Full eyes, clear hearts, here's how it's gonna go, can't lose
October 21, 2018 12:16 PM Subscribe
"Sweeping my hair uneasily into a baseball cap, I decided to try to be as “Coach Eric Taylor” as possible for two weeks. I am a five-foot-two white woman with glasses, shoulder-length hair, a wide smile and ready eye contact. I was dubious about this stunt working. Could I truly effect male power?"
I was one of the only women, and my status was quickly elevated to one of the power brokers and I joined the executive committee. ... Adopting white male southern swagger was pretty darn effective for getting my way.
So why am I not delivering TED Talks on how women can gain power by imitating white male football coaches on TV? Because this was an experiment in affect, language, demeanour and gender, and one I found deeply saddening. Being a good partner, mother, professor and citizen to me has always meant being deferential, inclusive, transparent about what I am thinking, as concrete and thoughtful as possible in explaining my decisions, and collaborative with students, family and colleagues. But these features are not often respected as signs of good leadership, and they are exhausting to perform. I won’t promote getting one’s way by force and intimidation. I won’t promote the silencing of dissent through verbal muscularity.
"I won’t promote getting one’s way by force and intimidation. I won’t promote the silencing of dissent through verbal muscularity.
[...]
So, women: grab a baseball hat, a set of terse, controlling phrases and a pint. Try it on."
Umm...
posted by Dysk at 12:32 PM on October 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
[...]
So, women: grab a baseball hat, a set of terse, controlling phrases and a pint. Try it on."
Umm...
posted by Dysk at 12:32 PM on October 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
Crucially, I started to meet colleagues for beers more in my faculty association, where I was a member of the council. I was one of the only women, and my status was quickly elevated to one of the power brokers and I joined the executive committee. I believe drinking beer and speaking with more jocularity helped me gain respect.Oh hey, drinking beer and paying attention to sports is what helped me have a better and more productive and friendlier rapport with my PhD advisor than he had with any of his previous female grad students. You can bet I told that trick to every female grad student who came after me.
posted by ChuraChura at 12:37 PM on October 21, 2018 [48 favorites]
You missed the (I think) crucial bit at the end: "Coming to understand our cultural sacred cows is the only way to send them out to pasture."
posted by ChuraChura at 12:39 PM on October 21, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 12:39 PM on October 21, 2018 [17 favorites]
I'm gonna push back on Coach Taylor as a guy full of rage. He's not chatty, but he's thoughtful, altruistic, and always looking out for the best interests of his family and his players. He's far from a tyrant, which is the impression the writer gives here.
I know Coach Taylor, and Brett Kavanaugh is no Coach Taylor.
posted by suelac at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2018 [32 favorites]
I know Coach Taylor, and Brett Kavanaugh is no Coach Taylor.
posted by suelac at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2018 [32 favorites]
"Coming to understand our cultural sacred cows is the only way to send them out to pasture."
That's a nice sentiment, but it's a bit empty without any discussion of how her greater understanding of the problem/cow supposedly helps her combat it.
posted by Dysk at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
That's a nice sentiment, but it's a bit empty without any discussion of how her greater understanding of the problem/cow supposedly helps her combat it.
posted by Dysk at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
There's a lot in this. As an introverted, typically deferential male, I definitely have found that there are times when adopting the attitude of "Coach" is a good tool. It goes a long way towards sparking self-motivation in my students. The message is "I can't do this for you, but if you will do what I tell you, no arguing, you will succeed." It only applies in limited situations though--a football game, a class with a test coming up, faculty meeting, maybe chore-time at home. I don't believe it works in larger domains where real understanding, empathy, and relationships become important. Don't try to "coach" your spouse, children, or friends too much. So I agree with the author--but I think it is all about moderation, both of the gruff blunt attitude she sees as "male" and of the opposite mode.
posted by TreeRooster at 1:04 PM on October 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by TreeRooster at 1:04 PM on October 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
Yeah, I agree with Suelac. She is fundamentally misreading Coach Taylor.
posted by apricot at 1:05 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by apricot at 1:05 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think part of the "how" is raising awareness of this dynamic. See the pushback above on the characterization of Coach Taylor; I'm going to push back on the pushback. He wasn't a Kavanaugh, no, and ultimately his intentions were good. But he kept his thoughtfulness and good intentions internal and de facto demanded that everyone trust in his good judgment, go along with his plans, and basically treat him as the authority. And, while it's been a while since I watched the show, I remember him generally as being brusque and irritable. I've seen his marriage held up as an example of a good, strong marriage with great communication. Maybe it gets that way in later seasons? The behavior in the first season literally stressed me out enough that I never watched the rest; largely the stress came from watching his behavior. I know people like that, have to interact with people like that, and in real life it really sucks.
