When Women Don't Speak, From Byu Magazine

[Meadowchik]

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

Quote

“Women are systematically seen as less authoritative,” says Preece. “And their influence is systematically lower. And they’re speaking less. And when they’re speaking up, they’re not being listened to as much, and they are being interrupted more.”

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

It is interesting to me that the "unanimity rule" is a procedural counterpart to the more nuanced spiritual principle of common consent by one voice (D&C 104:21; 107:27) or the fundamental principle of Zion (Moses 7:18). It seems to offer an opportunity for good training in the ideal.

Edited April 30, 2020 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting to me that the "unanimity rule" is a procedural counterpart to the more nuanced spiritual principle of common consent by one voice (D&C 104:21; 107:27) or the fundamental principle of Zion (Moses 7:18). It seems to offer an opportunity for good training in the ideal.

Yes! And it apparently has results!

[Tacenda]

Women seemed to speak more in the days of my mother I believe, not as much correlation and their own entity more or less, now they are given talks by GA's and apostles during RS. Before they had cultural talks etc. Which would be different for each culture, how awesome for that to come back, if ever. 

Also, men's voices far outweigh women's in the church, check out scriptures and talks about women's lives. I could go on and on. And as Meadowchik mentioned, women are given less authority. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Women seemed to speak more in the days of my mother I believe, not as much correlation and their own entity more or less, now they are given talks by GA's and apostles during RS. Before they had cultural talks etc. Which would be different for each culture, how awesome for that to come back, if ever. 

Also, men's voices far outweigh women's in the church, check out scriptures and talks about women's lives. I could go on and on. And as Meadowchik mentioned, women are given less authority. 

There is a very clear tendency of women to be agreeable (as often discussed by psychologist Jordan Peterson).  Whether that behavior is inborn (hormonal) or learned, it is certainly encouraged in most cultures.  Indeed, women will even feign ignorance in class or out of class when in the presence of men -- presumably so as not to be offensive to men, who are assumed to feel threatened by a smart woman, and thus affecting dating and marriage prospects.  This also applies to homelife, where a woman must walk on eggshells to keep from belittling and offending the little boys they have married.  😎

There is a very good reason why we say that most men marry their mother.  Western culture doesn't breed real men, and most of them really do need a mommy.

ETA:  I was just reading about behavioral genes in dogs.  So perhaps all of us are preprogrammed in some way to be friendly, etc.  See https://getpocket.com/explore/item/genetics-research-explains-why-dogs-are-very-good-boys?utm_source=pocket-newtab .

Edited April 30, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

 

Something I've noticed is that who one pays attention to, and whose advice one accepts, largely determines what kind of person the follower turns out to be.  So it isn't the fault of women when men do not accept their counsel, or when women do not accept the counsel of men.  Each of us determines for ourselves whose counsel we will accept, and whose counsel we will reject, regardless of whether we are men or women, or if the counsel is coming from a man or a woman,.

What I like about learning from Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven are how humble and soft spoken they are, and how their intent is to try to help me... and most of all, how their counsel is better than any counsel from anyone else, whether another man or a woman.

So that's what I look for.  Whose counsel is best and how is it offered?  Both men and women commonly think their own counsel is better than from anyone else, so how confident people are in what they say is not something that should persuade anyone else.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

 

I love that BYU has published research supporting what many women posters have said numerous times, often with real pushback from some men who refuse to accept their personal experiences as valid in the broader world. 

[Islander]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

 

It is, no doubt, an interesting study. Although I took issue with some of the assumptions of the authors in regards to the role(exclusively) of cultural norms and values as if it were an "universal trait". The article states: “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives." That is neither conclusive, consistent or universal. It may be the findings of the study in the particular subject programs, but it can not be a statement of fact at large. 

Group think and behavior have been studied in I/O Psych for a long time. The role of group authority, influence or expertise (real or perceived) have been studied extensively, especially in cases where it led to significant failure (the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters). Research continues to indicate that we are faced with a multifaceted issue. Similar findings to the article/study in question, are observed in programs where women are the absolute majority (nursing and education, for example). In those, programs men experience exactly the same as what the article describes; for men, "having a seat at the table does not mean having a voice." I have a background in health science and can certainly attest to that from an experiential standpoint. 

