There has been a great deal of research on the differing styles of men and women in conversation. We are about to survey some of the conclusions that can be drawn from this research. There is an important point to be made before we begin: much of what I'm about to say about the ways men converse or the ways women converse imply that I am talking about each and every single man and woman who ever lived. In fact, the characteristics we're going to discuss should be seen as general, not specific, that is, when I say, "What men do is . . . ," what I mean to say is "Many or most men do this and fewer women do it." We are talking about factors that will be more characteristic of men than women, but are not exclusive to men or impossible to see in a woman.

Any time we assign an individual to a group and then talk about the characteristics of the group, we're bound to get some things wrong; the best way to deal with the problem is to remember that you will meet men and women who don't fit these descriptions so closely and others who fit them very well, as well as men and women who fall all the way along a continuum from more masculine to more feminine behaviors. Despite this concern, because there are conversational style differences that are widely seen between most men and most women, it is important to talk about these.

No one knows for sure whether men and women have inherent brain differences that determine conversational style. There may be some built-in differences; there may not. We do know for sure, though, that little boys and little girls are raised and socialized very differently from one another in most cultures, including our own.

Now there are people who believe boys and girls should be raised in exactly the same way--no differences at all. A number of years ago this was a very popular idea. In an attempt to avoid the contaminating influence of the world around the children, some people were careful to name their children "unisex" sorts of names like Bobby, Val, and Joe. They carefully dressed the babies in yellow, green, and beige, but never pink or blue. They avoided behaviors that would announce to the world that their babies were specifically boys or girls. The purpose of all of this was to force the world to approach these babies without foreknowledge of their sex.

It probably worked with varying degrees of success, but it turned out not to matter a great deal. The parents themselves ended up treating and handling their boy and girl babies very differently based on their gender. Even among people very convinced that gender-specific treatment is harmful, these differences were pronounced. Little girls were consistently cuddled more, talked to more, and handled in a much gentler manner. They were allowed to cry a shorter time before the parents picked them up and soothed longer once they were held. If a little girl fell down or was hurt in another way, the parents were more likely to hold and soothe her until she calmed down. By contrast the boy babies were cuddled and talked to much less and were handled more roughly. For example, parents were more likely to play with girls by tickling and bouncing and to play with little boys by tossing them up in the air and turning them upside down. Little boys were permitted to cry longer before the parents picked them up and generally put down again as soon as the worst of the crying subsided. When little boys fell down or were otherwise hurt, parents were more likely to say, "You're OK. Just brush yourself off and get back to playing."

Now none of this is to imply that parents neglect or ignore boys while lavishing all their attention on girls, but it is meant to demonstrate how differently the two sexes are handled from infancy. Girls are encouraged to behave in dependent ways and go to someone larger and stronger for protection. They receive more intimate attention and are given it for longer periods of time. Boys are encouraged to act in independent ways and take care of their own troubles. They receive less intimate attention, although they may well receive equal attention overall.

Even when the parents are committed to treating boys and girls in the same manner, it turns out to be impossible. It seems reasonable to suppose that since the parents were raised and have lived their lives in a world where your sex influences the ways people relate to you, that they are unable to overcome that conditioning when they begin to raise their own children. And so it starts very very early.

Studying children who are together, for example, at day care, we see significant differences in the ways little girls and little boys play. Boys tend to play in large hierarchical groups, that is there are leaders and followers and varying levels of power and dominance within the group. The leader is the boy who tells others what to do. He maintains his leadership by resisting what others propose to the group. Little boys negotiate high status by giving orders and making them stick and by taking center stage to tell stories and jokes. High status little boys are the focus of the group's attention in a very public way. Status is gained within the group by successfully resisting orders and by sidetracking or interrupting the stories and jokes of others. Boys tend to play games with clear winners and losers that have elaborate rules systems. Boys frequently compete; and the winners of these competitions boast to the group that they are "faster" or "stronger" or whatever. This is admired.

