I've had about ten requests from men to explain the phrase "winning the cocktail party". None from women.
A male friend, who spends a not inconsiderable time cruising feminist sites, was one of those who asked what it meant. I find it odd to realize that most men don't observe something that is obvious to every woman I know: that there is a competitive male dynamic to groups that is completely different from the way female groups act. They don't know, of course, because unless the group is overwhelmingly female, the dynamic of any mixed group always defaults to male, with women fading back into supporting conversational roles. Maybe it's the kind of thing you can only observe by contrast to the extremely anti-competitive nature of female groups.
The easiest way to put it (and this is hardly original) is that men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it--by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves.
Both these styles have advantages and drawbacks. I'm not trying to establish that one is better than the other. But I'm kind of shocked, though I shouldn't be, to realize that men don't even see it, the way they don't see catcalling, because it never happens when they're around.
:whistle: nice gams!
I find it odd to realize that most men don't observe something that is obvious to every woman I know: that there is a competitive male dynamic to groups that is completely different from the way female groups act.
You will labor in vain to find a single man who does not know that men compete with one another when collected in groups, or that this dynamic can be exaggerated by the presence of attractive potential mates.
The men who wondered about your "cocktail party" line (who included me) wondered about it in part because you presented it as the equivalent of female gossip-sharing, which by your account gave you visceral pleasure and reinforced your sense of closeness with your female acquaintances. The male tendency to tell loud jokes or self-aggrandizing stories to attract the attention of others in a cocktail-party situation serves no such purpose and is probably pleasurable to only a small percentage of the male population. The rest of us doing it only because we have to.
The male equivalent of gossip, in terms of social bonding, is probably found in having arguments, in all-male settings, about mind-numbingly stupid things like "Which is better, 9mm or .45?" or "Can clam chowder legitimately contain tomatoes?" or "What's better, Ford or Chevy?" or "Could Joe Montana beat up Warren Moon?" etc. Nerdier men argue about whether C++ was truly object oriented or not. Married men compete to see who's wife has said the craziest thing recently.
I agree with the statement. But strangely, and maybe this is because I'm a guy, it doesn't seem important. Yes, the constant one-up contest gets old, but men stay the same whether there are only men or mixed company (exception: topic selection). Women on the other hand noticeably change their method of interacting with men and other women in mixed company.
Not really a comment about this topic, but reading the topic caused a B Hussein ad to be displayed on your ad space. Needless to say it was not the kind of ad I would expect to see on your site. Can I send you the bill for the lunch I lost on my keyboard?
What Rob Lyman said. One other thing: it's okay for a man to be a loner, to simply choose not to be part of the group or one of the guys. Much, much harder for a woman to get away with this.
On the other hand, a lone woman or even two can sometimes be part of a male group, even if the other women talk trash about her. I don't recall too many times seeing a lone male as part of the distaff clutch at social settings.
I don't recall too many times seeing a lone male as part of the distaff clutch at social settings.
I've done that, although not usually at a mixed social gathering, more like the lone male in an office pack at lunch. Speaking of "society is gendered," once one of the peripheral females in such a group mistook me for a supervisor, and was both fearfully silent and mortified by the astonishing forwardness of the other women interacting with me.
I don't recall too many times seeing a lone male as part of the distaff clutch at social settings.
except, of course, if he is gay
Oh, status games! Yes, ok, now I'm with you. I just didn't understand what you were referring to. Possibly I don't attend enough cocktail parties.
I also disagree with the poster who said that men don't get pleasure from these games. A good zinging put-down is quite nice to deliver or see delivered, and I don't really object to receiving one - it'll be my turn in a moment. Counting up the largish plusses from delivering them, with the smallish minuses from being on the receiving end, I'd say the game is positive-sum overall where enjoyment is concerned, though it's obviously zero-sum for status.
I'd say the game is positive-sum overall where enjoyment is concerned
I hate those sorts of games. You can have them.
@Rob: The inane arguments you referred to in your final paragraph are actually good examples of trying to "win the cocktail party." Probably more so than the loud jokes and self-aggrandizing stories, actually. They're not about who can be the biggest center of attention, but those little arguments are still a form of competition, and those mini-competitions are still about defining your place in the group, even if it's just as the Ford guy or the C++ basher or whatever.
@ben, you say, "men stay the same whether there are only men or mixed company (exception: topic selection). Women on the other hand noticeably change their method of interacting with men and other women in mixed company."
That's kind of the point. Meghan even said so in her post. I quote: "unless the group is overwhelmingly female, the dynamic of any mixed group always defaults to male, with women fading back into supporting conversational roles."
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to claim some moral high ground and imply that men are more honest in their interactions?
"Could Joe Montana beat up Warren Moon?"
Ha, that made me laugh out loud.
Also, my money'd be on Moon.
As for the topic at hand, I agree with Rob Lyman--most men do not get "visceral pleasure" out of competing for attention at parties. The men who are good at attracting approval and attention at parties tend to be the ones who are just being themselves and have naturally outgoing and fun personalities. They aren't engaged in a conscious bonding ritual or enjoying competition for its own sake, the way Megan says women bond over and viscerally enjoy gossip and backbiting.
When men want to enjoy competition for its own sake they play or watch sports.
Why do you people find this phenomenon so inscrutable? Women like high-status men, so evolution selected men to status-seek. But it would be a tremendous fallacy to say that men are "trying to look hot" when they "compete" in such conversations. Organisms are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers (to use Eliezer_Yudkowsky's phrasing). They do the strategy they were selected for, even if they don't understand, or actively reject, the "reasoning" natural selection gave them such desires.
(I had to suppress my eye-rolling when a woman told me that she works out to "make herself feel good", and not to look hot for guys. Forest, bunch of trees, babe.)
Unfortunately, even if women (in contravention of *their* genetic drives) actively avoided high-status men, men would still feel the urge to converse like this, until the thousands of generations necessary to breed out this strategy passed.
The inane arguments you referred to in your final paragraph are actually good examples of trying to "win the cocktail party."
I disagree. The purpose of such arguments isn't really to establish a status hierarchy--they can have no winner almost by definition--but to cement in-groupiness by mutual display of shared interests and detailed knowledge. Nobody comes away from such an argument angry or bearing a grudge. Their faux-adversarial nature serves principally avoid looking gay.