I do agree that awareness and training are key to allow for a true exchange of ideas and learning to take place, regardless. Thought provoking. 

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Islander said:

It is, no doubt, an interesting study. Although I took issue with some of the assumptions of the authors in regards to the role(exclusively) of cultural norms and values as if it were an "universal trait". The article states: “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives." That is neither conclusive, consistent or universal. It may be the findings of the study in the particular subject programs, but it can not be a statement of fact at large. 

Group think and behavior have been studied in I/O Psych for a long time. The role of group authority, influence or expertise (real or perceived) have been studied extensively, especially in cases where it led to significant failure (the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters). Research continues to indicate that we are faced with a multifaceted issue. Similar findings to the article/study in question, are observed in programs where women are the absolute majority (nursing and education, for example). In those, programs men experience exactly the same as what the article describes; for men, "having a seat at the table does not mean having a voice." I have a background in health science and can certainly attest to that from an experiential standpoint. 

I do agree that awareness and training are key to allow for a true exchange of ideas and learning to take place, regardless. Thought provoking. 

Yup, awareness is crucial. Some things need to be addressed systemically to be changed systemically.

[JamesBYoung]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a wonderful article in BYU Magazine about a BYU study on research on women being heard. It describes some original research of the BYU researchers, building upon the existing scientific data, and also includes strategies that can help improve outcomes. 

From the article:

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/?fbclid=IwAR2RmdJUNeHfMh3xttXYDs_12jA8pfGfIPkQcuKmaCsYYL8IxLTm8mG-cM8

The improvement strategies can be approached individually and systemically and the author asks the audience to imagine implementing them in their next "work, ward, council, town hall, HOA, or PTA meeting." 

My mother and many other LDS women I know really appreciated this research, and I hope you all enjoy it, too!

 

That may be generally true but not always.  I had the wonderful opportunity to participate on a conference call with a major department at church HQs, and the power of the women speaking on that call rivaled that of the confidence of the men, who  one had been a Seventy and others as Stake President and regional authorities.

My reaction startled me.  I was not ready for that to happen, was shocked at their "assertiveness", then shame and my initial reaction, and then blessed to realize just how far some of our LDS female leaders have come.

All praise.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

That may be generally true but not always.  I had the wonderful opportunity to participate on a conference call with a major department at church HQs, and the power of the women speaking on that call rivaled that of the confidence of the men, who  one had been a Seventy and others as Stake President and regional authorities.

My reaction startled me.  I was not ready for that to happen, was shocked at their "assertiveness", then shame and my initial reaction, and then blessed to realize just how far some of our LDS female leaders have come.

All praise.

Your shock probably comes from that "generally" true, even in the church, which shows why the study was needed.

It also isn't just a matter of women leaders being "assertive". There is a very real difference in how women can be perceived - even if they are assertive they can be see as aggresive instead. Edited to add: or instead of accusing directly that the women are being aggresive, some men come across as passive aggressive and say they better not say anything or they will get in trouble or just refuse to take part in the discussion at all.

In the church, assertiveness on women is often seen as putting your own way over God's.  Obviously, being aggresive or putting yourself over God is a problem, but in my experience, when talking about about men's and women's roles in the church the accusation is often thrown out without really understanding what the woman is actually trying to say and where her heart is. 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Rain

[JamesBYoung]

Thank you, Calm.

I have so much to learn about women in leadership and my duty to learn to adapt and change where necessary.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Thank you, Calm.

I have so much to learn about women in leadership and my duty to learn to adapt and change where necessary.

Not me....

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

That may be generally true but not always.  I had the wonderful opportunity to participate on a conference call with a major department at church HQs, and the power of the women speaking on that call rivaled that of the confidence of the men, who  one had been a Seventy and others as Stake President and regional authorities.