In contrast, girls play together in smaller groups or in pairs. The key to the relationships is intimacy--telling secrets, sharing private stories, and talking together. When little girls play, everyone gets a turn; and much of their play doesn't involve games with winners, losers, or rules. There is not obvious jockeying for status; status is most often gained by being the girl who is sought as a friend by others. Boasting is not acceptable; a girl with obvious gifts is expected to downplay these. Little girls don't as often give orders as suggest activities for the group. And they are not expected to grab center stage; a girl who has held the floor while telling a joke or a story is expected to gracefully bow out, giving someone else a turn.

What all these differences in upbringing lead to is very different views of the world and of the place of conversation in it. Women engage the world as individuals in a network of connections. For them conversations are negotiations for closeness in which they try to seek and give confirmation and support. Reaching consensus is a goal. Women strive to protect themselves from others' attempts to push them away. They see life as a community; their struggle is to preserve intimacy and to avoid isolation.

On the other hand, men engage the world as individuals in a hierarchical social order, one in which they are either one-up or one-down. Conversations are negotiations for status in which they try to achieve and maintain the upper hand and protect themselves from others' attempts to put them down and push them around. They see life as a contest; their struggle is to maintain independence and avoid failure.

Think of all the trouble these differing styles can cause. It's not surprising that so often men and women misunderstand one another; and it's not surprising that these misunderstandings can lead to real trouble in relationships.

Let's look at a situation that causes a great deal of frustration in men and women alike. When women have problems in their lives, they tend to want to talk about these. What they are seeking when they talk is support and affirmation. When a woman tells her troubles to another woman, what most likely will happen is that the other woman will say things like, "Oh, how awful! No wonder you're so worried. I'd be worried too." She might go on to tell about a similar thing that happened to her. She will encourage her to tell more and ask questions about the trouble. What her friend hears is, "I see how you feel; you must feel awful. I would too if this happened to me." What she feels is that her friend is supporting her and offering her confirmation of her feelings. The friend matching the experience with one of her own is heard as additional support, reflecting similarity--a way of building connection.

When men have problems in their lives, they often prefer not to discuss these at all. If they do talk about it, they are also looking for support and affirmation. When a man tells his troubles to another man, the friend will likely listen, then change the subject; tell him things aren't so bad and will undoubtedly get better; or give him advice on solving the problem. What his friend hears is, "You're going to be fine; this problem won't defeat you." What he feels is that the friend has respected his need for independence and refused to take advantage of his temporary loss of status.

Now think what happens when men tell their troubles to women! The woman will likely respond just as she has with a woman friend; and the man hears, "Yes I know, you incompetent jerk! If I were as incompetent as you I'd feel awful too. Lucky for you, I'm not incompetent, so I can see you through this mess." What?

And when a woman tells her troubles to a man, he will respond just as he would with a male friend. If he changes the subject, she concludes he just doesn't care enough to listen. If he tells her it's not so bad, she feels he's belittling her feelings. If he gives advice, she feels intruded upon; after all, she didn't ask for help--she asked for sympathy--didn't she?

What’s going on here? Remembering that men see the world as a contest where one must carefully maintain status and resist attempts to put him down, understand that having a problem when the other person doesn't frames the man as one-down in the relationship. Surely a competent person would have solved the problem by now! A male friend, understanding this dynamic, shows respect for his friend's independence by changing the subject (to one where his friend isn't one-down) or by telling him it's not so bad (expressing confidence the friend can handle it). Advice is offered because men see problems as things to be solved; generally the act of bringing the problem up is an invitation to propose solutions. Sympathy is not offered or appreciated.

Women, viewing the world as a network of connections, see sharing their troubles as a way to build intimacy. A female friend, understanding this dynamic, offers evidence of their similarity and encourages further talk in order to build the relationship further. Advice is not offered or appreciated unless it is specifically asked for.