True competition, "cocktail party"-style, is a very different matter, and generally requires the presence of cleavage or the suggestion that cleavage may be close at hand.
Person,
I generally agree with you, however I would point out that there is more variation than you give credit for. As a somewhat extreme example in the context of your example, homosexuality most likely has a genetic factor either encoded in the DNA or expressed during pregnancy that contravenes your simple 'guys attracting gals' example. Sure, you get gender magnification with some of them, but you also get the reverse cross gender identification.
IOW, you can prove that evolution favored a strategy, but that does not mean that all members must favor the same strategies.
After reading the previous thread and this thread, I still don't understand what "winning the cocktail party" means. An general expression meaning oneupmanship?
With desirable women around, the game tends to move towards "who can signal their success while pretending to downplay it the most."
Good grief! More honest, of course not. More direct? Yeah!!!
Just to amplify my point, I'm suggesting that men do behave differently when women are around, contra any suggestion that men impose their particularly male interactions on women in mixed groups. Although men sometimes engage in direct status competition outside the presence of females, they also engage in bonding rituals which have at most the appearance of a status competition, but which are actually a form of bonding. Even when there is real competition, without women, it can be less rancorous, because you're not really playing "for keeps." When women enter the picture, unpleasant competition is guaranteed.
This reality (and not necessarily misogyny) is behind the male desire to preserve male-only enclaves like social and country clubs; they offer a place where men can be men without the less pleasant trappings of masculinity.
Change the metaphor from "winning the cocktail party" to "winning the comment thread," and use the preceding as an example.
Anti-competitive nature of female groups? Really? Or just trying very hard to appear to be not competing?
Mike wins the thread. Nay, all comment threads on this blog.
The question is, as Rob's comment suggests at 6:32... Would the competition be less or more intense if the blog hostess were a blog host?
His theory would lead us to say less, but looking at the other blogs here, it's not entirely clear there's a difference.
For some reason this whole discussion reminds me of the previous post about grad students...
Perhaps my male friends and I are a bunch testosterone deprived male neuters who are outliers or something, but I am failing to get the point. Yes, my close friends and I do get into debates at times when we do get together. Yes, sometimes they may appear to be heated even though in reality they are not. We do this because we can, not to try to prove a point or to try to be competitive.
One of the nice things about having friends, to me, is that you can flat out say what you are thinking at any given time without having to constantly self-edit. During these discussions, I never once have to worry about what my friends are going to think of me the next day. They are my friends, after all. We are free to bounce things off of one another.
Sometimes I learn something. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes others get a slight change in perspective, but mostly they don't. Generally, at the end of the night, most often these discussions become stalemates, and that is ok. But then again, the point is that friends can talk amongst friends without fear of offense or reprisal. If some people think open communication through the bonds of friendship are a bad male trait... Well... Ok, I guess. Good for you.
Look more closely at my theory. Any cleavage which our gracious hostess (or other female commenters) might bring to the table is far from "close at hand" unless you live in DC, and even then it's probably too far away to matter.
"This reality (and not necessarily misogyny) is behind the male desire to preserve male-only enclaves like social and country clubs; they offer a place where men can be men without the less pleasant trappings of masculinity"
yeah, well, people who were raised exclusively within their own culture feel more comfortable mingling and are more likely to relax in social settings which have only the kind of people they're used to seeing....but that doesn't mean country clubs should stay all-white. Sometimes you have to move beyond your own comfort zone for the good of society.
Male and female (and their interactions) are different in ways that white and black are not, as perhaps best demonstrated by Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton, whose private conversations reportedly reached across the racial divide to encompass subjects of interest primarily to heterosexual men.
This difference is, of course, why we have women's colleges, women's professional associations, women-only gyms, women's social clubs, etc. Sex segregation may be evil in some ways, but it is clearly not the same evil as racial segregation.
Rob - true enough, but given we didn't evolve with the internet there's still a chance it could happen. Indeed, in my experience there are still changes in behavior when a woman enters a forum or chatroom - I don't see the same behavior on blog comment threads.
Perhaps we blog readers are simply the finer folk of the internet?
benniefly2, I don't think Ms. McCardle said, as you suggest, that "open communication through the bonds of friendship is a bad male trait". I don't think she made a judgement about the male pattern she was referencing. Her point was that females see patterns in group behavior more clearly than males do. I also think her point is that this is a meaningful distinction between the genders (although, of course, this distinction does not accurately apply to all females or all males or all transgenders. . . no statement applies equally to all, right?).
I believe her point is that women have to take note of male culture because male culture dominates. Males don't have to take note of what women do. . . so they don't. Anne Wilson Schaff, PhD, wrote a book, in the nineties, I think, called "Women's Reality". In it she posits, I believe, a theory that is related to what Ms. McCardle reflects in her blog post.
For me, the fact that so many men have posted comments in this blog stream that overlook Ms. Mccardle's main point and go on bloviating about the male perspective proves the observation that men don't pay attention, not much, anyway, and usually only if they really really have to, to women's reality but women pay attention to male reality because their survival depends on it. I bet plenty of you guys posting are good guys, too, and think of yourselves as very fine. . . but males are, ultimately, oppressed by men's chronic domination of everything they survey. We don't know exactly what is lost but, gosh, surely even the manliest men can acknowledge that when only male ideas shape public policy and male values shape group dynamics at cocktail parties and male values shape the dynamics at all social institutions. . . we have no idea what is lost.
But you guys, here in this thread, all you 'heard' was a mild complaint about male behavior at cocktail parties. No one was complaining about men. They were talking about gender difference, which isn't complaining.
I never go to cocktail parties. How the heck did cleavage get into this stream of comments?
They were talking about gender difference, which isn't complaining.
As this thread's most prolific commenter, I'd like to say that I didn't see complaining, but I did see misunderstanding and mischaracterization of male behavior by someone who is just as unable to observe all-male interaction as I am to observe all-female interaction.
Cleavage came in because substantially alters male group dynamics, which surely all of us can agree on.
Bob the announcer: Yes folks, the Comment Thread-Bowl is just starting its second half.
Jeff the announcer: Yes, Bob, and what a thread it has been so far. Several initial squabbles broke out, and the Mike made a huge score with his apt analogy of this thread to the cocktail party of the original post.