So I think it's interesting that where I (and the author) see overbearing, aggressive, and domineering behavior, other people don't observe that at all. Is it a cultural thing? Is it men versus women? Is it a given that domineering behavior earns you respect and obedience, or is it because we happen to value that in our culture without ever thinking about it too much?
Most of the advice women get about how to be taken seriously comes down to "act more like 'alpha' men": don't be deferential, don't ask where you can state, interrupt others, don't try to be friendly in work emails. Etc. Personally, I understand that advice but I hate it. Why should that behavior be considered better? Why not consider it rude, and grant higher status and respect to people who are (confident enough to be) inclusive, gracious, careful listeners, and even modest from time to time? Why does an aggressive braggadocio machine like Trump get perceived by half this country as "strong"?
So I don't know what the author's intention was, but I'd love to see more of a conversation about how messed up our ideas around strength, leadership, and desirable behavior are.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on October 21, 2018 [30 favorites]
So I think it's interesting that where I (and the author) see overbearing, aggressive, and domineering behavior, other people don't observe that at all. Is it a cultural thing? Is it men versus women? Is it a given that domineering behavior earns you respect and obedience, or is it because we happen to value that in our culture without ever thinking about it too much?
Most of the advice women get about how to be taken seriously comes down to "act more like 'alpha' men": don't be deferential, don't ask where you can state, interrupt others, don't try to be friendly in work emails. Etc. Personally, I understand that advice but I hate it. Why should that behavior be considered better? Why not consider it rude, and grant higher status and respect to people who are (confident enough to be) inclusive, gracious, careful listeners, and even modest from time to time? Why does an aggressive braggadocio machine like Trump get perceived by half this country as "strong"?
So I don't know what the author's intention was, but I'd love to see more of a conversation about how messed up our ideas around strength, leadership, and desirable behavior are.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on October 21, 2018 [30 favorites]
Pretending to care about sports in the way that (most) men do is where I always fall down. I just can't. I hate the primacy of sports, I find them both incredibly complicated and infinitely boring, and one of the things I hate about patriarchy is that sports, which should at best be a hobby for a few people, are instead the hallowed key to the souls of most men. It's their religion, possibly because they aren't allowed to invest themselves emotionally/bond with other men in any other way.
And the rest of us have to care because What Matters to Men drives every single conversation and lever of power. It's why we struggle to fund arts programs, or scientific research, or even basic education but gladly spooge wads of money over every half-assed idea for a sports stadium.
God it makes me so angry.
And I don't hate the actual sport in itself; I can see the fun and excitement of playing a game and being on a team. But sports culture is gigantic and all-encompassing when it comes to befriending or working with men, and Jesus Christ, I just don't give a tiny flying fuck about it.
posted by emjaybee at 1:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [100 favorites]
And the rest of us have to care because What Matters to Men drives every single conversation and lever of power. It's why we struggle to fund arts programs, or scientific research, or even basic education but gladly spooge wads of money over every half-assed idea for a sports stadium.
God it makes me so angry.
And I don't hate the actual sport in itself; I can see the fun and excitement of playing a game and being on a team. But sports culture is gigantic and all-encompassing when it comes to befriending or working with men, and Jesus Christ, I just don't give a tiny flying fuck about it.
posted by emjaybee at 1:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [100 favorites]
I had a choir director in college who said, "Clear heads, warm hearts," and who was more-or-less Coach Taylor but with more smiling. What was inspiring about singing for him was the feeling that he knew how to create something amazing and beautiful, and he believed that we were the people who could make it happen. I saw something similar in the way that Friday Night Lights was scripted: Coach Taylor was worth following because he knew you could do something amazing if you believed in yourself as much as he believed in you.
But you had to do exactly what he said because, well, that's football, and I guess choir, too; if everyone follows the plan you can be amazing together, but if everyone wants to have their input into the plan then the plan will never get done and the result will be a disorganized hodge-podge.
I worry that this puts me into the second group of men who contacted the author.
posted by clawsoon at 1:31 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
But you had to do exactly what he said because, well, that's football, and I guess choir, too; if everyone follows the plan you can be amazing together, but if everyone wants to have their input into the plan then the plan will never get done and the result will be a disorganized hodge-podge.
