You Just Don’t Understand by Deborah Tannen

“Can’t We Talk?” (condensed from: You Just Don’t Understand)

by Deborah Tannen

A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, “Would you like to stop for a coffee?”

“No, thanks,” he answered truthfully. So they didn’t stop.

The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn’t she just say what she wanted?

Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn’t realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it’s no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.

As a specialist in linguistics, I have studied how the conversational styles of men and women differ. We cannot lump all men or all women into fixed categories. But the seemingly senseless misunderstandings that haunt our relationships can in part be explained by the different conversational rules by which men and women play.

Whenever I write or speak about this subject, people tell me they are relieved to learn that what has caused them trouble – and what they had previously ascribed to personal failings – is, in fact, very common.

Learning about the different though equally valid conversational frequencies men and women are tuned to can help banish the blame and help us truly talk to one another. Here are some of the most common areas of conflict:

Status vs. Support.

Men grow up in a world in which a conversation is often a contest, either to achieve the upper hand or to prevent other people from pushing them around. For women, however, talking is often a way to exchange confirmation and support.

I saw this when my husband and I had jobs in different cities. People frequently made comments like, “That must be rough,” and “How do you stand it?” I accepted their sympathy and sometimes even reinforced it, saying, “The worst part is having to pack and unpack al the time.”

But my husband often reacted with irritation. Our situation had advantages, he would explain. As academics, we had four-day weekends together, as well as long vacations throughout the year and four months in the summer.

Everything he said was true, but I didn’t understand why he chose to say it. He told me that some of the comments implied: “Yours is not a real marriage. I am superior to you because my wife and I have avoided your misfortune.” Until then it had not occurred to me there might be an element of one- upmanship.

I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.

Independence vs. Intimacy.

Since women often think in terms of closeness and support, they struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation.

When Josh’s old high-school friend called him at work to say he’d be in town, Josh invited him to stay for the weekend. That evening he told Linda they were having a house guest.

Linda was upset. How could Josh make these plans without discussing them with her beforehand? She would never do that to him. “Why don’t you tell your friend you have to check with your wife?” she asked.

Josh replied, “I can’t tell my friend, ‘I have to ask my wife for permission’!”

To Josh, checking with his wife would mean he was not free to act on his own. It would make him feel like a child or an underling. But Linda actually enjoys telling someone, “I have to check with Josh.” It makes her feel good to show that her life is intertwined with her husband’s.

Advice vs. Understanding.

Eve had a benign lump removed from her breast. When she confided to her husband, Mark, that she was distressed because the stitches changed the contour of her breast, he answered, “You can always have plastic surgery.”

This comment bothered her. “I’m sorry you don’t like the way it looks,” she protested. “But I’m not having any more surgery!”

Mark was hurt and puzzled. “I don’t care about a scar,” he replied. “It doesn’t bother me at all.”

“Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?” she asked.

“Because you were upset about the way it looks.”

Eve felt like a heel. Mark had been wonderfully supportive throughout her surgery. How could she snap at him now?

The problem stemmed from a difference in approach. To many men a complaint is a challenge to come up with a solution. Mark thought he was reassuring Eve by telling her there was something she could do about her scar. But often women are looking for emotional support, not solutions.

When my mother tells my father she doesn’t feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.

Information vs. Feelings.

A cartoon shows a husband opening a newspaper and asking his wife, “Is there anything you’d like to say to me before I start reading the paper?” We know there isn’t – but that as soon as the man begins reading, his wife will think of something.

The cartoon is funny because people recognize their own experience in it. What’s not funny is that many women are hurt when men don’t talk to them at home, and many men are frustrated when they disappoint their partners without knowing why.

Rebecca, who is happily married, told me this is a source of dissatisfaction with her husband, Stuart. When she tells him what she is thinking, he listens silently. When she asks him what is on his mind, he says, “Nothing.”

All Rebecca’s life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information. He doesn’t feel that talk is required at home.

Yet many such men hold center stage in a social setting, telling jokes and stories. They use conversation to claim attention and to entertain. Women can wind up hurt that their husbands tell relative strangers things they have not told them.