Bob the announcer: Indeed, Jeff, that was a brilliant move on his part, and it momentarily stunned the whole lineup. But not to be outdone, the other men regrouped, and changed course, commenting on men's rights and genetic imperatives.
Jeff: Yes, but as the score shows, it wasn't enough to dethrone Mike from his position atop the comment thread status ladder. And what's more, others - OH MY GOD! TREE FITZPATRICK GOES META!
Bob: YES! AND HE IS PULLING AWAY. HE COULD GO ALL THE WAY.
Jeff: A Brilliant move from Mr. Fitzpatrick, skewering all the conversations thus far by demonstrating that none of them are addressing the point at hand.
Bob: But not just that! He also threw in the feminist zeitgeist of the built-in maleness of our hierarchical society.
Jeff: Yes indeed, Bob - the conversation is rapidly collapsing in the face of Tree's deft play. At this point, I'm not sure what could stop him.
Bob: Well, maybe if someone went another level meta, using a sports metaphor...
Jeff: But he'd have to use some fancy foreign philosophical words in his post. And maybe a reference to television.
Bob: Sports, philosophy and double-meta? We'll see if anyone can pull that off, after these messages.
Thanks to benniefly2 and Tree Fitzpatrick for providing such fine examples of the phenomenon.
This is just a test.
I tried to send Megan an Email a few minutes ago, and it appears that her account is blocking me. I just wanted to see if I'm blocked here in comments as well.
If everyone can read this, then you know why I put it here.
James
Megan:
I tried Googling the phrase "winning the cocktail party" and the only hits I got were...your post (plus a blog aggregator citing your post).
I did a search on "win* the cocktail party" and got five references, four of which had to do with SEC football (I'm sure someone here can enlighten me).
So...just how common is this phrase? ..bruce..
Despite competitiveness, men sometimes also can obey rules and act cooperatively. I heard the following "3 rules of guyhood" on a sports talk radio station
1. stick with women of your own tribe
2. never mess with your buddy's woman/women
3. always help another guy get laid
#1 is stupid and often ignored
#2 is wise and often ignored
#3 is wise and just and in my experienced, pretty much always followed
Women obviously violate #1 and #2 as much as men, how are they on #3?
I am an assumed introvert straight guy, and my pursuit of females for mating is basically over (I'm married to the perfect girl). I always hated cocktails parties with a passion, to the point that I'd leave as early as possible because I felt dizzy just from "the whirl" (before any alcohol touched my lips).
Curious thing is, I managed to live some five years without having to attend such parties, until I had to, this year, at our Indian client's in Mumbai.
The dynamics were basically the same yet most interactions were basically gender-blind. It is as if sex was known to be off the table and you're supposed to relish in the wit of everybody.
Surprising, and much more comfortable than in the West (meaning, for me, Northern Europe and sundry places all over the Americas).
Rob Lyman wrote:
Nobody comes away from such an argument angry or bearing a grudge. Their faux-adversarial nature serves principally avoid looking gay.
I'd disagree. I've seen plenty of such arguments leading to anger or grudges. Sometimes things get out of hand and people who are pretty good friends end up saying things in the heat of the discussion they may not have wanted to. It doesn't usually lead to long-term damage but can cause avoidance for a few weeks. Of course what men will say to each other quite happily often vastly exceeds what women will, and there is always a certain amount of dick sizing going on in masculine conversation.
Megan is such a sharing person. That's why she always links to other bloggers, seeking to strengthen the group, even if at her own expense.
Megan is such a sharing person. That's why she always links to other bloggers, seeking to strengthen the group, even if at her own expense.
I bet DC is a pretty biased sample for atavistic competitive male behavior.
Men don't bond by anything having to do with cocktail parties. We don't bond by gossiping about others(1). We bond by shared experiences and interests.
-Nelson
(1) Unless "gossip" includes pointing out that the woman who just walked behind your buddy has a really nice rack and it would be worthwhile for him to turn around for a second. But that is simply a healthy appreciation for beauty and another experience to share.
I believe her point is that women have to take note of male culture because male culture dominates.
On second reading, I noticed this. If that's the point, then anyone arguing it had better have a pretty solid understanding of "male culture." Observations of male behavior in the presence of females is not adequate to form this understanding.
Cocktail parties are not a case of men imposing their culture on women. They are a shared culture different from single-sex activities.
I've basically done none of this; perhaps this explains the lack of dates in the past. (Married now, somehow. :) )
Sasha-
No not superior only that this behavior is routine, therefore seldom noticed. We aren't given to analyzing it and that seems to puzzle women. Because women seem acutely aware of what other women are doing, men not so. We don't do ulterior motives very well.
I've read this post twice and I still don't know what "winning the cocktail party" means.
As always, Megan, the word you're looking for is "patriarchy."
The easiest way to put it (and this is hardly original) is that men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it--by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves.
What this fine piece of laughable self-delusion illustrates is one significant way in which women differ from men in their group behaviour: women must not admit that they are competing, or that they experience and act on aggressive impulses.
I think this is one of the reasons why both men and women tend to prefer men as leaders of large and important groups: men are more open about their competitivity, and therefore more willing to agree on rules that constrain that competitivity within bounds that preserve group cohesion. When social organizations become dominated by feminine thinking and even actual women you get Stalinism (which was both), a system in which there is no such thing as loyal opposition, in which disagreement is equivalent to aberration if not moral treason, because the prime feminine group directive -- There Is No Competition Here -- does not allow any other framework for understanding and coping with disagreement.
Now I think about it, the essential feminine narcissim is also on display in the well-worn ("hardly original" indeed) suggestion that women more than men sacrifice for the welfare of the group, in that the heaviest "sacrifice" imagined here is of social status, e.g. pay, reward, social power.
Entirely overlooked are the far more serious sacrifices for group welfare that are the male's traditional prerogative: that men make up the overwhelming majority of policemen killed in the line of duty, of firemen, EMTs and rescue workers who give their lives that others may live, of soldiers killed defending the nation, of men who obey the ancient dictum "women and children first" when boats sink or airplanes are hijacked, or even the plain fact that men pay more of their income in taxes, are expected to sacrifice more when families break up, pay harsher penalties when caught committing the same crime, and are not extended the same concern when unfortunate outcomes (lack of college degree, suicide, shorter lifespan) are correlated with being male.
