Conference quark::mennotes

    A number of folks have sent me MAIL asking if they may copy .0
    
    PLEASE DO!  Feel free to post it where ever you think it may do some
    good...  I don't know who authored this material.  It was part of the
    ground rules of a discussion group in which I'm involved.
    
    Regards, Don

    
    
        Bet you can replace the word  DIALOGUE with the word Woman
     ...And  ""  ""   ""    ""   ""   DEBATE   with the word Man
    
    
    
    

>        Bet you can replace the word  DIALOGUE with the word Woman
>     ...And  ""  ""   ""    ""   ""   DEBATE   with the word Man

    I had a discussion related to the difference between dialogue and
    debate. We agreed that she's a whole lot better at debate than I am
    and that I'm better at dialogue. Stereotypes don't get you that far.

    			Alfred

          > Stereotypes don't get you that far. <
    
    
     No, just most of the time.
    
    
    

i think of notes as a great way to travel across cultures and to exchange
ideas. i realise that in doing so there is also always the risk of 
'stepping on toes' and of getting into 'touchy subjects' simply due to
differences of backgrounds and thought.

personally i think that culture differences by far outweigh any other 
differences, but that there seem to be also differences of a more subtle
nature across culture boundaries -- for instance what is usually referred
to as gender differences.

i wasn't really aware of these latter differences until i was rather 
unexpectedly awakened to this fact in my home town... unknowingly, i once 
marched into a woman-only bar and was promptly asked to leave. puzzeled by 
this experience i undertook to find out about the rationality for such places 
(woman-only), and as always, combining a personal interest with work, i 
posted the item into womannotes. in the ensuing discussion it quickly 
transpired that the 'problem' was one of communication. there appear to be 
different dynamics involved in women-only vs. mixed discussion rounds.

having had some valuable insights into this theme i moved on to another
conference, a mixed conference, where the theme of discussion dynamics
resurfaced. doubtelessly also with my doing since this topic had still
captured my attention.

in the following i submit three snippets from this conversation, which 
present reflections of a more general nature on discussion dynamics. two
made by women and one made by myself. i submit these for validation, 
criticism, reflection, particularly as regards my comments on male 
discussion dynamics.



more later,

andreas.

the comments below are by cindy painter and posted with permission of the
author.


    [...]

    In general, women prefer to discuss rather than debate.  At least I do. 
    It's a no-win situation when the other person (a man, usually) isn't 
    *really* listening...rather they're only selectively listening so they 
    can pick up on points to shoot down in the next round.  More debating 
    goes on in notes files than does real discussions where both parties 
    work together to find common ground and work from there.  [...]
    
    Having said this, I leave it to (all of) your consideration.
    
    Cindy

the comments below are by myself.


    
>   In general, women prefer to discuss rather than debate.  At least I do. 
>   It's a no-win situation when the other person (a man, usually) isn't 
>   *really* listening...rather they're only selectively listening so they 
>   can pick up on points to shoot down in the next round.  More debating 
>   goes on in notes files than does real discussions where both parties 
>   work together to find common ground and work from there.  


you make a very interesting observation of male dominated discussion, cindy.

the debating style of selectively listening so that points can be picked
up to be shot down in the next round, is very similar to the behaviour 
of boys on the playground. seen in this light, the underlying motivation 
must be that none of the debaters expect to seriously discuss, but rather 
seek (albeit subconsciously) the fun of the game. this is all fine as long 
as all participants join in the game. but to someone who wants to engage 
in a serious discussion rather than just play, this debating style can be 
very irritating. if a more profound response is sought, my recommendation 
to break the play is, to 1) insist on the item you wish discussed and 2)
to take the playful (unreflected) statements of the debating noter(s) 
seriously and to hold them up against them as a mirror. this is sure to
provoke a more thoughtful response and one which will seek common ground
rather than division.

and to make another observation on male dominated discussion, cindy, can 
all discussions be expected to lead to grommon ground? common sense would
suggest so. sadly it seems, that particularly amongst men there is often
either complacency or lack of courage to look above and beyond the own 
fence and to refuse to engage in discussion until a common ground is found. 
the only common ground then found is the wall which divides the territories 
on which it is agreed to differ. this discussion style has its merits too,
as it serves to avoid too many loops. but the whole idea of dialog is 
completely missed if the motivation of this discussion style is to build 
and strengthen the wall of division rather than to gradually take down the 
wall, brick by brick.




andreas.

the comments below are by another female noter and posted with permission 
of the author.


[...]

As to why men are more vocal in this [mixed] file than women, (I may get into 
trouble with this viewpoint) as a general rule, I think women tend naturally 
to be better listeners and responders than men, who often seem to charge in 
and vocally proclaim their views without spending as much time listening. Have
I put my foot into it now?

[...]

thanks for the pointer to this topic don!