To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, both men and women can make adjustments. A woman may observe a man’s desire to read the paper without seeing it is a rejection. And a man can understand a woman’s desire to talk without feeling it is a manipulative intrusion.

Orders vs. Proposals.

Diana often begins statements with “Let’s.” She might say “Let’s park over there” or “Let’s clean up now, before lunch.”

This makes Nathan angry. He has deciphered Diana’s “Let’s” as a command. Like most men, he resists being told what to do. But to Diana, she is making suggestions, not demands. Like most women, she formulates her requests as proposals rather than orders. Her style of talking is a way of getting others to do what she wants – but by winning agreement first.

With certain men, like Nathan, this tactic backfires. If they perceive someone is trying to get them to do something indirectly, they feel manipulated and respond more resentfully than they would to a straightforward request.

Conflict vs. Compromise.

In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it’s far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.

Dora was frustrated by a series of used cars she drove. It was she who commuted to work, but her husband, Hank, who chose the cars. Hank always went for cars that were “interesting” but in continual need of repair.

After Dora was nearly killed when her brakes failed, they were in the market for yet another used car. Dora wanted to buy a late-model sedan from a friend. Hank fixed his sights on a 15-year-old sports car. She tried to persuade Hank that it made more sense to buy the boring but dependable car, but he would not be swayed.

Previously she would have acceded to his wishes. This time Dora bought the boring but dependable car and steeled herself for Hanks’ anger. To her amazement, he spoke not a word of remonstrance. When she later told him what she had expected, he scoffed at her fears and said she should have done what she wanted from the start if she felt that strongly about it.

As Dora discovered, a little conflict won’t kill you. At the same time, men who habitually oppose others can adjust their style to opt for less confrontation.

When we don’t see style differences for what they are, we sometimes draw unfair conclusions: “You’re illogical,” “You’re self- centered,” “You don’t care about me.” But once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiraling out of control.

Learning the other’s ways of talking is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a giant step towards genuine understanding.

 

 

You Just Don’t Understand by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D. – 1990

Reviewed by Laura Bryannan

That men and women are on different wavelengths when it comes to communicating is probably not news to you. However, “Can We Talk?” the cover story of the December issue of New Age Journal, provides some excellent new perspectives on this age-old problem. The author, Peggy Taylor, interviewed sociolinguist Deborah Tannen, who has written a book called You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Tannen’s research shows that the differences between the communication styles of men and women go far beyond mere socialization, and appear to be inherent in the basic make up of each sex.

Tannen first noticed these differences when studying videotapes another researcher had made of best friends asked to have a conversation together. In contrast to the girls, boys were extremely uncomfortable with this request. Girls in all age groups would face each other and immediately began to talk, eventually ending up discussing the problems of one girl. Boys, on the other hand, sat parallel to each other and would jump from topic to topic–centered around a time when they would do something together.

Tannen observed that,

“For males, conversation is the way you negotiate your status in the group and keep people from pushing you around; you use talk to preserve your independence. Females, on the other hand, use conversation to negotiate closeness and intimacy; talk is the essence of intimacy, so being best friends means sitting and talking. For boys, activities, doing things together, are central. Just sitting and talking is not an essential part of friendship. They’re friends with the boys they do things with.”

It’s not hard, from even these simple observations, to see the potential problems when men and women communicate. Women create feelings of closeness by conversing with their friends and lovers. Men don’t use communication in this way, so they can’t figure out why their women are continually talk, talk, talking. Eventually, many men just tune their women out. The ubiquitous image of the housewife at the breakfast table talking to her husband who has his head buried in the newspaper comes to mind.

Tannen notes that men are confused by the various ways women use conversation to be intimate with others. One of these ways she calls “troubles talk.” She says, “For women, talking about troubles is the essence of connection. I tell you my troubles, you tell me your troubles, and we’re close. Men, however, hear troubles talk as a request for advice, so they respond with a solution.” When a man offers this kind of information the woman often feels as if he is trying to diminish her problem or cut her off.