 

What was the percentage of women on that call? 

I have the book and discussed it a bit on the board. It was published in 2014 and is probably more used at professional/academic levels so it's good to see it getting some play. To get the full impact of what is going on and how insidious it is, one really must see the stats of how women are responded to by men in deliberative bodies. The negative feedback is overwhelming negative but positive when men respond to men. Interruptions were ubiquitous. And every woman has a story of her ideas being rejected then later brought up by a man and accepted. This is also supported in their study. The most memorable result was the finding that the most educated women were the first to be silenced....they recognized what was happening quicker. This is why it is so frustrating to hear men insisting that all is good, they are not likely to recognize the signals. And there are always the women who have carved out a space in a singular situation and loudly protest that they don't have that problem.

My take away from it is to not tell women to "speak up" or be assertive as the solution. That is precisely the reason they are silenced. They receive more of the silencing behavior if they do and when your position is on the line that isn't an option. That is why the balance of men vs women is so critical. It is also important that men become aware so that if they are in situations when the balance favors males, they can stop the men who interrupt or give only negative feedback to the isolated female. 

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

What was the percentage of women on that call? 

I have the book and discussed it a bit on the board. It was published in 2014 and is probably more used at professional/academic levels so it's good to see it getting some play. To get the full impact of what is going on and how insidious it is, one really must see the stats of how women are responded to by men in deliberative bodies. The negative feedback is overwhelming negative but positive when men respond to men. Interruptions were ubiquitous. And every woman has a story of her ideas being rejected then later brought up by a man and accepted. This is also supported in their study. The most memorable result was the finding that the most educated women were the first to be silenced....they recognized what was happening quicker. This is why it is so frustrating to hear men insisting that all is good, they are not likely to recognize the signals. And there are always the women who have carved out a space in a singular situation and loudly protest that they don't have that problem.

My take away from it is to not tell women to "speak up" or be assertive as the solution. That is precisely the reason they are silenced. They receive more of the silencing behavior if they do and when your position is on the line that isn't an option. That is why the balance of men vs women is so critical. It is also important that men become aware so that if they are in situations when the balance favors males, they can stop the men who interrupt or give only negative feedback to the isolated female. 

Oh, you mean like this: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/09/elder-ballard-dont-talk-too-much/

Now, sisters, while your input is significant and welcome in effective councils, you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours. The most successful ward and stake councils are those in which priesthood leaders trust their sister leaders and encourage them to contribute to the discussions and in which sister leaders fully respect and sustain the decisions of the council made under the direction of priesthood leaders who hold keys

[JamesBYoung]

Eleven men and four women, I believe, were the break down at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

[JamesBYoung]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, you mean like this: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/09/elder-ballard-dont-talk-too-much/

Now, sisters, while your input is significant and welcome in effective councils, you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours. The most successful ward and stake councils are those in which priesthood leaders trust their sister leaders and encourage them to contribute to the discussions and in which sister leaders fully respect and sustain the decisions of the council made under the direction of priesthood leaders who hold keys

Politely, learn your place.  The church is changing, slowly, but changing in many ways for the better.  This is one of them, the empowering of women, and you will learn and benefit as well if you remain.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[sweetpotatoh]

My wife and I both work in the social field assisting people with intellectual disabilities. My wife and I both work for non profits that were started by women and are run by women. Strong women who  don’t have a problem speaking up.

I’ve never thought about it but I know women who speak up and those who don’t. I have 5 sisters and only one of them will stand up for herself. The others just take it and then complain after the fact. Which is weird because my mother is very assertive. 

If women want to speak up, then do so. My wife doesn’t have a problem speaking up to me, she is unwilling to confront ANYONE else in a social context. She just figures that it isn’t worth it and lets it go. 

