gender pairs taped in ‘‘natural settings,’? found that men interrupt 98 per cent of the time and are responsible: for 100 per cent of the overlaps in conversation.

McGill student and former undergraduate representative to McGill’s Board of Gover- nors, Amy Kaler spoke about her experiences with men dominating conversation on students’ council and the Board.

Kaler says ‘‘men are more ctive participants’? than wo-

ent in discussion at meetings nd points out that men do

ost of the interrupting: “Technically, you can’t inter- upt anyone on Council, but eople do. I can’t ever recall eeing a woman interrupt a an, but there’s a number of en on council who I’ve seen nterrupt (people) constantly it’s my guess that they inter- upt women more than men,”’ hesaid. 8

Carlene Gardner of McGill’s omen’s -centre said - she hought one of her classes was

ade up of an overwhelming ajority of men because they ere doing most of the talk- ng. ‘One day, I looked round the class and dis- overed there were only three t four men in the class.’’

Some men even go to the xtremes of interrupting entire

eetings: Last February, some omen were meeting in the Jomen’s Union office at

cGill, when one man walked and brought the entire eeting to a halt. ‘‘The man

emed completely oblivious —

the fact that a meeting was

progress,’’ says Gardner, and by interrupting it, he itimated to the women pre- nt that his concerns were mehow more important an theirs.”’ ; Men not only do most of the terrupting (and the talking), ut they often choose what to Ik about. Public relations Onsultant Pamela Fishman und that not only did omen ask 70 per cent of the uestions, but that men suc- eeded more often in starting Onversations and _ keeping em going. Fishman taped 52 ours of ‘sation betw

SL WEED...

three couples, a social worker and five graduate students, who consented to having tape recorders in their apartments. “At time I felt that all the women did was ask questions I attended to my own speech and discovered the same pattern,’’ said Fishman. Fishman discovered that women asked the question “D’ya know what/’’ with great frequency. Pfieffer des cribes in his article how other research by other investigators found that children frequently use this phrase to communi- cate with their elders. ‘‘It serves as a _ conversation opener, calling for an answer like ‘‘What?’’ or ‘‘No, tell me,’’ a go-ahead signal that they may speak up and that

-what they have to say will be.

heeded.’’

Fishman also _ discovered why women need such re- assurances from men: In the 76 efforts in taped conver- sation to start conversations or keep them going, men tried 29 times and succeed 28 times, while women tried 47 times, sometimes for as long as five minutes, with dead-end results 30 times. ‘‘It could have been worse,’’ wrote Fishman. ‘‘Each of the male subjects in this experiment professed sym- pathy for the women’s move- ment.”’

Men are also renowed in these various studies for ap- propritating women’s ideas. Cheris Kramarae, a professor of speech communication at

the University of Illinois and -

co-author of The Feminist Dictionary, told Science ’85 what happened when, as the only woman member of an important university policy- making committee, she tried to communicate with the chair(man) before the start of the meeting. Kramarae asked for certain items to be added to the agenda, but when the chair paid no attention to her, she ‘gave up.’’ Once the meet- ing started, he featured her ideas in a review of the agenda and, turning to a male col- league, said: ‘‘I don’t remem- ber who suggested these changes. I think it was Dick here.”’

Krameérae. says women are often heard but not listened to, ‘‘as if you were speaking from behind a glass.’’ She adds that women will often

_not be listened to in a meetin;

until a man professes agree- ment with her ideas.

Kaler agrees: ‘“‘A woman will say something, a man will like it, and then it becomes valid.”’

As a result, said Kaler, ‘women end up competing for the attention of men because their ideas have a_ better chance of being implemented if men support them. It’s unfortunately an easy pattern to fall into — even in non- hierarchical forms of organi- sation, conversation seems to revolve around men.’’

Kaler says women should try to decentralise meetings by talking directly to other women in the room during a meeting and not men. ‘‘To stop men from dominating things all the time, women, should try to bring other

women into the decision- -

making process by nominating them for positions of respon- sibility, backing up their ideas, in short, providing the support network which men_ usually give each other.”’