To be sure, women are expected to sacrifice time and status for the sake (among other things) of the welfare of their children to a much higher degree.
But it it is characteristic of feminine narcissism to think that this is the only or even a the most important form of sacrifice for group welfare.
Society is gendered, and our prez hopefuls are recognizing this in the pay of their male and female employee, someone figured out.
It seems Mr. Obama paid female senate office staff 87 percent of what he paid the males, while J-Mac paid females 107 percent of what he paid males when comparing non-intern workers. Follow Don's links for the details.
This should not be a big deal for a libertarian blogger, but it does make you wonder about typical Dem talking points and how they collide with reality. It makes me wonder why all feminist organizations are captives to the Dem party.
Correcting my typo:
What does this post have to do with patriarchy?
"the extremely anti-competitive nature of female groups"
Don't kid yourself. I'll buy the notion that women in groups present the appearance of being anti-competitive, but that's just a tactic in winning whatever may be at stake.
I think the confusion among your male readers (myself included) was with the terminology, not the phenomenon. All men know that in the presence of females, men get competitive. This is by far the biggest reason men try to exclude women from things (the golf course, sports, "The Lodge", etc.). It's not because they don't like women. It's quite the opposite - they don't like men when they're around women.
Who cares about Warren Moon vs. Joe Montana? I want to see David Akers fight Adam Vinatieri.
The question is, did I say that to hijack the thread and increase my status, or am I just a nerd who really wants to talk about a kickers death-duel.
Women aren't competitive? Good grief! Anyone who says that can't possibly know any.
Competition can come out in different ways, though. The woman who is flamboyantly and intrusively "concerned" about everything is competing, even if only to be the best hostess and put her guests at their ease. And one thing I know for sure -- the one woman in the group who insists that there is no competition (or alternately, no cliques) is sitting on the top of the heap, viewed by all the other women as the primary target.
Regarding 'the competitive outgoing guys' I'd be one of them. Mostly it's just enthusiasm for the topic that drives it for me, but there are other guys who are driven by wanting to control and be 'on top' of things. They're tyrants, in short. The best way to check is to do one of two things. 1. Bring up a topic he knows nothing about and see if he will admit to knowing nothing about it, or 2. get him to wrong you in some way and see if he will even acknowledge it or ask for forgiveness. If he does neither, he sees everything (whether purposely or not) as part of his 'staying on top'. If he does either of those things he's just enthusiastic about the topic.
I've had to reign myself in more than once, since I can always see people getting a little annoyed when I've corrected people a bunch of times on a topic I love. Not to say I'm always right when I make my corrections - I just am sure enough that I am at the time to make the correction.
"Winning the cocktail party" is also a phrase I have never heard, but wouldn't be surprised if it had been said about me "he's just trying to win the cocktail party" before.
Though honestly I'll bet people have better things to do than make commentary on my social graces (or lack thereof!)
a) I've spent most of my life working in male dominated environments. Rarely in those environments were the men competing for my attention, and the men I know report that meetings etc. are the same whether I'm there or not. There is the possibility of observer bias, but the men in those groups are telling me it's not there.
b) I have about fifty men now telling me that they know more about what it's like to be in a group of women than I do. This is . . . weird.
c) Most of these comments involve imposing a male status hierarchy model on female interactions that really doesn't work. Women don't just compete the way men do, except over different things; they act very, very differently than men do. I doubt I'll get many takers, but dress up as a woman. Go to an all female event. Go ahead and compete about whatever your extensive observation tells you women compete about. Report back on your experience. I guarantee you will not still think that women act like men, except about hair and their boyfriends.
d) The men on this thread should think about the fact that not one woman has disagreed with me yet. This suggests you might be missing something.
Clearly we're not attending the same cocktail parties, because the people I see attempting to "win the cocktail party" are obsessed with social status, a group that I can assure you is not limited to men.
b) I have about fifty men now telling me that they know more about what it's like to be in a group of women than I do. This is . . . weird.
Um, isn't that the whole point of your original post, only with the genders reversed?
"Women don't just compete the way men do"
Wow, the more you say on this topic, the more ludicrous you sound.
If, by "the way men do" you mean "using the same tactics as men," then I might agree with you.
But if you mean "with the same intensity as men" you are grossly mistaken.
I make no claim as to how women interact when men are not around, but:
If all the men disagree, and all the women agree, that suggests that everyone is missing something, no?
Men are indeed concerned with their status in the group. When men are in comfortable settings, usually with all men that they know well, there is no 'winning the cocktail party' phenomenon, because there is no question as to everyone's role. Any competition is purely for the sport of it, not for the status. When you introduce women, (and sometimes unfamiliar men who wish to compete for status) that's when the status games begin.
The WTCP phenomenon occurs not because men are imposing their own interactional paradigm on the women in the room who are sacrificing their own desires for the good of the group. It occurs because this sort of status seeking behavior is rewarded by the women in the room. The men might be competing to win the cocktail party, but the women play an equal role in the phenomenon by acting as both judges and prizes.
I'm female, and I disagree with our hostess here. Female competition is cut-throat. It's just conducted at a lower volume, especially in mixed-sex environments. The stakes are just as high, though.
Note that by "lower volume," I actually mean the quality of the sound. I'm not saying anything about the emotional content. Women can devastate each other without shouting, and while smiling. It can be very indirect, but there's often real aggression behind it. Perhaps our hostess has never observed a master (mistress?) practitioner of this art form, but the level of viciousness can be amazing to behold. I'd rather get yelled at any day.
But different women may see different things in female competition -- high status women and low status women have different notions of whether competition is occurring in a female group. The high status women may think there is no competition and that they are preserving the group, when actually they are preserving the rank order of the group and putting the other women in their places. The other women will perceive this and have a very different notion of what is occurring.
You will often find these women avoiding the hen parties and cultivating more masculine interests in order to talk to men. There's a reason for that. As annoying as competitive men may be at times, the "queen bee" type of woman is worse.
Rarely in those environments were the men competing for my attention, and the men I know report that meetings etc. are the same whether I'm there or not. There is the possibility of observer bias, but the men in those groups are telling me it's not there.
I guarantee you the men were competing among themselves to see who got to sit in the meeting chair that gave them the best down-blouse view or potential down-blouse view or whatever was the most eye-attracting part of you available for viewing.