So, when a woman tells a man her troubles, and he says, "Well, here's what I would do . . . , " she becomes frustrated and tells him she can solve it fine on her own. He asks, "Well then, why did you waste my time with this if you don't want my advice?" She says, "I thought you cared." Men often accuse women of talking a problem to death instead of doing something about it, when for the woman the point of the talk is just that--talk. When a man tells a woman his troubles, and she says, "Oh that's terrible! I would be just sick if that happened to me," he feels attacked. He tells her, "Leave me alone! You see why I don't tell you things? I don't need to feel worse!" Women often accuse men of clamming up and refusing to share their concerns.

The contrast in styles is illustrated in the following conversation between two pre-school children in a day-care center recorded by sociolinguist, Dr. Deborah Tannen:

So men's responses to women's troubles talk are often viewed as intrusive and uncaring, when what the women really want is human connection, not advice. Women's responses to troubles talk are intended to show they understand and care. These expressions of sympathy and concern offered as evidence of fellow feeling among equals are heard by men as offered by someone who is one-up to someone who is one-down, a reminder of weakness by someone who is better off and knows it.

It is clear that women view personal concerns as appropriate topics of conversation. This is particularly clear within the context of personal relationships. They view close relationships as havens in a sometimes-hostile world. Because connection is important, women tend to talk about people--what they think, what they feel, what happened. Men often view this sort of talk as trivial, a waste of time. They refer to it as gossip, which has many negative connotations. Women view public talk as an occasion of being judged; this is stressful. They view their private lives as times when they are finally able to talk freely without evaluation. When asked about a best friend, they are likely to name a woman friend, someone with whom they talk about people.

Men believe talk should be reserved for important information. This includes topics like sports and politics; the thing is that men have different ideas from women's about what is important. Men establish connection by talking about less personal topics, for example, current events, and are not often interested in feelings talk. Men use public talk as a means of jockeying for status and see their private lives was a place where they are relieved of the burden of having to talk. A man will often name as his best friend his wife, a man with whom he does activities, or a high school or college friend, even if he hasn't seen the friend in years.

As a result of these differences, women are often viewed as talking all the time. The answer to this question of who talks more is a complicated one. The research is clear: in public men talk more--a lot more--than women. They take more turns and longer turns. Since men use talk to preserve independence and attain or maintain status, talking is a necessary tool in this struggle.

Men use talking to exhibit superior skills or knowledge and to hold center stage for this verbal performance. What they need for their performance is someone to listen and agree. They see the "lecturer" framed as superior in status and expertise and view a listener who doesn't challenge or interrupt them as indecisive and insecure. Women, in a spirit of connection, seek to build rapport, so they play down their own expertise. Remember, girls aren't allowed to boast; for a woman, presenting evidence of superior knowledge sparks resentment, not respect. They listen even when bored and unconvinced, expecting to be given a turn when the "lecturer" has finished. They wait until they are handed the turn and encouraged to go on. After talking for a time, they then break off and offer the turn to others. Women view this as a way to keep things balanced and people on an equal footing.

Men see this behavior framed as student behavior, and in a spirit of status and power, see it as weak. They don't give women the turn they are waiting for, expecting that anyone with something to say or who disagrees will interrupt and make their point. They interpret the female's behavior as agreement and don't listen to women as much or as long. They assume the women have no information to offer and report that they find women's conversation to be boring.

The result is that men fail to develop respect for women's knowledge, and women resent men for "hogging the conversation." The problem for women is compounded by the contradictory expectations. If they don't interrupt and make their points, they are viewed as weak and incompetent. If they do interrupt, they are resented. So they wait for the turn that never comes.

The perception is that in private women talk a lot. There are a couple of things operating here. One is that most people (men and women) think women shouldn't talk much; research indicates that women are generally perceived to talk more than they actually do. Another is that women often talk in situations where men wouldn't. It is not clear whether women actually talk more in private settings.