In his eyes, he’s being supportive, because men don’t talk to each other about their troubles unless they really do want a solution; talking about their problems is wallowing in them. The man doesn’t realize that his woman was simply trying to establish a certain kind of intimacy with him–inviting him to reciprocate and share himself with her. Because of these essential differences in approach, Tannen says that the most common complaint she hears from men about women “…is that women complain all the time and don’t want to do anything about it…Men misunderstand the ritual nature of women’s complaining.”

An interesting dance emerges from these different approaches: The woman, craving closeness and intimacy with her man, talks to him about her problems with friends, family, her job, etc. She seeks to have her man respond as her girlfriends have always done, and talk with her about his concerns. The man, however, hears these conversations as requests for advice, not intimacy. He considers the problem and offers a solution, or dismisses the issue, as the boys he knew always did. When his woman continues to go on about these same concerns, showing no movement to consider his advice, he becomes confused and eventually angry; he begins to believe that his woman is an expert at talking about nothing. The woman begins to feel that her man doesn’t care about her because he won’t talk to her in a way that feels intimate.

It is important for women to understand that men’s communicating is all about status. Think about all those nature shows you’ve ever seen on PBS. The prime goal of male beasties is to be able to mate; to do this they must be powerful enough to challenge the lead males in the herd. As they grow up, they bide their time by establishing a pecking order. When a beastie is big and strong enough to have most of the other males “under” him, he is ready to take on the “old man.” If he wins the fight, he gets to mate with the females of his choice (and they will mate only with him).

Tannen has found that human males behave in exactly the same way. She discussed the research of Marjorie Goodwin, who studied boys in Philadelphia for a year and a half. “She found that boys give orders as a way of gaining social status. The high-status boys gave orders just to maintain their dominance, not because they particularly needed the thing done. And the boys who were being told what to do were low status, by virtue of doing what they were told.”

This dynamic is important to remember when looking at another major area of miscommunication between men and women. Women cannot understand the resistance men seem to have when asked for assistance or consideration of some kind or another. Women must remember the above scenario and understand that, for men, doing what they’re asked to do means they have lost status in that relationship. Men often feel that women are trying to manipulate them. What a woman might see as a simple request–no big deal– is seen by her man an attempt to manipulate him into a “one-down” position.

Tannen discusses this issue further:

“Women want men to do what we want. We want them to want to do what we want, because that’s what we do. If a woman perceives that something she’s doing is really hurting a man, she wants to stop doing it. If she perceives that he really wants her to do something, she wants to do it. She thinks that that’s love and he should feel the same way about her. But men have a gut-level resistance to doing what they’re told, to doing what someone expects them to do. It’s the opposite response of what women have.” She reminds readers that, of course, there are men who are very helpful toward their women. “But if a man is going to be touchy, it’s more likely to go in that direction. Whereas if a woman is insecure, she’s more likely to go in the other direction, [and] be super- accommodating.”

In sharp contrast to the communication style of men, which seeks to establish and maintain status and dominance, women’s communicating is more egalitarian, or rule-by-consensus. When women get together they seek the input of the other women present and make decisions based on the wishes of all. Tannen notes that this type of communication style is becoming more important, and is in alignment with the Japanese style of management. Men doing business with Japanese companies often have to radically change their style of communicating to accommodate the more personal and intimate approach of the Japanese businessman.

One may get the impression from this discussion that women’s style of communicating is superior to men’s. Indeed, since the dawning of the women’s movement there have been many declaring that men just don’t know how to communicate (because they don’t communicate like women). Sensitivity courses galore have been offered in hopes of teaching men to communicate more like women. However, Tannen states that there is nothing pathological about men’s style of communication, and that women’s communicating also has it’s down-sides.

One fact I found particularly fascinating follows from women’s communication style of consensus-building. With women, consensus means thinking alike, being in agreement, being the SAME! When one woman in a group decides to go her own way in some matter, there is often trouble: “If a girl does something the other girls don’t like, she’ll be criticized, or even ostracized…What do girls put other girls down for? For standing out, for seeming better than the others…I mean, really–no wonder people talk about women’s fear of success!” In shock, Peggy Taylor, asked, “So you’re saying the female mode prevents excellence?” And Tannen replied, “It prevents displaying it.”