I never understood my sisters who complain about how someone treats them and then doesn’t do anything about it. I have one sister who seems to become offended at the drop of the hat and complains and complains about how offended she is because.... I’ve learned over decades she isn’t ever going to speak up. She likes being the martyr. I quit listening years ago because it’s tedious and sad at the same time. To the point I avoid her. So maybe if people don’t listen your sending the wrong message. Or their just heartless jerks. I’m just a heartless jerk😆

[Rain]

1 hour ago, sweetpotatoh said:

My wife and I both work in the social field assisting people with intellectual disabilities. My wife and I both work for non profits that were started by women and are run by women. Strong women who  don’t have a problem speaking up.

I’ve never thought about it but I know women who speak up and those who don’t. I have 5 sisters and only one of them will stand up for herself. The others just take it and then complain after the fact. Which is weird because my mother is very assertive. 

If women want to speak up, then do so. My wife doesn’t have a problem speaking up to me, she is unwilling to confront ANYONE else in a social context. She just figures that it isn’t worth it and lets it go. 

I never understood my sisters who complain about how someone treats them and then doesn’t do anything about it. I have one sister who seems to become offended at the drop of the hat and complains and complains about how offended she is because.... I’ve learned over decades she isn’t ever going to speak up. She likes being the martyr. I quit listening years ago because it’s tedious and sad at the same time. To the point I avoid her. So maybe if people don’t listen your sending the wrong message. Or their just heartless jerks. I’m just a heartless jerk😆

I do sometimes feel it isn't worth it and let it go.  The thing is I don't think I should have to always be on. It's exhausting and sometimes pointless depending on the situation.  So you may see me in situations where I let it go and think I'm not doing anything about it when in other areas of my life I am doing a lot about it.   

Edited May 1, 2020 by Rain

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Politely, learn your place.

Oh I have!

[juliann]

I quoted this book for a book chapter I wrote a few years ago. Here are some of the quotes I databased from  Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Tali Mendelberg. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton University Press, 2014. (typos included.)

Quote

 

The key questions we aim to answer should now be clear: under what conditions will women achieve an effective voice in deliberating bodies? 29

 

Unanimous rule signals the need to include everyone. Majority rule produces a more competitive dynamic that aids each gender when it is the majority in the group. 29 (decision rules)

 

However, as we have emphasized, all this is subject to a big fat “it depends.” And what it depends on is the decision rule. Scholars have long known that unanimous rule creates norms of consensus and inclusion. If you want people to cooperate, yoke them to each other, up the stakes, and don’t give them a way out. That is, in a nutshell, what unanimous rule can do. What it can do for women specifically is to bring their distinctive concerns into the discussion. Unanimous rule can compensate for the disadvantages of status in the group. 171 But as we noted in earlier chapters, unanimous rule is a double-edged sword; it can help women in the minority but hurt women in the majority. It may prevent women from leveraging the power of numbers when they are the majority. For the same reason that minority women do better under unanimous than majority rule, majority women may do better with majority rule than with unanimous rule. 171

 

In a recent study of group problem solving, researchers found that the number of women in the group substantially affects the group’s ability to solve problems collectively—even when accounting for the capacity of the individuals in the group. The gender composition affects group ability through the members’ average empathic ability. These effects held even after controlling on the members’ intelligence. That is, some groups were “stupider” than the sum of their parts, and that is partly due to the dearth of women, because the presence of more women was correlated with equal talk and with the presence of empathetic people. Neither the group’s average intelligence nor the intelligence of a few brilliant members affected the group’s problem-solving ability; what did affect it was equally distributed talk and a high average ability to empathize, both of which were produced by having lots of women. The implication of these results is that gender inequality matters not only for justice but also for the group’s ability to solve problems accurately. Deliberative theorists often argue that an important mission of discussion is to uncover truth, hence their emphasis on reason and rationality. Gender inequality may undermine that mission, aside from violating the deliberative precept of equal voice. 140-141

When women are outnumbered by men, use unanimous rule; when women are a large majority, decide by majority rule. To avoid the maximum inequality, avoid groups with few women and majority rule. To minimize male advantage, assemble groups with a supermajority of women and use majority rule. To maximize women’s individual participation, gender homogenous groups are best. 141

In sum, men are most sensitive to negative implications about their competence when women are most empowered and not sensitive when women are least empowered. They react in between these extremes under unanimous rule, regardless of numbers. 161

So in small group deliberations, as in survey and real world settings, women tend to place a high priority on the needs of vulnerable people, and significantly more than men. 170

In addition, women are socialized to engage in cooperative discussion, while men tend to engage in more competitive and assertive forms of exchange. The more men in the group, the more the discussion is likely to reflect a norm of assertion. A balance of members tilted toward men may create stereotypically masculine characteristics for the exchange.