Henley and Thorne point out that women are more like to disclose more personal information to others. than men, whereas men ‘‘mani- pulate others by keeping their cool and maintaining an un- ruffle exterior.” Women have been socialized to display their emotions, their thoughts and ideas, but giving out this in- formation about themselves “especially in a context of inequality, is giving others power over them,’ write Henley and Thorne.

Kaler says that men and women both speak emotionally, but that ‘‘women are les subtle about it.’’

Women have traditionally been found to be more sensi- tive than men to non-verbal cues. ‘‘perhaps because their sury,val depends on it,’’ say Hemey and Thorne. Women’s ‘‘socialization to docility and passivity makes them _parti- cularly likely targets for this subtle form of social control

their close contact with men, for example as wives and secretaries, entails frequent verbal and non-verbal inter- action with those in power,”’ Henley and Thorne add. Body language communicates status and power, and the fact that women are more likely to avert their eyes in conversation and take up far less physical space

than men — gestures of sub- mission, they write — should be seen in context of a sexist society and as a result of sexist socialization.

‘*The tendency to hesitate, to apologize and to disparage one’s own. statement are examples of conversational patterns associated with femalesand with subordinate persons in general,’’ continue Henley and Thorne.

Kaler offers advice to other women about how to combat this pattern: ‘‘The biggest thing to overcome is the fear of saying just one thing that can be seen as ‘dumb’ and to not apologize for speaking.

‘*You have to try to make yourself realize that if you have an idea, go for it. It’s worth taking the risk to say you might be rejected,’’ adds Kaler. It is also important, she says, to be aware of the dyna- mics of a meeting or a con- versation, ‘‘to see if the others notice that men, for example, are doing all the talking.’

Kaler also has good advice for women who find them- selves being interrupted con- stantty: ‘‘Keep speaking and keep raising your voice until it is so embarrassing for the man to interrupt that he stops. When he stops, lower your voice to a normal level again. They’ ll get the hint,’’ she says.

Asked if women have to start talking and acting like men to be listened to, Kaler says that it if ‘‘unfortunate,’’ but ‘‘if you’re dealing with men and want to be part of the decision-making process, cate- gorically yes.’’

“Talking like a man,’’ she says, ‘‘means that people take you more seriously — if you’re more decisive, speak louder, don’t turn statements into questions, swear and make eye contact,’’ you will be seen “almost as androgynous.’’ As a result, your ideas will end up having more of an impact, Kaler adds.

Henley and Thorne point out however, that there is a tendency for many people and researchers to see male speech patters as a norm and female speech patterns as a deviation from that norm. Male speech patterns and behavior tend to be seen as correct because they are seen as the norm, they explain. ;

Women of so-called ‘inde- terminate gender’ _—

who challenge sexist stereo- types of women’s use of langu- age — may get listened to more by men as Kaler sug- gests, but they also threaten men, who are used to having the ball in their court.

The question of how women should attempt to close what Pfeiffer calls the ‘‘conversa- tion gap’’ between the sexes becomes central to any dis- cussion of differences between male and female language use. It is also a difficult question: Should women mimic male conversation patters and body language, or should they con- centrate on fighting the worst abuses of male speech patterns? Or, should they attempt to do both?

These questions and ques- tions like them will continue to occupy the attention of many feminists until such time as total equality between the sexes is reached. Yet, fighting sexist stereotypes with regard to language use is part of the struggle against a sexist society.

What follows from this con- clusion is that women must challenge men’s tendency to dominate conversation and physical space; while mimick- ing men in the short term to force them to listen.

However, men have ways of dealing with women that chal- lenge, and thus threaten them. A woman may be told by a man that because she is inter- rupts him, he has every right to continue to interrupt all women all the time. Thus, it could be said that it is a bit of a contradiction for women to utilize male language-use tactics in order to challenge male speech patterns.

Whatever path , women choose to take on the road to eliminating sexist speech pat- terns on the part of men, men must be more receptive to criticisms of their dominance through language use and re- cognize that women are the only legitimate articulators of their own oppression. After all, women are the victims of sexism and therefore are more able to recognize its mani- festations. Men must learn to listen to women and listen to themselves, looking for ex- amples of- sexism in their behavior.

It is not women’s responsi-

_ bility to change men; it is

men’s responsibility to change ves.

at