Women also have a reputation for interrupting frequently. Women often feel interrupted by men. Who's right? It depends on how you define interrupting. If you define it as speaking while the other person is speaking, then women interrupt a lot. They signal listening by saying "Yeah" and "Uh-huh" frequently. This is called a high-involvement style of listening and is characteristic of some cultural groups too. Men feel interrupted by these interjections while they are talking.

If, on the other hand, you define interrupting as wrenching the conversation away from the speaker's topic, then men interrupt a lot. When men make a play to take over the conversation, they expect resistance. They typically don't get it from women, who they then conclude are weak and deferential. Women see men's moves as violations of the rules; in the woman's conversational rule book, you wait until the speaker is finished before taking a turn.

This leads us to the topic of fights. Men often argue for fun and to exercise their verbal skills. They use conflict to achieve intimacy; men often argue long and loudly with their closest friends. For them, being able to fight is evidence of intimacy. They state their ideas as certain and absolute, figuring that if anyone has a problem with them, the person will speak up. They feel a duty to point out the other side of whatever someone says and explore ideas by playing devil's advocate. Men focus on the content of the message, so the fight isn't personal; it's content-based.

Women assume that when someone speaks with such certainty, the subject is not a negotiable one and don't argue unless the principle is very important to them. Fighting upsets women; they take it personally. For them conflict is a threat to intimacy, so they tend to seek agreement and to act as peacemaker. Women often say "Let's" (as in, "Let's go to the movie, OK?") to be nonconfrontational and give reasons for their suggestions. Bragging or showing off are criticized in women. Women are forbidden to express anger and disagreement, so they repeat someone else's critical remark in order to make a point; they offer suggestions; and they show concern and sympathy. They focus on the larger message that underlies the content; for them fights are personal.

Women would rather talk a problem out; long talks wear men out. Men would rather fight a problem out; fights wear women out. For men, often fighting is a game; women see it as real. Since they aren't permitted to express anger directly, women use indirect ways to express it. Men see this as manipulative.

Generally, men are more comfortable with conflict, so they win more. Women tend to be more cooperative, seeking agreement. They are often incapable of exerting power in confrontations because they don't realize men won't take a challenge in a personal and perhaps catastrophic way. The cooperative approach is often an advantage in management positions; but the competition required to achieve management status can deter women from getting there.

When decisions need to be made, men's and women's different styles can cause misunderstandings. Women expect to discuss until consensus is reached; men often feel oppressed and hemmed in by long discussions. A woman will open the negotiation with "What do you think?" This is her invitation talk about the parts of the problem; it is a way to avoid giving orders or making flat argumentative statements. The man, thinking he's being invited to make the decision, makes a flat statement about how things should be. The woman feels resentful because he took over the process and didn't consider her feelings. He can't figure out what's happening because she asked him to decide, then didn't want to agree with his decision. He sees her as manipulative.

In general, women tend to be more indirect in conversation. Once again, this is intended as courtesy, a way to avoid giving orders. Indirect people see orders as rude. Men, who tend to be more direct, see indirect requests as manipulative and assume the indirectness shows powerlessness, lack of self-confidence, and insecurity.

In general, women are inclined to do what is asked of them; in turn they expect people to be willing to do what the women ask. Men are inclined to resist being "ordered around" and assume an order is required to gain compliance. Women will resist requests couched as orders when they would be quite willing to comply with requests. Men tend to resist orders and ignore requests.

This leads to a common accusation, that women nag. Here's what happens: the woman, asks the man to do something. She's sure he'll be willing to comply if possible because she would comply with a similar request if asked. The man, who needs to maintain a feeling of independence, wants to avoid feeling like he's following orders. He waits a while before fulfilling the request so that he can seem to do it of his own free will. The problem is that the woman, seeing that he has not complied, repeats her request, sure he'd do it if he understood how important it is to her. This means he must wait longer before complying, which means she'll ask again. This can go on and on until he feels as if she's hounding him; meanwhile she views him as unwilling to help her.