I worry that this puts me into the second group of men who contacted the author.
posted by clawsoon at 1:31 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
It's interesting, too, that Coach Taylor was scripted to be successful. The message of the show was not just, "Here's an inspiring leader, as gruff and brusque as he is," but also, "If you follow a leader like this he will lead you to the championship of everything even if you start out as a ragged band of ne'er-do-wells."
We regularly mistake confidence for competence, and Friday Night Lights was another show that reinforced this idea. I'm sure that there are thousands of would-be Coach Taylors who do not, in fact, know what they're doing.
posted by clawsoon at 1:40 PM on October 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
We regularly mistake confidence for competence, and Friday Night Lights was another show that reinforced this idea. I'm sure that there are thousands of would-be Coach Taylors who do not, in fact, know what they're doing.
posted by clawsoon at 1:40 PM on October 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
Interesting experiment but her conclusions are confused and confusing. She lumps together a whole lot of varied behaviors as "white male southern swagger" and doesn't seem to consider the possibility that some were more helpful or more problematic than others.
It sounds like the most effective things she did were joking and meeting her colleagues for beer. She gained respect and influence by being more good-natured and friendly. But in the end she seems to conclude that the whole male swagger package needs to be rejected because it's all about domination. That doesn't quite make sense to me.
Of course being more forceful helps you get what you want. And it should be no surprise that it can make the people under your charge more productive. Of course getting your own way through force and intimidation is also problematic for a lot of reasons. It's helpful to see the good and bad of both forceful and collaborative approaches and to consider using either at different times. I don't think it's helpful to see them as male or female and I don't think it's necessary to completely reject either.
I was confused by the jump to Kavanaugh at the end. Suddenly she's talking about rage and entitlement and implicitly equating that with joking over beers or making short, confident statements. And she suggests that a woman who acted the way Kavanaugh did could never be confirmed, when her own experiment suggested that a woman who acts like a powerful man gets a powerful man's respect.
posted by Redstart at 1:52 PM on October 21, 2018 [12 favorites]
It sounds like the most effective things she did were joking and meeting her colleagues for beer. She gained respect and influence by being more good-natured and friendly. But in the end she seems to conclude that the whole male swagger package needs to be rejected because it's all about domination. That doesn't quite make sense to me.
Of course being more forceful helps you get what you want. And it should be no surprise that it can make the people under your charge more productive. Of course getting your own way through force and intimidation is also problematic for a lot of reasons. It's helpful to see the good and bad of both forceful and collaborative approaches and to consider using either at different times. I don't think it's helpful to see them as male or female and I don't think it's necessary to completely reject either.
I was confused by the jump to Kavanaugh at the end. Suddenly she's talking about rage and entitlement and implicitly equating that with joking over beers or making short, confident statements. And she suggests that a woman who acted the way Kavanaugh did could never be confirmed, when her own experiment suggested that a woman who acts like a powerful man gets a powerful man's respect.
posted by Redstart at 1:52 PM on October 21, 2018 [12 favorites]
As clawsoon says, Coach Taylor is fiction. He can brook no discussion of his methods that are obviously right, because the writer made them right.
More interesting is why this worked for Prof. Taylor in real life. My guess is, for the same reason that shotcalling works in video games: it's very efficient for one person to have a plan and for people to follow it, much more than everyone having their own plan and wanting to discuss it in the moment.
The thing is, bad managers— which is most of them— will take this gruffness and not-discussing as the basic model, and do enormous damage. Gruffness doesn't equal rightness, and it's all too easily used as a cover-up for incompetence or malice. We need to stop being in love with gruff, mean managers.
posted by zompist at 1:56 PM on October 21, 2018 [12 favorites]
More interesting is why this worked for Prof. Taylor in real life. My guess is, for the same reason that shotcalling works in video games: it's very efficient for one person to have a plan and for people to follow it, much more than everyone having their own plan and wanting to discuss it in the moment.
The thing is, bad managers— which is most of them— will take this gruffness and not-discussing as the basic model, and do enormous damage. Gruffness doesn't equal rightness, and it's all too easily used as a cover-up for incompetence or malice. We need to stop being in love with gruff, mean managers.
posted by zompist at 1:56 PM on October 21, 2018 [12 favorites]
I would much, much rather hear "no" than read a lengthy essay that ends in "no" anyway.
posted by betweenthebars at 1:58 PM on October 21, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 1:58 PM on October 21, 2018 [11 favorites]
I met a graduate student who was dragging her feet on her dissertation with, “Do you have what it takes? Then just do it.” She looked dumbfounded but turned a chapter in shortly thereafter.This, I think, is where it can go two ways. This can be inspiring - somebody believes in me! - or it can be crushing - another stress to add onto the pile, another way in which my career can be destroyed if I don't jump when someone with power over me says jump.