We're sort of stupid that way.
"I have about fifty men now telling me that they know more about what it's like to be in a group of women than I do. This is . . . weird."
Not so much if you were always in the role of outcast female. How would you know what the club is like if they never invited you in?
I work in an office that is 85% female. Nice in terms of using the restrooms, I assure you. If you want me to explain to you the differences in leadership styles between men and women (both good and bad for both) I can. I find it false that "men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it--by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves."
And you still never explained the cocktail party thing. Please, for us plebians in flyover states who don't frequent them, WTF are you talking about? Is there arm wrestling at cocktail parties? I am a proletariat worker who knows no such things.
I'm thinking Megan is probably a Vulcan, willing to sacrifice the one for the good of all, etcetera, yada yada and so on.
When my little sister was in high school, it seemed that her life was one of chics in cliques. These cliques readily banded together to wage low-key campaigns against other cliques -- sometimes against lone individuals.
RiverC said what I think personally but couldn't find the right words for. I learned to shut up when some former girlfriend at some time or another clued me in that what she heard me say in mixed gatherings wasn't what I thought I'd said, but instead some sort of a free-for-all punch-up where a lot of random verbiage was hurled about.
I always thought it was just a fun and amusing diversion. Guess that's not true for everyone.
Re: winning the cocktail party: That's why some men end up in the kitchen talking to the women.
I did a search on "win* the cocktail party" and got five references, four of which had to do with SEC football (I'm sure someone here can enlighten me).
The annual Florida - Georgia game is (or used to be) called The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.
Re: winning the cocktail party: That's why some men end up in the kitchen talking to the women.
"women gain status by submerging themselves into it--by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves" -- I just noticed that in freddiemac's post, but it's in the original. My comment is: not all women.
What this describes is the action of a low-status woman who doesn't want to get pecked to death by the group. Give up individuality, merge into the whole, take marching orders from high-status women. The queen bees aren't doing that. They are up to something else entirely.
There's another group of women as well, the ones who won't play that particular game. You'll find that they (or we, as I like to think) take on a more androgynous style. We may even play the guy game on occasion, not necessarily to impress the girls but simply because it's fun. Sometimes it's even to impress the guys -- confident men can enjoy sparring with a woman. That's old school society, and it depends on things like wit. Which is yet another area of competition, of course.
I'm not arguing that there's no female status competition; rather than women compete for status through the group. The "queen bees" are competing, not to be the smartest or funniest person in the group, but for the ability to build coalitions to decide who will be a member of the group in the first place. Nor am I arguing that women don't compete for status--but their status competitions are very often relational, having to do not with their own personal qualities, but with their ability to, for example, get men to pay attention to them. The activities involved in building other-directed status are extremely different from those involved in male-type status competitions. Women often compete in those as well, of course--but women are often penalized for winning them too obviously.
I guess maybe it's just the type of people I hang out with, but I seem to be in the minority in that I really rather enjoy the whole "winning the cocktail party" phenomena because, at least in my circles, it's mainly about who draws the biggest number of laughs for the evening or who leads a stimulating conversation on an interesting topic.
Even if you don't win...at least you got to laugh at some funny jokes or listen to an interesting conversation. It's basically about who can be entertaining in a given social setting; if you're not a fan of this, why are you even going to cocktail parties? Isn't the entire concept of a cocktail party a form of entertainment?
Count me among the women finding it pretty amusing how many male commenters are bizarrely rearranging what MM says to pound it into a masculine interaction framework an announce it disproved. Mike is still winning the thread.
However, Jeff just made me a bit nostalgic for a common British version of WTCP, known as "taking the piss." (Women are definitely penalized for winning that particular competition, by the way, but it is fine entertainment.)
I've spent most of my life working in male dominated environments. Rarely in those environments were the men competing for my attention, and the men I know report that meetings etc. are the same whether I'm there or not.
Men at work are (usually) in constant direct competition for status within the group because they all seek promotions, raises, and the like. They may not be competing for your attention; they may be competing for the attention of the (male) boss. This is still competition. Most of us can distinguish between our "worrk friends" and real friends, can't we?
In addition, at least one of the male-dominated fields in which you have worked (consulting or I-banking, can't recall which) cultivates a fighter-pilot style jock culture which attracts hyper-competitive men. This is not a good population for drawing inferences about male behavior in general (any more than, say, the staff of Vogue would be a good place to draw conclusions about women in general).
Finally, the woman who started this thread should observe the number of men who agree with me that she has erroneously described male behavior and motivations. Some of us have a teensy-tiny bit of direct experience in that realm, and to have that experience dismissed because some men at work say meetings are the "same" is...weird.
Mike is still winning the thread.
Count me as a man annoyed at seeing substantive responses dismissed as a shallow status game.
"women compete for status through the group".
I thought from the original post this meant women try to build up the group relative to other groups, and are willing to play a subordinate role in that group to do so.
But then in this comment, it means women are trying to lead what amounts to an admissions committee within a group, deciding who's in, who's out.
Clarification please?
Megan, now you're not making sense. When you say "women compete for status through the group", how is that different than men? I observe women and men to compete for a different criteria, but compete within the group non the less. With men it is often through sexual exploits, personal adventures, wit and humor, etc. With women it is often through accessories; designer dresses, jewelry, men, etc. Seems like opposite sides of the same coin. Isn't it telling that women and men observe the same thing and come to different conclusions?
Apparently, men can neither agree nor disagree with the statement "men only communicate to one-up everyone" since if you disagree you are trying to one-up and if you agree, well you conceded the point. <insert taoist passive attack>
Well, maybe if we consult the group to determine the groups answer, we can come up with an answer that evades the problem. But, we individually can't be the one who says the answer, else we are back to the one-upmanship of being more of a groupie than the rest. Oh, and excessive groupiness is also a one-up.
</just having fun>
First, let me grant that quite possibly Megan McArdle is correct that men are deluding themselves on this issue. After all, gender researchers commonly report that males' informal impressions are falsified by hard evidence like videotape.
But...