These differences extend to situations where criticism is warranted. When criticizing, men get to the point. In a work situation, a man who has received an unsatisfactory report will call the employee in and say, "This report doesn't meet our standards. Do sections B and C over again." Women see this as harsh and may feel hurt by it. When they criticize, they tend to temper it with praise in an attempt to preserve the relationship. A woman would call in the employee who wrote the report and say, "This is a good report and I appreciate the hours of work that went into it; however there is a problem with parts B and C." The problem is men don't hear the criticism if it's mixed with praise. The male who wrote the report would go away thinking she was satisfied with his work. Men don't think women tell them directly enough when they are doing something wrong. Women don't think men tell them directly enough when they are doing something right.

Every time I discuss gender differences in communication with students, the women in the group raise a particular topic. We couldn't have this discussion without mentioning women's frustration with men's unwillingness to ask for directions. The complaint usually goes something like this, "You can drive around for hours lost, and STILL they won't stop and ask for directions!" This isn't just a myth among women; research says men really won't ask for directions.

The results of this unwillingness can be fatal. Private pilots, who don't usually have the instrumentation and navigational tools that are available to pilots of commercial airliners, can become disoriented and lose their way back to the airfield they left. There is evidence that a percentage of fatal private plane crashes every year are due to disoriented pilots who fail to call their tower and ask for directions, fly around until they run out of gas, and then crash. There is an anecdotal record as well. Pilots and their passengers who manage to return to the ground safely tell similar stories about near-disasters--all because the pilot is determined to find his own way home. Women do not understand this.

Men, on the other hand, see being lost as another situation in which status plays a role. The fact that a man doesn't know how to get to his destination and someone else does places the lost man in a one-down situation. But it's more complicated than just that. Often when women are urging a male to stop and ask, the man will reply, "There's no point; he probably doesn't know anyway." The woman says, "OK, so then he'll tell us he doesn't know. We at least should try." But men know that to say, "I don't know," is humiliating; so they figure there's a clear chance the other person will make up directions when he doesn't know. And they could well be right, especially if the other person is male too. Women generally don't have a problem saying, "I don't know," so they can't believe someone would make it up.

So, is male behavior on this point irrational? Not necessarily. Fatal? Yes. Irrational? Maybe not. People who ask questions are routinely viewed as less competent; women, who don't know this, tend to ask more questions. Men, who do, ask fewer. This can provide a significant advantage to men. Research shows that hospital interns who ask a lot of questions are routinely viewed as less competent and generally receive poorer residencies and lower recommendations. This problem is serious enough that interns sometimes guess at diagnosis and treatment for very ill patients rather than admitting they don't know and asking for help. This seems pretty scary, but the fact is interns who want to get ahead are better off guessing than asking. Their patients? Well, that's another story.

Now women are not unaware of power and control issues; these aren't as central in their relationships as they are in men's, but they're there. Men, likewise aren't unaware of relationship and connection issues; but they aren't as central for men as they are for women. This topic manifests itself particularly well in looking at the ritual nature of some communication.

Ritual communication is communication that doesn't necessarily serve the purpose which, on its surface, one would expect. For example, "I'm sorry" is used in a number of situations where it doesn't technically fit. When you attend a funeral and say to the wife of the deceased, "I'm sorry about George," you aren't suggesting you have caused George's death; you aren't apologizing for anything you've done wrong. Your message translates roughly as, "I'm very sorry you are in pain right now," not "I regret causing you this pain." This is ritual communication. I'm sorry, while it can easily mean you've done something wrong and now regret it, can also mean simply, it's too bad this bad thing happened to you. It isn't necessarily an admission of guilt.

Women often say, "I'm sorry" in situations where it serves a strictly ritual purpose. Men often frame these uses as apologies. Saying, "I'm sorry" ritually can place the speaker in a one-down position; the expectation is that the other person will bring them back up. An expected response might be, "I'm sorry" or "It's not your fault." And it is expected that the "apology" is not really an apology at all, just a way to express regret over a situation. Women understand the conversational position into which they're placed with a simple "I'm sorry." The man who replies with, "I accept your apology" leaves the woman one-down; she can feel this.

