You just don't understand!

Men and women (very often) come at conversation in different ways

These days it seems risky even to use the words men and women in a title or an article. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I studied Trilingual Literature as my major. But it was the choice of my minor in “Women’s Studies” that was literally life-changing. It was a prolonged experience of me being in the minority in each of the classes (1 male and around 15 females). Of the many books I read at the time trying to understand how women and men were wired, the one that had the biggest effect on me was released three years after graduating. It was Dr Deborah Tannen’s book, You Just Don’t Understand, Men and Women in Conversation. Published in 1990, it became a multi-year New York Times bestseller. A precursor to the radically more successful Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, by Dr John Gray, which came out two years later, Tannen’s book fundamentally enlightened me. Everything Tannen wrote just seemed to make sense. There was research and scientific study and I note that it was a bit drier than Mars & Venus. But for me, her book was spot on. For the sake of clarity, as I believe in the Jungian notions of anima and animus, I tend to qualify that what goes for “men” and “women” in Tannen’s book could be replaced with feminine and masculine mindsets and traits.

As far as I’m concerned, the main thrust of her book remains true today. Were I not on Substack, I might not feel emboldened to write about this, since I’ve not invited any sensitivity reader to ‘clean’ it. And, this is my main point, we need to be able to talk with conviction about our humanity without a fear of censorship, especially if the intention is genuinely reasonable. If we are able to keep in touch with our human nature and not get tongue-tied on attempting to accommodate all types and contexts, we’ll get a better — if still messy — understanding of one another. On one end of the spectrum, we are shining a light on every singular case; and on the other, we can’t get rid of generalisations. Where I bridge the gap is by thinking that stereotypes are a tremendous pedagogical mechanism, helping kids to understand general concepts. And, on the other hand, I find the use of individual stories as a great way to make content more engaging. To wit, the use of a personal story to recount some historical event (i.e., Band of Brothers or The Last Ring Home).

A time to listen & a time to speak up

So, where does this leave us today in terms of holding meaningful conversations between the sexes? I have been married for over 27 years now and through the years, we’ve had plenty of stormy rows. We’ve also suffered from trying too often to please one another, so said our therapist. It turns out that sometimes it’s best just to say what you want, without beating around the bush all the time. But it’s tricky to know when to just listen versus speaking your mind. For instance, to what extent do I admit that I don’t like the dish my wife slaved over to prepare? At another level, sometimes, it’s desirable that someone takes command. Sure the person taking the decision will feel responsible, but in a healthy exchange, the person ‘going for the ride’ needs to respect the partner’s readiness to go out on a line. Similarly, when it comes to conversations, sometimes it is better to say what’s on your mind and provide fair and firm feedback. At other times, though, depending on the context, it’s definitely not the right way to go and listening is what’s required. And, of course, men are different from one another, just as not all women are the same. It’s nuance that is needed. So, at times, it may be best to be crude, raw and/or real. At others, it’s just about lending a non-judgmental ear. There are no hard and fast rules. That’s how and why human relationships are messy.

A place for meaty exchanges

I’ve read a number of books around how to have meaningful or strong conversations, and I have found intriguing the balance called for between being able to listen (without judgment nor acceding to the other person’s opinion) and the right to hold a strong point of view. If you are filled with so much passion, it’s almost existential in nature in that it enlivens you. Meanwhile, it’s very difficult, not to say impossible, to have empathy and listen well when you are overly charged with an opinion. Let’s first think of this in terms of men and women.

For example, I have long been impressed with my wife’s ability to hold a strong opinion. This can be about food, décor, a person or a political topic. Some things just seem so self-evident for her. It’s as if she has a direct line into her intuition. Meanwhile, I feel like I’m more intent to accept many things, almost with a level of indifference. You could easily call me spineless, at least on certain topics where, essentially, I have no bones to pick or grudges to bear. I consider it more an ability to compartmentalise. Yet if I don’t express my opinion or wish, there’s a very large chance that it’ll not get satisfied.

Salomon said: “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, but when desire cometh, it is a tree of life.” Proverbs 13 verse 12

If I don’t express my wish, how on earth is anyone supposed to know how to help me achieve it? It turns out that people love to help, when given the opportunity. So the challenge is finding out how to be balanced in expressing your needs and wants while being able to listen deeply to others. The practice of empathy, a quality that I have spent a good deal of time studying and writing about, asks of us to understand the other. Among the biggest buzz killers in a conversation are when you make unfounded assumptions (aka misguided presumptions), jump quickly to conclusions and interrupt. And in the heat of an impassioned discussion on an important topic, it’s hard to keep a check on one’s energies. If you want to practice empathy, you need time and patience. You need data to help understand the other person’s context. For that, you need to put aside your own ego and listen intently.

Report versus rapport

The central tenet in Tannen’s book is that men seek to report, while women seek rapport. For example, men enjoy the exchange of information as a way to establish hierarchy. Meanwhile, women exchange stories as a way to build connection. Of course, these are generalisations, but like all good stereotypes, they are founded in a reality. The other day I was running a seminar around building empathy. In the middle of a group conversation, one man interrupted a woman who was explaining a work challenge. The man in question felt compelled to jump in to suggest a solution before the woman had had a chance to finish. This cut the flow and visibly irritated the woman (presumably there was also plenty of history in the team). What the man missed was the woman was looking to explain her story, wishing to be heard and then to discuss the situation and her feelings. The solution, as she later explained, had been found. For me, as a man, I can relate to this need to want to seem useful, to help, and to provide a solution to the problem. For the woman, on the other hand, the desire was more about relating with one another in the group. To parry the situation, I explained to the group the classic case out of Tannen’s book of the husband and wife at the breakfast table where the man feels inclined to pull out the iPad (in the book, it’s an old-fashioned newspaper) to catch up on the news, much to the hurt of the wife who was hoping for a bonding chat. Everyone in the seminar, which was a mixed group of thirty- to sixty-year-old managers, nodded in recognition of the situation. [And yes, sometimes, it can be the woman who is more transactional and the man who is more relational.]