If you want honest agreement, why make the claim so broadly ambiguous? It reminds me of the ambiguous claims that people choose to survey when their intent is to dramatize how much people delude themselves. If you ask "are you an above-average driver" you mix people giving self-deluded answers with people correctly reporting how they act out their differing priorities. Similarly, "are you an above-average athlete?" A driver who consistently gets places fast thinks he's better than the driver who consistently gets places safely, and vice versa. An athlete who thinks good athletes exert their utmost thinks he's better than someone who values his record of no sports injuries, and vice versa.
If you don't want to delude yourself about how people delude themselves, you should ask more precise things like "could you run a mile faster than the median US citizen your age" or "do you have fewer collisions per mile than the mean among drivers in your state." (And yes, "median" is likely closer to the colloquial meaning of "average" here, but traffic accident distribution is sufficiently skewed by a minority --- something like the "80-20 rule" --- that Joe Average can't very well estimate the median from his informal knowledge of the frequency of traffic accidents.)
To illustrate one ambiguity in the "winning the party" claim, I nominate a scene from the novel _Cryptonomicon_. (I have attended far less than my share of parties, and I bet Neal Stephenson has attended enough to help make things average out, so I will borrow from his book.) At a party in the "The Spawn of Onan" chapter, 81 pages into my copy, Randy the sysadmin loses patience and contradicts a vast generalization about the Internet. Later in the book (don't know what page) Randy claims that geeky men are less likely than women to let nonsense slide by in order to get along smoothly with people. I expect Megan McArdle seeing the contradiction at the party might not be certain whether to classify it as an instance of her version of winning the party, or an instance of Randy's claimed pattern; but that some fraction of the agreeable women backing MM up here would see it as Randy trying to win the party pure and simple. (And maybe it's complicated; the exchange as written by Stephenson involves rivals for a mate...)
David Friedman sometimes makes a point about how conflicts in animals (e.g., territoriality) don't necessarily come down to the stronger animal having it all. The weaker will generally end up with less, but even among animals like fish with small brains and simple behavior, the weaker will commonly commit to fight if pushed too far. Is that winning? (ISTR Friedman also quotes Kipling here: "The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.")
Might some posters be oversimplifying? Maybe it's unfair to guess that. But I was once surprised when a woman volunteered to me that she wanted her children to be bullies. Asking her to expand on it, I discovered that in her worldview there is a simple dichotomy, you are either a bully or you are bullied, and she didn't want her children to be bullied, ergo they should be bullies. Even territorial fish can see more nuances than that.
As examples of more precise alternative propositions: "men speak much more at parties" or "men disagree much more at parties" or "men act as though they place a desperately higher importance than women do on how they are judged at parties."
"One other thing: it's okay for a man to be a loner, to simply choose not to be part of the group or one of the guys." Gene
Hmm not in the world I live in. Generally when a male is described as "a loner" the most positive follow-up is "rebel." Quite often "he was a loner" is a preface for describing a man who went insane and or killed people.
In my experience men are more "packish" and more willing to literally destroy the different. Women don't forms street gangs as often nor did they form say the Nazi party. However I think the "packishness" of men, and their ability to destroy the guy who is not in their group, has so long been noted it's no longer that interesting. That "weak" boys in high school will be beaten until their bones break or they die is tragic, but not a new thing you can get interest for on Fox News. That grown men will ostracize and humiliate "the weird guy" until he commits suicide is also tragic, but not particularly interesting. (It's also not titilating the way women attacking women is seen as being)
> b) I have about fifty men now telling me that
> they know more about what it's like to be in a
> group of women than I do. This is . . . weird.
Why weird? I have very few male friends, many female friends. If I'm in a group, it's usually a group of women. I suppose by definition, the group would be a "mixed" group, but at least some of the women don't seem to notice this. Example: had lunch with some friends, and they started talking about getting planning a getaway "just us girls". When one (friend-of-a-friend) cautioned "Aren't we making this guy uncomfortable excluding him like this? Shouldn't we discuss this some other time?" another responded "Well, of course HE is invited!"
No, I'm not gay. Or familiar with "winning the cocktail party", although I think I can figure it out. And, actually, I DID feel a bit uncomfortable and excluded.
Rob, I've worked in IT, startups, iBanking, been in business school, and am now a journalist in an overwhelmingly male subfield. All of those groups have very different cultures--iBanking is so stereotypically male that it's like being in a baboon tribe, while political journalism is sort of aggressively anti-jock. But the competitive dynamic remains.
The point about men and groups is that they are competing for status by themselves within the group. Women derive their status from their other-focused activities--attracting high status men, or shaping the group itself.
All of this is somewhat reductive--the men who are competing with each other at cocktail parties are also saying interesting things, making me laugh, etc. I go to them because I have a good time. I also do all women things because I enjoy feminine bonding. In extremis, however, both can be pathological--or perhaps it's fairer to say that you can't have the benefits without the drawbacks.
The men who are claiming that their may be observer error have a fair point. However. It's quite fair to say that members of the non-dominant culture cannot know what it is actually like to be members of that culture. But it's perfectly reasonable, indeed obvious, to say that they are more familiar with the operation of the dominant culture than the reverse. In part because members of the dominant culture have an aversion to extended contact with the non-dominant--men, for example, will almost never read novels where all the main characters are women, especially if those novels are written by women. I can't experience what it is like to participate in male culture as a man. But I passively consume a lot more male culture than almost any man consumes of female culture.
But it's perfectly reasonable, indeed obvious, to say that they are more familiar with the operation of the dominant culture than the reverse.
I don't dispute this point, which is why I have refrained (unlike some of my brethren--knock it off, boys) from commenting on female group dynamics, being familiar with them principally through breathless New York Times book reviews.
I merely point out that male friendship (and even male competition) operates more subtly than you appear to give it credit for, and further that mixed-sex interactions don't "default" to male mode. They occupy in a third, "mixed" mode in which each sex behaves differently than when in isolation. You might think you're seeing male interaction, but what you're seeing is male-in-front-of-very-long-legged-female interaction. They can "say" it's the same all they want, but then they would, wouldn't they?
Some corollaries:
Men who are consciously thinking "How can I make myself stand out from the group?" are actually the least likely to stand out from the group. To succeed in standing out your behavior has to be unselfconscious, or at least seem that way (and it's very hard to fake).
Conversations between women or groups of women for the most part strike men as tedious and boring; when a typical man joins a group of women he tries to change the subject mainly because he doesn't want to be bored.
