A bit of a sad scene

Last week I was in an upscale restaurant in a city of at least 300,000. I was eating alone because I was traveling, but I decided to notice the groups around me and their interaction. I was in the restaurant about an hour, so I go to see most of the conversations of the people around me. Directly in front of me was a table of 4 young women who appeared to be from a nearby university. One table over to my right was a couple in their mid-30s I would say. Close to them was another couple probably in their 50s. Behind them was a table of 3 couples. To my left was a table of two men sitting across from each other. Behind them was a table of 4 women. And near to them was another couple. I switched on my observation mode.

The three young university women talked without interruption the whole time I was there as did the two men who were engaged in lively conversation between friends. The table of 3 couples had at least one conversation going, sometimes two at all times. The table of 4 women didn't seem to have any pauses in their conversations either. Well, you noticed. What about the tables of the couples. They were pretty quiet tables. Conversation was intermittent, even sporadic at the 50s couple table. They found it hard, it seemed, to keep conversation sustained. The couple closest to the two men seemed to have the least trouble. But, their tones and gestures seemed serious most of the time.

This illustration bears out another point of opposites in cross-gender conversation. When men talk, they seem to talk of events surrounding them in the outside world. The topic of weather in many men's conversations is a point in case. They talk about their relation to their work or career, their ambitions, their analysis of politics or religion or any other issue that is common between the participants. Women, on the other hand, seem to talk about lives of the people around them. What happens in an event takes second place to how something happens or the after-effect of an event on people's lives. What people say and feel about something is important. With men, what people do is important. It bears analysis. Some people say the difference in conversational topics revolves around the internal, the personal, the notional for women, while for men, conversational topics revolve around the external, the competitive, the analytical.

Now back to the tables around me in the restaurant. The all-men, all-women tables had no trouble talking because they are all operating from the same norms. The multiple couples table had no trouble because the couples could splinter at any time between men and women to 3 men and 3 women if the topic selected was of lesser interest to one of the groups. But, the couples tables had trouble. The topic brought up by the men bore the stamp of male conversational rules: the external, the analytical, which is of less interest to the woman who brought topics of things personal, internally connected to people in the topics. Partners appeared bored out their skulls when the other was talking. Couples left in silence. Mixed or same-sex groups left chattering away.

I was a bit saddened by the scene. Are people not willing to notice others' norms and make that adaptation? It's enough to make a person regurgitate.

Scrambled intetentions

A second difference in the codes of gender speaking is that when men speak, they expect to have the floor. Thus, if a man begins to speak and someone else talks over him and prevails, he loses face among the participants in the conversation. If a man interrupts another man, he had better become the speaker to hold the floor, or again, he loses face. So, usually men are quiet unless it is clearly his turn to speak or unless he knows he can wrest the floor and win it.

Women have a totally different norm going on. Because of the minimal response, women feel as if they can speak simultaneously with other women. It is a way of aligning themselves so as to not to be overtly hostile. In fact, women who do not engage in the minimal response are perceived as hostile or antagonistic. So, it is important to align themselves with the speaker. If for some reason, a woman is silent during another speaker's turn, she shows her alignment by building on the last woman's utterance. She might begin her turn by saying, "To add to ____'s idea," ....

So, woman talks to man. He listens like he is supposed to. No minimal response. When he speaks, he takes the floor. In the woman's view, there is no alignment taking place. That means hostility or antagonism. Now, whatever gets said is perceived as a remark that in unaligned with the woman's utterance. The woman may try to respond minimally while the man is talking. He sees the gesture as a woman trying to interrupt, to take the floor from him. According to his rules, that is losing face. According to a woman's rules it is showing alignment. The conversation turns for the worse.

One can better determine how cross-gender conversations become scrambled in a hurry. The codes, norms, or rules are different, even opposite. So the participants in the conversation don't get caught up in the content of the conversation, but let the unspoken rules dictate the underlying meaning of the conversation. That's when the automatic rules learned in our peer groups take over. But, the rules are different and misunderstandings run rampant. That's when the "You said this, but meant that," conversation takes over. Ah, the end is near.