The only way to find out which it is - are you helping someone or destroying them? - would be to ask. The whole point of the exercise, though, was not to ask:
I wasn’t co-operating, I was dictating, and I used a lot less energy. No one asked followup questions, there was less negotiation, and I didn’t lose time wondering if everyone was OK with the decisions.The dictator expends no emotional labour. It feels good for them. If the dictator is a benevolent mind-reader who knows exactly what's good for their subjects, it can feel good for their subjects, too. But how many brusque do-as-I-say, I-expect-a-lot-from-you leaders you've worked for *were* able to read your mind and knew exactly how much you could handle, and how many just drove you to burnout?
It's telling that one of the first things we learn about Coach Taylor is that he is pushing children to participate in an activity which carries a risk of turning them into paraplegics. Being confronted with this fact does not make him question his career choice at any point, IIRC. He assumes that he knows what's best, and what's best is football.
posted by clawsoon at 2:19 PM on October 21, 2018 [9 favorites]
Most of my bosses are women, and they waste prodigious amounts of my time with dialogue. They are competent, and even when they don't want the job done the most efficient way possible, the amount of time to establish the best way would be greater than that wasted by doing it their way. They don't have to apologise to me for being the boss or for being a little wrong sometimes. They just have to give orders and get the fuck out of the way.
It is nice that I can let them know when they are really wrong, but as I said, they are competent, and that doesn't happen often. So I waste everyone's time in dialogue, just to keep them happy.
posted by ckridge at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
It is nice that I can let them know when they are really wrong, but as I said, they are competent, and that doesn't happen often. So I waste everyone's time in dialogue, just to keep them happy.
posted by ckridge at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
In a faculty meeting, a colleague ventured complex curriculum revision that I would normally have spoken at length against based on my extensive experience as a former associate chair. Instead I let people cast about with questions and concerns and then said, trying not to laugh at its simplicity, “We’re not gonna do it.” The subject was dropped.
And this kind of thing is great if she is, in fact, the person in the room who best understands the issue. But far too often, the person acting like this is not as smart as they think they are and really stupid decisions get made this way.
posted by straight at 2:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [11 favorites]
And this kind of thing is great if she is, in fact, the person in the room who best understands the issue. But far too often, the person acting like this is not as smart as they think they are and really stupid decisions get made this way.
posted by straight at 2:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [11 favorites]
When people to expect you to have a (stereotypically) female reaction...don't? Have a (stereotypically) male response instead? Get into the man box, be literal, be brief, be unpunctual, be joc(k)ular, and have a beer? Act as though no one has the right to question you? Excuse me, I'm going to pin up my hair and be an authoritarian for Halloween.
I am ambivalent about this experiment, which seems mostly to be about what happens when a woman stops responding as others anticipate and they don't know what to do in response. In theory, I like it. In practice, it sounds like she acted like an entitled jerk. The world has enough of that already, thanks.
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:28 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
I am ambivalent about this experiment, which seems mostly to be about what happens when a woman stops responding as others anticipate and they don't know what to do in response. In theory, I like it. In practice, it sounds like she acted like an entitled jerk. The world has enough of that already, thanks.
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:28 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
We regularly mistake confidence for competence
@clawsoon - yeah.
I say this semi-regularly in work-related conversation. It took me years to realise how much it affected work relationships - negatively for me, as I'm not a confident person.
I often follow it up with a note about how we mistake aggressive outspokenness - bluster - for confidence, and how this train of relationships mean the loudest voices are assumed to be the most competent.
None of this is brilliant or new. But the degree to which social dynamics are driven by unexamined reactions - usually in people who will react quite angrily if this is even gently pointed out - depresses the hell out of me.
Yeah, I get it. No one wants to feel like a chump. But I'd rather exercise my humility and learn to evaluate my interactions than spend my life confusedly battered by the endless churn of primate heirarchy.
posted by allium cepa at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
@clawsoon - yeah.
I say this semi-regularly in work-related conversation. It took me years to realise how much it affected work relationships - negatively for me, as I'm not a confident person.
I often follow it up with a note about how we mistake aggressive outspokenness - bluster - for confidence, and how this train of relationships mean the loudest voices are assumed to be the most competent.