Compliments and advice are other forms of ritual. When advice is asked, the asker--typically a woman--expects reciprocation. Giving the compliment or asking advice places the person in a one-down situation. Returning the compliment or handling the advice sensitively brings that person back up from his one-down position.

The key here is that rituals depend on mutuality and face-saving. Knowing the importance of these issues, women will ritually place themselves one-down with the expectation that their conversational partner will bring them back up again. For men it is more complicated than that. Status-consciousness demands that you remain one-up at all times; they don't reciprocate these overtures, leaving the woman one-down. Even though status issues aren't as central for women as they are for men, a woman will understand what has happened to her when she's left dangling there one-down. And she will resent it.

An interesting difference between women and men in relationships is the way they view spending quality time together. Women generally define spending time together as interacting--talking. Think of how women spend time with women friends, and you'll see the woman's ideal. Women spend time talking on the telephone with a sister or a friend, sometimes for hours. Men ask, "What do you talk about all that time?" The woman replies, "Oh--things." Men do not get this because they see spending time together as being in the same place at the same time. They talk on the phone only to convey information; when this is done, they hang up. Women wonder why men don't spend more time talking to friends.

Picture this: a couple spends their evening in the living room. He is watching a football game; the woman is reading. At bedtime, he yawns, stretches, and heads for bed. The woman says, "You know, one of these nights we have to spend some time together." He stops, incredulous, and says, "What do you mean? We just spend a whole evening together!"

This was brought home to me during a time when I was studying for my doctorate. I was spending hours every day at the computer in the bedroom, writing and studying. I would often stay up until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and then collapse into bed until time to go to work the next day. I noticed my husband was staying up later and later at this time, watching TV in the next room. I said to him, "Look, you don't have to stay up just because I'm up." I wondered whether the tapping of the computer keys was keeping him awake. He insisted it wasn't. Then one night after months of this, while I was feeling frustrated at how little time I'd had for anyone in my family, he said to me, "You know, I've really enjoyed all the extra time we've spent together since you've been going to school." I was speechless! But it makes sense, given the differing views men and women have of relationships.

In a relationship, women expect that a couple will discuss decisions and problems, resolving them together. Men see this as a threat to their independence. Frequently women will discuss a major purchase with their partners before spending a large sum of money. Men, on the other hand, are likely to go ahead and buy things (within the couple's budget) without such consultation. They say, "I don't have to ask permission to spend my own money." But the woman doesn't see it as asking permission, simply as a courtesy, and resents that he doesn't play by the rules. They see his behavior as a threat to the couple's intimacy.

All of these issues can cause confusion and resentment in relationships between men and women, not only in romantic relationships, but also in friendships, working relationships, and family relationships. Men and women live by different rules, often without realizing it. It isn't so much the different rules, but the lack of recognition that causes the trouble. Knowing what is happening is often a first step to resolving the conflicts that can result. Once we understand that he or she isn't simply being insensitive or intrusive or rude or manipulative, but simply being what he or she is socialized to be, we can let go of much of our frustration and anger. Once we understand why situations are developing, we can discuss and resolve the problems that arise.

This isn't really directly about communication, but it is about a gender-related issue that is important to men and women alike. It has to do with the ways in which women are perceived, particularly in their professional lives.

Marking. This concept is borrowed from language studies, but it applies to a social issue as well. A marked form of a word is the staple form of the word with something added to alter its base meaning. Let's look at an example:

The verb, LOOK, is the unmarked form of the word.

With it's added -ed to make the past tense, LOOKED is a marked form.

So are LOOKING with its -ing ending and OVERLOOKED, with it's prefix.

Most nouns and adjectives that refer to people refer to the male in their unmarked form. ACTOR is the unmarked form of a noun. In order to designate a woman, we must add an ending, marking it: ACTRESS. There are drum MAJORS and MAJORETTES. A WAITER or a WAITRESS can serve your food in a restaurant. Used to be that the guys in the club were called JAYCEES and the women were called JAYCEETTES.

