to appeal to the innate rights of humanity (ala Thomas Paine), or to make a pragmatist argument that regardless of whether true equality exists, we should treat people equally because it produces good societal results.
-
This can be none other than Brightstar
Haven't hear from you for a while, and no, it isn't.
-
sarcasm
it's a bitch (bitch definitely NOT being used in a sexually specific sense)
-
I don't
agree.
-
What's got the men so defensive?
Good research generates more questions than it answers. Judging by the responses to this study, a very interesting possible research topic would be: Why do men get so defensive when research suggests that, in a given area, males and females may not be that different? One possible theory might include a fear on the part of men of being perceived as feminine. In this particular case, male posters seem to think that talking = weakness. If they admit, grudgingly, that the study's results might be valid, they're quick to point out that men and women talk about completely different things. (That's very important for some reason.)
Why the emotional reaction, guys?
p.s. someone mention that women gossip. preliminary research has shown men gossip (and enjoy gossip) just as much as women.