None of this is brilliant or new. But the degree to which social dynamics are driven by unexamined reactions - usually in people who will react quite angrily if this is even gently pointed out - depresses the hell out of me.
Yeah, I get it. No one wants to feel like a chump. But I'd rather exercise my humility and learn to evaluate my interactions than spend my life confusedly battered by the endless churn of primate heirarchy.
posted by allium cepa at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
Mmnnnn here's the thing. A good leader listens, then decides. If you do too much listening and don't decide firmly, you're not a good leader (you might be a facilitator). If you don't listen and simply issue orders, you're also not a good leader (you might be a dictator).
From the article, it seems like she actually being a good leader. She was listening, and then she was deciding.
So I think the issue here is one of framing.
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2018 [20 favorites]
From the article, it seems like she actually being a good leader. She was listening, and then she was deciding.
So I think the issue here is one of framing.
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2018 [20 favorites]
@emjaybee
So much.
This is my reaction as well to the Midwest US sports culture with which I grew up. It was all-encompassing. Lives were scheduled around sports. It was the source and the outlet for far more emotion than the religious beliefs proclaimed by the same people.
It was the beginning and end of conversations with men. It was the medium for jokes and comradery. It drove choices of clothing, vacation destinations, schools for children, whether to keep a child back, who you liked (or didn't).
I failed endlessly because I simply couldn't care. And it became awful as I grew up because it was yet another manufacturered arena in which I could fail and be mocked simply for not knowing things, for not caring. I could be excluded because it was obvious I was simply Not A Dude.
I stopped feeling the failure when I realised I wasn't a guy. But the anger at years of negative effects didn't go away.
posted by allium cepa at 2:38 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
So much.
This is my reaction as well to the Midwest US sports culture with which I grew up. It was all-encompassing. Lives were scheduled around sports. It was the source and the outlet for far more emotion than the religious beliefs proclaimed by the same people.
It was the beginning and end of conversations with men. It was the medium for jokes and comradery. It drove choices of clothing, vacation destinations, schools for children, whether to keep a child back, who you liked (or didn't).
I failed endlessly because I simply couldn't care. And it became awful as I grew up because it was yet another manufacturered arena in which I could fail and be mocked simply for not knowing things, for not caring. I could be excluded because it was obvious I was simply Not A Dude.
I stopped feeling the failure when I realised I wasn't a guy. But the anger at years of negative effects didn't go away.
posted by allium cepa at 2:38 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
ckridge: Most of my bosses are women, and they waste prodigious amounts of my time with dialogue. They are competent
Is it possible that they got their competence via all of the dialogue and listening they do? Is it possible that it's a waste of time in the short term and a good use of time in the long term?
posted by clawsoon at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2018 [30 favorites]
Is it possible that they got their competence via all of the dialogue and listening they do? Is it possible that it's a waste of time in the short term and a good use of time in the long term?
posted by clawsoon at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2018 [30 favorites]
I’m in a male-dominated business and I’m successful because I’m direct, honest and fair. I know nothing about sports and yet, I’ve worked on about thirty sports documentaries (none of my colleagues or bosses cared if I had any opinions on the sport.) I wish her piece had included video of her before and after.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:44 PM on October 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 2:44 PM on October 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
"Try it on." I think the "try" there is important. I think it is useful, as a woman, to at some point try this. That doesn't mean adopt it forever--just have walked in those shoes for a bit and see how it changes things.
I think it does help women, broadly, to have some experience to back up the idea that the social penalties for being more abrupt and less compromising are... more than they are for men, but less than we tend to be socialized to worry they're going to be. The hardest part, I think, is trying to play the game in such a way that you're directing those things towards male privilege... and not just using them to get ahead of every woman, first. Like, great, you got accepted into this group, but who got excluded to let you in?
But on the whole, I think the most useful bits she identifies are the ways in which the constant negotiations of life are an energy drain that men don't deal with, and it's helpful to identify negotiation as a strategy and not the only strategy for interpersonal affairs, and if a bit of role-playing opens that up for you, great.
posted by Sequence at 3:20 PM on October 21, 2018 [19 favorites]
I think it does help women, broadly, to have some experience to back up the idea that the social penalties for being more abrupt and less compromising are... more than they are for men, but less than we tend to be socialized to worry they're going to be. The hardest part, I think, is trying to play the game in such a way that you're directing those things towards male privilege... and not just using them to get ahead of every woman, first. Like, great, you got accepted into this group, but who got excluded to let you in?