 

Settings that shift women’s status and influence, and that elicit more or less talk of issues of distinctive concern to women, do not produce more discussion of women themselves. At least not when the task at hand is not explicity tied to women or to gender. It seems that when the decision is not about women specifically, women are not mentioned specifically. 194

 

A likely reason for the silence on this topic is that wthe women of America seldom articulate their own interests or needs as women as part of the public agenda. Few women call themselves feminist, and women have little warmth for feminists. 194

 

Majority rule with a large majority of women tends to:

• Free women to introduce women’s distinctive issues into the agenda;
• Maximize the average woman’s and women’s collective voice on women’s distinctive issues, including on the ration fo women’s to men’s issues;
• Prompt men to adopt some aspects of the care agenda, but primarily with respect to discussion of children, and only when women form a supermajority; and
• Increase the overall group voice for women’s distinctive issues and its emphasis on care over financial issues. 195-96

 

Because men have more authority than women do in society, then tend to use communication acts that symbolize high status, while women tend to employ those that mark low status. . . men tend to negatively interrupt more than women, especially in groups. Other studies confirm that men issue negative interruptions more often and positive interruptions less often that women, and talk longer. Moreover, because women lose influence when they act too assertively, and may intuit this fact, women may be more likely than men to interpret disagreements they receive as a negative signal of their authority. . . women aer three times more likely than men to yield when negatively interrupted in a group discussion on a gender-neutral task. Gender differences of this kind are sharpest when the task involves a domain considered masculine. Politics is such a domain; women are viewd, and view themselves, as less confident and expert about politics, regardless of their actual level of expertise. Because women are more likely to enter a formal discussion of politics with a lower sense of authority, they may be more subject to and more affected by interruptions. 203

Positive interjections can be a form not only of instrumental cooperation and agreement but also of warm affirmation of and rapport with others. Because they enter with less authority, women may be especially affected by a lack of affirmation, and thus by an absence of positive interruptions.  Women sometimes complain that when they do speak, people don’t listen. 203

 

Especially badly off are women in the gender minority under majority rule. For these women, deliberation is a negative experience in which their speech is interrupted in a dismissive manner and their words rarely affirmed. Lone women, for example, issue a higher rate of positive interjections than any other gender subgroup but receive the least in return (in each case, relative to their speaking turns.) At 20% or 40% of the group, women are less than half as likely as men in their group to experience approval while speaking.231

 

When we alter the conditions of discussion, the ones to change their behavior are, mostly, men. Men become nicer to women as the conditions elevate women’s status. Some might say something like this: “well, why don’t women just talke more? It’s women’s responsibility to speak—no rule p;revents them from doing so, and no one stands in their way.” Our reply is our finding that men change their behavior in such a way as to make women’s participation less rewarding and more difficult. The process is subtle and, by any formal measure, legitimate, but it ends up carrying particularly negative consequences for women. 233

The positive percentage of interruptions is a crucial indicator of successful interaction in a a variety of settings. 133  (couples negative comments are irrelevant as long as greater number of positive.)