Pretty interesting, eh? I imagine that there are a fair number of women out there who have experienced that kind of isolation from their friends(?) at some time in their lives. It is unfortunate that exceptional women not only find themselves up against men who are threatened by their success, but are often faced with their sisters throwing stones in their path too. This need for consensus–for being alike–is something women need to explore further if we sincerely wish to support each other in advancing our individual goals and dreams.

In closing, Tannen makes the point that both sexes need to understand the inherent differences in their communication styles so that they don’t expect the impossible. There is middle ground where men and women can meet and find understanding. Women must learn that the kind of intimate talk they have with their girlfriends should remain just that. Trying to turn your man into a girlfriend will usually fail because men, in general, don’t create feelings of closeness in that way. Men, too can understand that when their woman is talking, she is attempting to connect to him–she’s not just talking to talk, nor is she trying to readjust the status of their relationship. By sharing more of himself he shows her, in a way she can understand, that he’s not pushing her away; that he does indeed love her and want to be close to her.

After reading this article, it’s easy to see that a major source of fuel for the battle between the sexes is this vastly different way of communicating. Perhaps if men stopped expecting women to communicate like men, and women stopped trying to get men to communicate like women, we would have enough energy left to appreciate how each sex compliments the other in a womderful way. Life would be pretty boring if men and women were the same (and I’m not referring to naughty bits here!) Viva la difference— what a challenging way to learn about life and each other!

Chapter Summaries of Deborah Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.  New York: Wm. Morrow, 1990. 

    1.        Different Words, Different Worlds

Conversation seen/used differently:

Men see themselves as:                                                               Women see themselves as:

individuals in hierarchically structured world who              indiv. in world of connection who negotiate

negotiate power + status, upper hand                                   closeness, confirmation, support, consensus

Intimacy and Independence: conversations have as goal to preserve status (M) or connection

Asymmetries:

Women: Symmetry of connection creates community

Men:   Asymmetry of status creates contest

The Mixed Metamessages of Help: A message‑‑e.g., offer of help, expression of sympathy‑‑is always accompanied by metamessages‑‑info about the relations among the people involved and their attitudes toward what they are saying or doing and the people they are saying and doing it to.  E.g., giving help may send metamessage “I am more competent than you.”  Interpretation of metamessage depends heavily on wording, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, etc. 

Framing = another way of thinking about metamessages: they indicate superior/inferior alignment, provide context for interpretation.  In effect, they frame you as dominant/ subordinate as well as framing what you say (e.g., talking to others like a teacher may frame you as condescending, pedantic; talking to others like a student seeking help and explanations may frame you as being insecure, incompetent, or naïve). 

The Modern Face of Chivalry: while message = being polite and showing connection, metamessage = control, giving permission or granting privilege (which can, conversely, be withdrawn too)

The Protective Frame: M‑‑>W reflects traditional alignment of men protecting women, but W‑‑>M reflects w’s traditional protection of children, framing man as child

                Different Means to the Same End: we can all play on status or connection to get things done w/conversation, e.g., to get a booked‑up plumber, play on status/hierarchy:

1) present yourself as an important person or

2) present yourself as one‑down, alone, needing help, special treatment or play on connection: know same people, from same place, etc.

Who’s Deceptive?: Playing on either status or connection can be seen as manipulative depending on which you think is more fundamental

                Mixed Judgments and Misjudgments: E.g., women display connection (which they think positive, i.e., thanking husband in preface to book) and men interpret this as lack of independence, synonymous w/incompetence and insecurity

In Pursuit of Freedom: E.g., surveyed views on freedom thru divorce:

Women said felt freed from internal burden of emotional responsibility for interdependence, worrying @ being responsive to mate

Men said felt freed from external burden of obligations, constraints on behavior (need to consult, account for actions)         

Male‑Female Conversation is Cross‑Cultural Communication:

Gorwing up in different worlds leads to diff. conversational styles, also known as genderlects

It Begins at the Beginning: with social encouragement for girls to be cooperative and boys to be competitive

                The Key is Understanding difference in conversational styles, which are equally valid; this makes world a more familiar place

    2.        Asymmetries: Women and Men Talking at Cross‑purposes:

Women match troubles, look for understanding, support, and comfort through similarities