But on the whole, I think the most useful bits she identifies are the ways in which the constant negotiations of life are an energy drain that men don't deal with, and it's helpful to identify negotiation as a strategy and not the only strategy for interpersonal affairs, and if a bit of role-playing opens that up for you, great.
posted by Sequence at 3:20 PM on October 21, 2018 [19 favorites]
I would guess that a group effort driven by a single person has a greater chance of having a more visible, clear result than one run by group consensus.
Not because the individual driving the effort is necessarily smarter, more capable, more rational, or has a deeper understanding of the problem or goals.
But rather because the effort is driven from a singular set of desires, and therefore is more likely to result in a coherent narrative. And we're evolved to prefer simpler stories. Simplification of narrative is how we make sense of the world.
One real danger here is in mistaking a coherent narrative for a rational, reasonable, or desirable one.
But simpler to understand and execute on gets easier buy in. It absolves the rest of a group from emotional responsibility for the results or the effects of the decisions.
I submit that fascist dictator is just this behaviour writ large and taken to its logical conclusion.
posted by allium cepa at 4:59 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
Not because the individual driving the effort is necessarily smarter, more capable, more rational, or has a deeper understanding of the problem or goals.
But rather because the effort is driven from a singular set of desires, and therefore is more likely to result in a coherent narrative. And we're evolved to prefer simpler stories. Simplification of narrative is how we make sense of the world.
One real danger here is in mistaking a coherent narrative for a rational, reasonable, or desirable one.
But simpler to understand and execute on gets easier buy in. It absolves the rest of a group from emotional responsibility for the results or the effects of the decisions.
I submit that fascist dictator is just this behaviour writ large and taken to its logical conclusion.
posted by allium cepa at 4:59 PM on October 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
Huh. And here I thought channelling Tami Taylor was the way to go.
posted by amanda at 5:31 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by amanda at 5:31 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
In my circles we talked a lot about how this experiment would garner success only for white women. Black and Latina women, expecially, would be dismissed as "too angry" rather than as leaders. (Ask me how I know, from personal experience!)
posted by TwoStride at 6:15 PM on October 21, 2018 [33 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 6:15 PM on October 21, 2018 [33 favorites]
The strategy discussed in this article works, and works best the closer you are to being as privileged as possible (it works best for straight white cismen born into wealth.)
It is our collective responsibility to be on the lookout for white men who deploy this strategy and to sabotage their careers by whatever means available to us. If we are responsible for hiring, we should not hire them. If we are responsible for giving promotions, we should not promote them. If we are responsible for allocating funding, we should not fund them. If we are their coworkers, we should collectively help each other... and cut the brash aggressive white men out of our networks. Folks must extend support to the non-brash non-privileged that’s not extended to the brash privileged.
And if they complain, we can tell them whatever we want. we can say they’re poor cultural firs, because they are.
The brash white man strategy works, and also kills everything it touches. If we want to survive it, we have to make it not work anymore.
As a generally meek white man, I am perfectly fine with being collateral damage here.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [19 favorites]
It is our collective responsibility to be on the lookout for white men who deploy this strategy and to sabotage their careers by whatever means available to us. If we are responsible for hiring, we should not hire them. If we are responsible for giving promotions, we should not promote them. If we are responsible for allocating funding, we should not fund them. If we are their coworkers, we should collectively help each other... and cut the brash aggressive white men out of our networks. Folks must extend support to the non-brash non-privileged that’s not extended to the brash privileged.
And if they complain, we can tell them whatever we want. we can say they’re poor cultural firs, because they are.
The brash white man strategy works, and also kills everything it touches. If we want to survive it, we have to make it not work anymore.
As a generally meek white man, I am perfectly fine with being collateral damage here.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:24 PM on October 21, 2018 [19 favorites]
Rage and entitlement are the purview of white men and the measure of their legitimacy. If you doubt this, imagine Ruth Bader Ginsburg dancing Kavanaugh’s dance, and still getting confirmed.
Doesn't that seem to be contradicted by her experiment? I thought she was successful at adopting this strategy.
posted by Edgewise at 8:05 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
Doesn't that seem to be contradicted by her experiment? I thought she was successful at adopting this strategy.
posted by Edgewise at 8:05 PM on October 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
Pretending to care about sports in the way that (most) men do is where I always fall down. I just can't. I hate the primacy of sports, I find them both incredibly complicated and infinitely boring, and one of the things I hate about patriarchy is that sports, which should at best be a hobby for a few people, are instead the hallowed key to the souls of most men. It's their religion, possibly because they aren't allowed to invest themselves emotionally/bond with other men in any other way.