 

The assumption that women are not valuable in discussions that decide the fate of the collective produces gender inequality. If women are not needed for making decisions, then they will not be much included. Conversely our 234 findings about rule imply that when women are needed, women are included. Women are needed when they are a majority under rules that give a majority power and twhen they are a minority under rules that give the minority power. The rule can elegantely set in motion a whole set of conversational practices that increase the warmth and affirmation that in turn elevate women’s representation. Simple institutional procedures can equalize respresentation. 234

 

In addition, we now know the secret to women’s enclaves:  they are nice!234

 

Related to both confidence and increased sensitivity to the social context is women’s tendency to have greater difficulty than men rebounding from negative feedback. (men more likely to persist as economics major when they received grades lower than B in intro course)145

 

Even the prospect of negative feedback can cause women to withdraw from participation. 145

 

Women are especially attuned to the level of collegiality and fellow-feeling among council members. . .women were much more likely to use words that emphasized social-connectedness instead of autonomy. 146

 

Our review of previous work thus highlights three distinct mechanisms for women’s verbal participation:  confidence and resilience to negative feedback, aversion to conflict, and feelings of empathy or prosociality. Sic 147

 

Confidence and resilience are not the whole story, hoever. Even in conditions of high status, most confident women do not reach equal participation. Also important is the ideology of the person. In the conditions where women’s status is lowest, women with more liberal ideologies seem more hesitiant to speak up. Given that women’s issue preferences tend to be comparatively more liberal than men’s, this finding suggests that some types of groups may be less hospitable to women’s views.

 Our findings show that women talk less with men than they do with women. In other words, women in fact talk more than men do when they do not face the deleterious interactions of the typical mixed-gender group. By implication, the quiescence we have found among women is not what women do when free of constraints and it is not a desirable normative standard for women. p 308

 Women's distinctive ways of interacting--supporting one another with considerable positive feedback--come to the fore in these all-female groups. This dynamic takes the sting off negative interruptions, making women more resilient in the face of engaged opposition. To be sure, the average woman's experience is not qualitatively different in enclaves than in the best of the majority-female conditions; however, when we look at the group as a whole, all-female groups emerge as the most mutually supportive environments, and only there is women,s sense of efficacy in the group impervious to the effects of negative interjections. p 234

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by juliann

[theplains]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Politely, learn your place.  The church is changing, slowly, but changing in many ways for the better.  This is one of them, the empowering of women, and you will learn it as well if you remain.

Christian women can be empowered by reminding them they are members of the royal priesthood of
believers (1 Peter 2, verses 5,9).

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Eleven men and four women, I believe, were the break down at the meeting.

" Especially badly off are women in the gender minority under majority rule. For these women, deliberation is a negative experience in which their speech is interrupted in a dismissive manner and their words rarely affirmed. Lone women, for example, issue a higher rate of positive interjections than any other gender subgroup but receive the least in return (in each case, relative to their speaking turns.) At 20% or 40% of the group, women are less than half as likely as men in their group to experience approval while speaking." 

 Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Tali Mendelberg. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton University Press, 2014.  p 231

3 hours ago, sweetpotatoh said:

 

I never understood my sisters who complain about how someone treats them and then doesn’t do anything about it. I have one sister who seems to become offended at the drop of the hat and complains and complains about how offended she is because.... I’ve learned over decades she isn’t ever going to speak up. She likes being the martyr. I quit listening years ago because it’s tedious and sad at the same time. To the point I avoid her. So maybe if people don’t listen your sending the wrong message. Or their just heartless jerks. I’m just a heartless jerk😆

Or, they have been effectively silenced which is documentable  (not that I am overlooking that some do seem to like to complain....)

Quote

When we alter the conditions of discussion, the ones to change their behavior are, mostly, men. Men become nicer to women as the conditions elevate women’s status. Some might say something like this: “well, why don’t women just talke more? It’s women’s responsibility to speak—no rule p;revents them from doing so, and no one stands in their way.” Our reply is our finding that men change their behavior in such a way as to make women’s participation less rewarding and more difficult. The process is subtle and, by any formal measure, legitimate, but it ends up carrying particularly negative consequences for women. p 233

 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

Christian women can be empowered by reminding them they are members of the royal priesthood of
believers (1 Peter 2, verses 5,9).

Read The Silent Sex and get back to us....

Women are "empowered" in ways which are enumerated in the above quotes.

[JamesBYoung]

The brethren seem to be moving, if slowly, on the empowering of women.  The 'royal priesthood' die hards may have trouble adjusting.