I owe a debt of gratitude to Deborah Tannen. Tannen, professor
of linguistics at Georgetown University and best-selling author of
You Just Don’t Understand, showed how men and women’s
communication styles can be radically different. For example, until
Prof. Tannen set me straight I used to think that when a woman came
to me with a problem she wanted advice on how to fix it. Boy, was
my face red when I discovered that women just want to rant, and
offering a solution will only convince them (if they are not
already convinced) that you are an unfeeling, insensitive ass.
Prof. Tannen took a lot of guff from feminists who would have us
pretend that men and women are basically the same save one or two
anatomical quirks. No, the old-timey, hardcore feminists did not
like her at all. And if there is one thing a woman wants, according
to Prof. Tannen, it is to be liked. But getting feminists to like
you and still holding on to your beliefs can be a difficult line to
maneuver, like the one cops make you walk when they pull you over
after a night of Jell-O shots at the bowling alley. That may
explain why Prof. Tannen, while not abandoning her belief that men
and women are dissimilar, is now suggesting that the traditional
male approach to problems, particularly in science and journalism,
should be abandoned in favor of “the feminine technique.”
The Feminization of America continues apace. First there was the
criminalization of unpleasant speech and then the emasculation of
American English (he/she for he, firefighter for fireman, etc.).
The final snip will be the eradication of all masculine ways of
thought. Feminists have been remarkably successful in getting their
agenda approved thus far due to the male’s inherent need not to
offend the opposite sex. But changing the way men address problems
may be beyond the dubious powers of even the most well-compensated
sensitivity trainers. A woman may have the occasional minor success
getting a man to pick up after himself, bathe, blow his nose on a
rag and not his sleeve, but it is doubtful that you can program him
to think differently. Hell, you’re lucky if you get him to think at
all, particularly after his third Coors.
Prof. Tannen is the latest intellectual to join the controversy
over the perceived paucity of female op-ed writers. In a recent
L.A. Times op-ed Prof. Tannen claims that the reason women
shy away from political commentary is they are put off by the
antagonistic nature of the business. Columnist Maureen Dowd likened
her gig as a columnist at the New York Times to a scene
from The Godfather, or “shooting and getting shot at.” I
can almost hear Francis Ford Coppola shouting, “Don’t be so
dramatic, Maureen!” I can’t imagine a place less like a scene from
The Godfather than the pompous editorial offices of the
New York Times with its snooty, bow-tied executive
editors, pretentious fact-checkers and haughty theatre critics.
Prof. Tannen’s solution to the female op-ed writer “shortage” is
to ask male columnists to play nice. Imagine an H.L. Mencken or
Hunter S. Thompson adopting Ms. Tannen’s advice to say something
nice or not say anything at all. (I can’t either.) In comparing the
way men debate ideas with the way boys knock down each other’s
building blocks, Prof. Tannen argues against “arguing ideas as a
way to explore them,” which she calls “an adult version of these
agonistic rituals.” So it turns out George F. Will and William F.
Buckley are just big kids with brickbats.
Prof. Tannen’s main objection is the way men focus on “opposing
ideas and fight over them.” Rather than opposing the idea of
fascism or Stalinism we should adopt Chinese philosophy, she
writes, and explore relations among, say, fascism and liberal
democracy. But maybe the Chinese should learn Chinese Philosophy
first. Maybe then they won’t grind protesters into the pavement
with their not-so-nice little tanks. Adopting Prof. Tannen’s advice
would make for some duller-than-usual presidential debates between
2008 White House contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Condoleezza
Rice. Rather than arguing issues they might sip tea and “explore
relations,” “integrate ideas” and enlighten one another. All I can
say is you’d better not have Ann Coulter moderate the event.
Many females, both left and right, excel at the kind of “attack
dog” journalism feminists deplore: Florence King, Ann Coulter, Mona
Charen, and Molly Ivins are a just a few examples. Most political
commentators, however, are characteristically mild, almost to the
point of blandness. For every poisoned-pen-wielding Christopher
Hitchens there are a dozen David Broders, David Brooks, and Charles
Krauthammers who seem to compose their prose with long feathered
quills. Few pundits are better liked than David Brooks, who seems
to go out of his way not to offend anyone.
I am sorry Maureen Dowd doesn’t feel “liked” enough in her
chosen profession. But I am reminded of H. L. Mencken, a brilliant
free-thinker who always spoke his mind, and who was so delighted by
his hate mail from Southern hick preachers and bluenoses and that
he had it collected and published in book form. Menckeniana: A
schimpflexikon remains a laugh-out-loud read and a profound
insight into the narrow-mindedness of Prof. Tannen’s intellectual
ancestors.
Yes, men “enjoy verbal dueling,” and thank God for it. Such
intellectual sparing was responsible for the Reformation, the
Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence and
the U.S. Constitution. These things weren’t hashed out over tea and
crumpets, while some old maid sat in the corner warning the boys to
“talk about something pleasant,” but were hammered out in long,
arduous debates and disputations. As Charles Darwin noted in
The Descent of Man, “Males are endowed with the requisite
qualities of courage and pugnacity.” In other words, going on the
attack is a necessary and natural male characteristic. “As a
woman,” says Maureen Dowd, “I wanted to be liked — not attacked.”
You want a job where you are liked? Good luck. I hear all the fairy
godmother positions are taken.