Men are more likely to respond to complaints w/info/advice, but their attempt at helping often received as not being sympathetic and solution proferred may even be interpreted as men

suggesting something (“You can get scar operated on”: for M, is a solution, don’t worry; for W = man wants her to get operation)

“They’re my troubles‑‑not yours”: when women match troubles w/men, seen as denying uniqueness of men’s experience

“I’ll fix it for you”: men see selves as problem‑solvers and focus on solutions, on message, while women focus on metamessage of community–“We’re the same, you’re not alone”

Parallel Tracks: girls respond to complaints/troubles by confirming feelings, while boys talk of own problems and dismiss other’s as insignificant (=don’t worry, it’s not so bad) 

Matching Troubles: women reinforce similarity, confirm feelings, foster sense of community

A Different Symmetry: boys’ dismissal of other’s problems can also be interpreted through lense of alignment: not sympathizing = refusal to take superior and condescending role

“Don’t ask”: asking for information:

                for women: reinforces bonds, feeling of community

                for men: creates hierarchy, frames man as inferior, one‑down

                “I’ll fix it if it kills me”: social contract influences men to try/pretend to help women even if can’t and women to create context w/i which to thank for (non‑existant) help because

must show appreciation

“I’ll help you if it kills me”: Men provide help/info in a way that reinforces their status, shows they have power (use difficult vocab), while women minimize difference in expertise to

be as comprehensible as possible and give off metamessages of support

“Trust me”: not to trust a man = ? his skill, knowledge

“Be nice”: stance of expert more fundamental to our notion of masculinity than our notion of femininity; women give praise vs. info (tho even giving praise can be seen as being one‑up, for women, esp. as mothers/nurses, seen more as doing others’ bidding)

Overlapping Motivations: as helpers men + women perform different tasks or w/different goals.

Man fixes s.t. to show concern for woman, to reinforce his reputation for skill, but also reinforces feeling of being in control, self‑sufficient, and able to dominate the world of objects.

Evelyn Fox Keller’s thesis: the conception of science as dominating and controlling nature is essentially a masculine view

Women and men place different relative weights on status vs. connection in interpreting intentions; women more likely to be able to receive help/info than men

The View from a Different Mountain: a main reason differences in conversational style are frustrating and disturbing are that they contradict not only what we expect (understanding, similar views for those closest to us) but our view of ourselves as understanding the world and having our feet planted on the ground.

    3.        “Put Down That Paper and Talk to Me!”: Rapport‑talk and Report‑talk: folklinguistics: women talk too much, but sociolinguistic research shows that men talk more than women

Rapport‑talk and Report‑talk: 1) private 2)public spheres

1) conv. = language of rapport, way of estab. connections and negotiating relationships; emphasis on similarity and matching experiences vs. difference (no boasting, appearing superior)

2) conv. = means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in hierarchical social order; done by exhibiting knowledge and skill, by holding center stage through verbal performance (storytelling, joking, giving info).  Men learn to use talk to get and keep attention

Private Speaking: The Wordy Woman and the Mute Man:

Source of stereotype that women talk more than men:

1) Dale Spender: since w + children should be seen and not heard, any amount of talk from them seems like too much;

2) men hear women talking when they themselves would not (i.e. private speaking on

phone, w/friends, about topics they wouldn’t discuss)

Women disappointed when men don’t talk or share feelings

 

Best Friends = center of girl’s social life; essence of adult female friendship = conversational‑style talk

“Talk to me!”: Women use talk to interact; telling = showing involvement, listening = show interest and caring.  Women have a lifetime of verbalizing feelings.

Men talk to exchange info; don’t express “feelings and passing thoughts” because this is not seen as important

                What to Do with Doubts: Difference in awareness of power of words to affect others:   Men can see voicing doubts as expressing “passing thoughts,” so they avoid doing it because they don’t want to cause harm for something transitional

Women see expressing doubts as an expression of trust in a relationship, sharing and working towards something.

For girls: talk holds relationship together

For boys: relationships held together by activities, or talk about activities, so men most inclined to talk when they need to impress or when their status is in question.

Making Adjustments: both sexes can do this when they understand where the misunderstanding comes from