“Music also works,” says ex-music writer/ former only girl at record store. “No guarantees that being able to discuss the Royal Trux discography at length will help you network, though.”
posted by thivaia at 8:11 PM on October 21, 2018 [10 favorites]
I wonder how well I could pull this off as a person with no power? Normally I am constantly explaining and apologizing. I love this idea but wonder how much gender backlash I would get for it if I'm not a professor.
It sounds like she just rejected the idea even though it worked because she'd have to be fake all the time, I think?
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:25 PM on October 21, 2018
It sounds like she just rejected the idea even though it worked because she'd have to be fake all the time, I think?
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:25 PM on October 21, 2018
"Crucially, I started to meet colleagues for beers more in my faculty association, where I was a member of the council. I was one of the only women, and my status was quickly elevated to one of the power brokers and I joined the executive committee. I believe drinking beer and speaking with more jocularity helped me gain respect."
Yes, because being social with your colleagues helps them see you as a person. In my case it was going out for drinks and talking Game of Thrones and Marvel movies with my colleagues when I visited their office. I stopped being "that person in the other office who always asks us for stuff" and started being "part of OUR team."
And it sucks when the culture is built around things that don't interest you. Ive been in work cultures where the dominant topics/venues for networking are 1. fundamentalist Christian Bible class and 2. kid stuff, neither of which are topics I can connect on.
I wonder, if the dominant mode of networking was something she had a propensity toward that excluded men that drank beer, would she see that she was excluding or would she just expect them to have a long discussion about the semiotics of it and get on board?
"Is it possible that they got their competence via all of the dialogue and listening they do? Is it possible that it's a waste of time in the short term and a good use of time in the long term?"
It's possible. It's also possible that as they've become more powerful, they've expanded the amount of dialogue involved because they have the power to do so. My question would be: do they actually take in the dialogue or at the end of the hour of talking do they demand that you do it their way anyway? I have unfortunately dealt with a lot of the latter. It's the use of dialogue so you can claim there was consensus when there wasn't any.
posted by rednikki at 11:11 PM on October 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yes, because being social with your colleagues helps them see you as a person. In my case it was going out for drinks and talking Game of Thrones and Marvel movies with my colleagues when I visited their office. I stopped being "that person in the other office who always asks us for stuff" and started being "part of OUR team."
And it sucks when the culture is built around things that don't interest you. Ive been in work cultures where the dominant topics/venues for networking are 1. fundamentalist Christian Bible class and 2. kid stuff, neither of which are topics I can connect on.
I wonder, if the dominant mode of networking was something she had a propensity toward that excluded men that drank beer, would she see that she was excluding or would she just expect them to have a long discussion about the semiotics of it and get on board?
"Is it possible that they got their competence via all of the dialogue and listening they do? Is it possible that it's a waste of time in the short term and a good use of time in the long term?"
It's possible. It's also possible that as they've become more powerful, they've expanded the amount of dialogue involved because they have the power to do so. My question would be: do they actually take in the dialogue or at the end of the hour of talking do they demand that you do it their way anyway? I have unfortunately dealt with a lot of the latter. It's the use of dialogue so you can claim there was consensus when there wasn't any.
posted by rednikki at 11:11 PM on October 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
As another introverted (non-white) man who was raised in a culture of consensus building...
* I once had a young, early 20's (white male) co-worker who I think read something on the internet and decided that he was going to come to work and be 'alpha'. It did not go well for him. Part of the reason was that the rest of us (despite not being white dudes) were older, had degrees, more experience, etc.. Another part is that he was obnoxiously selfish: he would ask people to do parts of his job so that he could sit around and ... not do anything. He had no reservoir of goodwill to draw from. On the other hand, there are certainly people who I do listen to. These people have a track record of looking out for me, and have looked out for me even when it cost them. It's like the Tao says:
If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility.
If he would lead them, he must follow behind.
* Tenured professors have an enormous amount of institutional power over graduate students, as we've discussed in other threads. Approaches like "JUST GET THIS DONE BY NEXT WEEK I DON'T CARE HOW" may be common and work in the short term, but I think do real long term damage to relationships. I have witnessed, "WHO HAS AN IDEA? YOUR IDEA IS STUPID. NEXT? YOUR IDEA IS ALSO STUPID." followed by "WHY DOES NOBODY EVER WANT TO SHARE IDEAS?!".