I note that in contemporary writings, however, along with a vast array of words that are off-limits, it seems we are not supposed to make such sweeping generalisations for fear of “reinforcing” the situation. We’re not really even supposed to uses sexes. I’d love to engage a conversation about this issue in this post! To what extent can we return to having a less constrained conversation about the differences between men and women? Rather than spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to accommodate a fraction of society’s — albeit very real — challenges, let’s help heal the majority of people. The bigger issue is that our society is being torn apart at the seams, while the bulk of us feel powerless. It’s that men and women practice different types of communication that makes us better. It’s our delicious and complex complementarity. We need to focus on the diversity of minds, not an equity in outcomes. Moreover, having a breadth of backgrounds and experiences in a boardroom regularly trumps like-minded group think. The presence and role of a minimum of three women on a Board has been proven to show better results. It also makes for a better and more pleasant dynamic. In this, there is no offence intended. I suspect, however, a sensitivity reader might have a field day; and I find that sad.

Change is for sure

In preparing for writing this post, I got to thinking of how much has changed in our society from the day that Tannen wrote her book. I noticed that it remains listed as a top-selling book in several categories (depends on the store of course), albeit far behind Mars & Venus, a book that still flirts with being in the top 1000 all-time, and is in the top 20 in multiple categories. Among the changes we’ve seen in society, we’ve obviously radically altered the landscape by introducing and accepting many different genders. So, for one thing, there’s an ongoing polemic around the definition of a woman (curiously much less so for the definition of a man). But I’m not going to treat that here.

Availability of information… quid of knowledge?

A second major change since 1990 is that information is now generally available to everyone. By interacting with information, we can build up knowledge. We can surely still state that knowledge is power, noting that it takes a concerted effort to convert information into power. This means connecting dots and seeing patterns and then making it of a higher order as well as intelligible. Now, with transparency and access to the internet, everyone can pretty much find out everything. But do people take the time and apply themselves sufficiently to convert that information into knowledge? Scattered attention spans and multiple spinning plates tend to reduce our depth of knowledge. In any event, it’s clear that the foundation for the ‘reporting’ structure has changed. We must find alternative vehicles for establishing rank. This is all the more challenging in a society that has been voluntarily flattening hierarchies. And with the arrival of ever-smarter Large Language Models (LLM) in artificial intelligence, the opportunity for the human being is to lean into his ‘being’ AND intentionally seeking ways to sublimate the information into a higher order knowledge.

Communications shift

Thirdly, communication (and thus rapport building) has changed by the nature of the new devices, channels and platforms. With a plethora of choice, we communicate quicker and more chaotically, using a new vocabulary and syntax. And, when it comes to the social networks, I have observed that my daughter’s Instagram feed gains far more traction 🎉 and engagement 😍 than mine, despite having a similar number of followers. Yes, there’s a difference in age, but I tend to observe the same disparity between young men and women’s IG threads and stories. It’s not just a difference between my daughter and her stale, pale father. My wife has a band of women dotted around the world with whom she has regular if not daily little exchanges on Whatsapp of kind thoughts, ❤️ and words of encouragement. In this new environment, the ways we achieve rapport have been upended. Whether it’s through Zoom, a Facebook post, WhatsApp group or a TikTok reel, we’re often deprived of those longer form, uninterrupted IRL conversations. I mean when was the last time you received a long letter or a plain old telephone (POTS) call? What has been the real impact of these technologies on our relationships? Critically, relationships are the most important factor in our happiness, according to the 80+-year-long Harvard study on the subject. I’m not optimistic on the prospective results that will be published in twenty years time.

The role of specifics in heated exchanges

While this next point has nothing to do with male or female mindsets, something else that I’ve learned through my wife is the need to bring concrete examples to my thoughts. Rather than always provide a 30,000ft global idea, she exhorts me to make each point practical and tangible through specific examples. In a brilliant interview my wife conducted with Driss Ghali, a Moroccan author, she would make a statement about his writing and back it up with a specific citation. Not only did it convey thoroughness of preparation, it made her point cogently. Similarly, in the heat of an argument, it’s easy to make a broad sweeping statement that has the effect of triggering a reaction and/or derailing the conversation. Rather than say “I am unhappy with our relationship,” it would be more useful to specify the elements with which you’re unhappy. It would also behove a solid conversation to keep an eye on a shared North. So, before laying out the beef you have with your partner, you can pre-qualify the statement with, “You know how much I love you and I know how much you love me at heart, so what I’m about to say is designed to make us both benefit…”

In conclusion, let’s acknowledge that, generally speaking, men and women have different ways of engaging with the world and each other. The masculine mindset is more open to risk and prone to action. It’s typically more of a command & control mindset (but not only). The feminine mindset is more open to connection and flow. It’s typically more of a con-sensual mindset (but not only). While not condoning extremes, let’s allow for the positive and negative elements within each of us, and not squeeze out all the joy by stamping out the messiness and seeking Instagrammable perfection.

Your thoughts?