It's a mystery to most men why women want to cooperate with each other so much. I think a lot of men chalk it up (incorrectly) to lack of pride and self-respect.
Men are quite aware of when women are trying to act "man-like" and make themselves stand out from the group; they find it amusing unless it is done really well, and then they feel uncomfortable.
Meagan has a knack for making her male commentators feel a bit uncomfortable.
DKE: "I thought from the original post this meant women try to build up the group relative to other groups, and are willing to play a subordinate role in that group to do so.
"But then in this comment, it means women are trying to lead what amounts to an admissions committee within a group, deciding who's in, who's out."
I think it is both. Women may compete to control the composition of their group, and also to make their group is more desirable than other groups (primarily to other women seeking inclusion, though certainly not exclusively, since the perceived desirability of group members to men is not incidental to making inclusion desirable for other women). Queen Bee competes both for position both within the group (with the other members) and through the group (with other groups or non-members). Obviously this is dependent on the majority of group members towing the line (or subordinating themselves to the group and its leaders) to remain group members and/or to advance the group's desirability (and therefore indirectly their own position). A totally unstable social group is frequently less desirable.
I think your admissions committee analogy is pretty apt; as with colleges, exclusivity to some extent drives desirability rather than the other way around. "Smallest house in a really good school district" also strikes me as a helpful analogy. "Ruling in Hell rather than serving in Heaven" seems to be less of a feminine ideal (unless, I suppose, you show up heaven by getting all the best people in hell with you).
Not to say that men don't do these sort of things as well (sports, for an obvious example: I'd imagine a lot of men would rather be a bench warmer for an MBA team than a star in their local amateur softball league; being a "company man" is similar), but it doesn't seem to be the organizing principle of most men's social interactions.
As Megan noted, it also isn't the organizing principle of women's social interactions in mixed groups; I agree with her that women generally comport with male expectations about how social interaction should be conducted in mixed groups (that that behavior is not typical "boy's club" male group behavior is irrelevant, and that some men think it is a jointly-determined pattern of interaction simply because it isn't what men would do without bosoms present is ... sort of one of MM's other points, I think).
Though not always. My poor husband got nailed with some committee work for our son's preschool, as one of two men out of 30 or so members. Group dynamic was definitely a typical female group dynamic. I would have to agree that it is not a particularly productive dynamic if you are actually trying to get something done.
women generally comport with male expectations about how social interaction should be conducted in mixed groups
And what evidence do you have that men do not comport with female expectations? As many others have pointed out, the point of "winning the cocktail party" is going home with the hottie in the particularly slinky cocktail dress. Even our gracious hostess writes "the men who are competing with each other at cocktail parties are also saying interesting things, making me laugh, etc.," and that such behavior makes parties entertaining for her. That means that she herself is plainly participating in a (pleasurable, for her) dynamic which encourages male cocktail-party competition.
I don't see how you can call that dynamic patriarchy imposing it's phallocentric view of proper cocktail-party behavior on helpless women. It's plainly a shared dynamic.
Kathryn, that makes sense, thanks.
lampwick said:
"Men are quite aware of when women are trying to act "man-like" and make themselves stand out from the group; they find it amusing unless it is done really well, and then they feel uncomfortable."
Here's a question. How would you guys say is the best way for a woman to behave in an aggresivly male environment (finance, academic economics, etc.) in order to gain respect/promotions? It looks like being passive and non-competitive will cause a woman in such an environment to not be taken seriously. On the other hand an agressive woman risks being seen as a freak or, worse, being percieved as a treat to her coworker's masculinity.
Any thoughs on this? An young impressionable college student wants to know.
"And what evidence do you have that men do not comport with female expectations?"
OK: what are my expectations?
Hey, two can play this game: what are my expectations, to which women allegedly conform? Because I can tell you they aren't conforming the way I'd like them to.
I'm quite serious here: how do you know that women are conforming to what men want, and not men conforming to what women want? We have one woman on record as wanting men to perform for her entertainment. We have the phenomenon that men do, in fact, perform for her (and others') entertainment. We have the commonplace observation by men that the performers get more positive female attention than non-performers, undoubtedly contrary to the wishes of the shy and awkward. I suggest that this means that mixed dynamics are shared rather than men imposing on women.
What do you have to offer by way of contrary evidence or argument, which shows that women would really like cocktail parties to be more "feminine," but inexplicably offer their attention (and their bodies) to men who stand out in male-male competition?
Lest I be accused of being glib again, I should clarify - You can't comport with expectations you don't know. I'm sure I don't have a firm grip on what your expectations are, either. My point, badly stated, is that I, and most other women, will tend to follow your lead rather than establish the social dynamic ourselves. Men establish the dynamic to be comported with because we let you. In that sense it is clearly a "joint" dynamic, in that men and women jointly permit men to determine the dynamic.
I'll also note something implicit (well, probably obvious to most of the women) in Megan's description of her amusement at male cocktail party behavior: she describes being interested what men say, laughing at their jokes, etc. In short, she's paying attention to the men.
June - a woman who is married, engaged, or at least conspicuously and solidly attached gets a bit of a pass, because she then begins slipping into the category of matron, and most men respect 'matrons' as a somewhat diminished versions of their mothers. (Of course, there's a downside to that role in that it may make the men less responsible.)
If she's not hitched, a woman who is supernaturally energetic, competent, and social will earn respect, particularly in a more egalitarian environment like academia.
I can't think of any 'tricks' or rules of behavior besides that; just be (the best version of) yourself.
I'll also note something implicit (well, probably obvious to most of the women) in Megan's description of her amusement at male cocktail party behavior: she describes being interested what men say, laughing at their jokes, etc. In short, she's paying attention to the men.
Guess what: this is obvious to most of the men, too. Which is precisely why they are engaged in the behaviors they are--trying to say something interesting or funny to attract the attention of the women, trying to one-up one another to be the most interesting guy in the room. I don't know your expectations a priori, but if you reward my behavior, I'll do whatever you liked over and over.
That is to say, if women wish to make a collective decision to change the way cocktail parties work, they can simply change (collectively) whom they smile at.
Women may be conversationally more passive, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous power to set the tone. One shouldn't confuse passivity with weakness, or aggressiveness with strength.
I hate serial posting, sorry.