The markings most commonly applied to standard word forms to designate women generally also mark for frivolousness. The ending -ette means little. So a majorette is a "little major."

Social and Cultural Marking. In other ways men are the standard form; anything specific to women is marked. For example, in the world of business, the standard form is the male. If a man wants to be unmarked, he wears a conservative suit, white shirt, dark shoes, fairly short conservative haircut. He is called Mister (or Doctor). Now a man who wants to be marked has choices: bright colors, longer or much shorter hair, an earring, other nontraditional jewelry. But the man who wishes to be unmarked can be.

On the other hand, women cannot be unmarked. Every hairdo carries messages; in every case they mark her as not the standard form. Short neat hair says "serious;" long fluffy hair says "sexy;" etc. A woman who wears a "man's" hairdo would be marked as inappropriately masculine. A woman who chooses no hairdo, simply combing her hair straight would be marked as one who "doesn't care about her appearance." Choices about make-up or its absence, jewelry or its absence, clothing, shoes (high heels are frivolous, flat sensible shoes are schoolmarm-ish) all convey messages about the woman. A woman who chooses to be called Missus or Miss is seen as one who doesn't mind people knowing her marital status; one who chooses Ms. is labeled feminist; one who insists on being called Doctor is labeled uppity. There is no unmarked title to put with the name.

Research is clear that when a woman and a man are shown in a photo in appropriate settings, most of us will label the man as the boss, doctor, or senator, while labeling the woman as the secretary, receptionist, nurse, or aide. When talking about various professions, we say John Smith, attorney and Mary Taylor, lady attorney. We refer to Dr. Jones, surgeon and Dr. Johnson, woman surgeon. Because women are seen as more interruptible, they are assumed to be available to give help and information; when this is inappropriate (for example, the woman turns out to be a busy dentist between appointments), she is resented for being stuck-up. Remember, girls must not put themselves above others, even when they're busy professionals truly pressed for time.

In order to succeed in many businesses, women must adopt somewhat masculine styles of interacting. If they maintain their typically female patterns, they're perceived as weak, indecisive, and incompetent--look back at the previous discussion for examples. If, on the other hand, they adopt typically male patterns, they're judged as unfeminine, which is judged harshly. Women being "appropriately feminine" are viewed as submissive, not feminine. Those who act masculine are viewed as dominating and are reviled for it. Women who don't boast aren't given the recognition that's achieved by tooting your own horn; those who do are viewed as arrogant and insufferable.

Whatever women do is viewed, one way or another, as a sign of powerlessness. Women who act and speak in ways expected of women are seen as inadequate leaders. Women who act and speak in ways expected of leaders are viewed as inadequate women. That's being between a rock and a hard place for sure.

An interesting study of the ways managers are evaluated demonstrates some of the double bind in which women find themselves in their professional lives. Women who were competent were consistently rated lower than men who were equally competent. Women who were unsuccessful were rated more kindly because not so much is expected of women. It turns out that society's image of women as women affords them lower status. And this causes problems for women because expectations affect and determine how and whether we are heard.

Now I'm not willing to declare that all of these troubles are men's fault--or anyone's fault. I'm not so sure declaring fault is the point of this little digression. The thing I want you to think about is that this inequity exists; and it's not one Congress can legislate out of existence. It goes to the preconceived ideas in the minds of many people. It means that women have to work harder and be better to be perceived as well as men. It means that women in professional life must walk a tightrope between "too masculine" and "too feminine." It means that, when men understand the nature of the dilemma for women on a day-to-day basis, they can begin to mitigate the negative effects of these perceptions, first just within themselves, then later in a wider circle. And, of course, it means that women can challenge the widely-held views by continuing to survive and achieve and excel, even against the odds. But this is really the work of all of us--men and women--unless we decide we can afford to discard the talents of fully half the human race as we move into our future.