I don't think that women would, necessarily, prefer a different dynamic than the one I believe to be more or less determined by men in mixed groups. Actually, I think many of us probably wouldn't. Just that women aren't the ones who determine it, other than in the passive sense of letting someone else determine it and going along.
Both your and my last posts basically lay out what I believe a basic male expectation of the mixed social dynamic to be, to which women generally conform: that men perform, they "do," and women pay attention to men.
Again - sorry. Still, I knew we agreed at heart!
"this is obvious to most of the men, too. Which is precisely why they are engaged in the behaviors they are--trying to say something interesting or funny to attract the attention of the women, trying to one-up one another to be the most interesting guy in the room. I don't know your expectations a priori, but if you reward my behavior, I'll do whatever you liked over and over.
Exactly: It's all (well, not literally all, you know what I mean) about women paying attention to men. That is the dynamic, not whatever you are doing to receive the attention, which obviously will vary hugely from group to group, and which women may well change with a well-directed smile.
"That is to say, if women wish to make a collective decision to change the way cocktail parties work, they can simply change (collectively) whom they smile at."
If women wish to change this dynamic they should ... pay attention to different men? That isn't changing the dynamic, that's reinforcing it. Even if it results in all you guys talking knowledgeably about this week's "It" handbag. (Though if it ended up with you eviscerating the woman we don't like, we might well join in as full participants, and that might, just, be a change in the dynamic.)
My experience with in men only groups and women only groups is based on barracks living in the Army. Men tend to get along alot better in such situations than the women. The women bicker and fight more amongst themselves than the men tend to, especially when there's a mixture of people from different units living enmasse. The reason I know about what the women go thru is what I have been told by women.
I'm not sure why it is, though.
If women wish to change this dynamic they should ... pay attention to different men?
Well, if you want deep, fundamental change, then start dispensing sexual favors based on which men best tolerate long rambling stories about shoe shopping, or cry most realistically when watching "An Affair to Remember," or whatever criterion you like. Men will do what it takes to impress/bed you.
Wow; June wins the Typo of the Month Award!
Not to come late to the party, but I'm somewhat confused by Megan's use of the word "men" in the following phrase: "men don't even see it, the way they don't see catcalling, because it never happens when they're around"
This would seem to indicate that "men" aren't around when there is catcalling. Unless these are women catcalling other women, I have to believe at least *a* man is around whenever there is cat-calling.
Perhaps you mean "men in the 'stuff white people like' demographic that is my social and professional cohort are never around when catcalling is and thus never see it."
pay attention to different men?
Well, you could approach the less talkative men and try to reach out in your own way. If Megan is correct, that man will automatically take over the conversation and try to win the mini-party. If some of the more nuanced posters are more correct, you would probably have either less aggressive conversation than that or you will be pulling teeth trying to get a response (or something in between)
Women gain status by belong to exclusive high status cliques that exclude lower status women. The four friends of Sex and the City are a classic tiny clique -- in real life, 99% of their fans would never be allowed to sit at the table with the four of them because they were wearing the wrong shoes.
Men, in contrast, tend to build larger, more hierarchical groups where there are roles for high, medium, and low status males. The United States Marine Corps is a classic male hierarchical group.
This helps explain why the vast majority of business start-ups that succeed in becoming big companies are founded by men.
It may also explain part of why Obama out-organized Hillary.
Are you honestly puzzled by this behavior? Let me explain it to you:
Throughout the some odd millions of years that existed before civilization took root, there was two standards, one for each gender. Men were excluded from the tribe unless they were valuable. Women were included in the tribe unless they were too costly to keep around. Being in the tribe was better than being out of the tribe. This behavior continued even to a point after civilization (girls becoming women just by getting older, but boys having to 'prove' manhood by one way or another).
So yes, men boasting about what they can do (that other's supposedly can't) earns them a spot in the tribe. Women keeping quiet and not rocking the boat keeps them in the tribe. Men being quiet don't make the tribe and women rocking the boat get kicked out of the tribe.
"we making this guy uncomfortable excluding him like this? Shouldn't we discuss this some other time?"
TR: I have noticed women do this when you're the lone guy, which seemed to happen to me a fair amount as I have three sisters. Possibly men do this when they're in a group with just one woman, I'm not sure.
The other I've noticed is that when you're the lone man in a group of women women will feel free to bash men. They will then state "we don't mean you", which is a polite way of saying "I may mean you too, but seeing as you're right here I'll be polite." Oddly some women I've known even seem to think this is strange and aren't entirely sure why they do this in front of a guy.
"On the other hand an agressive woman risks being seen as a freak or, worse, being percieved as a treat to her coworker's masculinity." June
TR: lampwick is probably largely right. Also I don't think it's necessary to be all one thing. I think you can be competitive, but still show concern for others and a sense of fun. (This is also true if you're a man) In business I think you'd also need something of a thick skin and an acceptance that to get ahead you have to accept that some men will simply not like you or even dislike you quite a lot. (The really successful businessmen I know are downright hated by some men, exemption being some small family-ran businesses)
SGT Ted wrote:
My experience with in men only groups and women only groups is based on barracks living in the Army. Men tend to get along alot better in such situations than the women.
I had a few friends when I was an undergraduate who ended up becoming resident advisors in dorms. The men's dorms were usually pretty simple: Men didn't "participate," especially when forced to by dorm staff. Men drank, etc., and had discipline problems when not watched, but were usually pretty much able to sort things out among themselves. Women's dorms, by contrast, involved lots and lots of psychodrama. There were always a few Queen Bees who made drama when there wasn't enough around. The worst I heard of was someone I knew, a secular Jew who'd lived in Israel for a while, was assigned to live on a floor of Korean evangelicals as adding "diversity."
June: I think the advice of being the best you can be is spot on. However, I'd note that at least in areas like academics, there are a lot of subcultures. You can find places that are much less aggressively masculine than economics. Many of us men aren't comfortable with the kind of aggressive dick sizing that passes for discourse in economics or computer science. So women with technical interests can---and do---work in other areas. My field (statistics) has a lot of women in it. Unlike fields with a predominance of women, it doesn't seem to be prone to lots of Queen Bee-ism either.
Just more self-pity from self-absorbed feminists. Instead of whining endlessly about men, why not try looking outside yourself? There's a whole world outside your narrow stereotypes.