* There have also been incidents where I have thought "There is absolutely no way they're going to do that just because you're yelling ..." and they've gotten away with it, so perhaps my understanding of the world is not complete.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:54 AM on October 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
* I once had a young, early 20's (white male) co-worker who I think read something on the internet and decided that he was going to come to work and be 'alpha'. It did not go well for him. Part of the reason was that the rest of us (despite not being white dudes) were older, had degrees, more experience, etc.. Another part is that he was obnoxiously selfish: he would ask people to do parts of his job so that he could sit around and ... not do anything. He had no reservoir of goodwill to draw from. On the other hand, there are certainly people who I do listen to. These people have a track record of looking out for me, and have looked out for me even when it cost them. It's like the Tao says:
If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility.
If he would lead them, he must follow behind.
* Tenured professors have an enormous amount of institutional power over graduate students, as we've discussed in other threads. Approaches like "JUST GET THIS DONE BY NEXT WEEK I DON'T CARE HOW" may be common and work in the short term, but I think do real long term damage to relationships. I have witnessed, "WHO HAS AN IDEA? YOUR IDEA IS STUPID. NEXT? YOUR IDEA IS ALSO STUPID." followed by "WHY DOES NOBODY EVER WANT TO SHARE IDEAS?!".
* There have also been incidents where I have thought "There is absolutely no way they're going to do that just because you're yelling ..." and they've gotten away with it, so perhaps my understanding of the world is not complete.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:54 AM on October 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
This is literally a minor crisis that has blown up in a spiritual community where I am one of several leaders. Last week, one of our members was being petty, and another leader shut them down, Coach Taylor style. I started out understanding that he had a responsibility to guide the group and protect against bad behavior, but spent the weekend reflecting and realized that he had other options, and his response actually exacerbated some already simmering tension. It's hard in the moment to make these right choices, but good to be striving towards listening and synthesizing the group needs, rather than just gruffly "making the tough call." Great to see a clear framing of the problem and/or tension that we must internalize as leaders.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 9:14 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by SoundInhabitant at 9:14 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
Pretending to care about sports in the way that (most) men do is where I always fall down. I just can't. I hate the primacy of sports, I find them both incredibly complicated and infinitely boring, and one of the things I hate about patriarchy is that sports, which should at best be a hobby for a few people, are instead the hallowed key to the souls of most men. It's their religion, possibly because they aren't allowed to invest themselves emotionally/bond with other men in any other way.
“Music also works,” says ex-music writer/ former only girl at record store. “No guarantees that being able to discuss the Royal Trux discography at length will help you network, though.”
Back in the day this was accomplished by smoking. Timing smoke breaks with the bosses was the way a lot of strategic dumbasses climbed the ladder. Basically, you have to find something safe to have phatic communication about so you can establish some rapport before you can get down to the brass tacks. Of course the work of establishing that report is usually uni-directional from the bottom up. Which is why it is known as "ass kissing"
posted by srboisvert at 9:35 AM on October 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
“Music also works,” says ex-music writer/ former only girl at record store. “No guarantees that being able to discuss the Royal Trux discography at length will help you network, though.”
Back in the day this was accomplished by smoking. Timing smoke breaks with the bosses was the way a lot of strategic dumbasses climbed the ladder. Basically, you have to find something safe to have phatic communication about so you can establish some rapport before you can get down to the brass tacks. Of course the work of establishing that report is usually uni-directional from the bottom up. Which is why it is known as "ass kissing"
posted by srboisvert at 9:35 AM on October 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
My wife was associate chair of her department (she liked to be called Ass Chair) for the last 3 years. She is a furiously fast typist and always explained herself in all of her emails and spent a lot of time managing other people's emotions writing paragraphs and paragraphs. Email ate her life and I am glad to have her back now that she is no longer ass chair.
One of her mentors, the late chair of her previous department, was infamous for writing one word emails: "Fine".
posted by srboisvert at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
One of her mentors, the late chair of her previous department, was infamous for writing one word emails: "Fine".
posted by srboisvert at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
Coming back in to post one additional thought after reading several comments above. Efficiency in our society has been considered the great good for only 2-3 generations. It resulted from the mechanization and war mongering of the 20th century. it addresses a particular kind of problem, scale and homogeneity.
all of these things are still present in our civilization, but the nature of our problems has changed. a steady hand is needed, but also an ability to synthesize multiple constituents, contradictory trends, and emotional arguments into a coherent vision. my understanding of the article is not "action-oriented"="bad," or "football coach"="sexual assaulter," but that "cut to the chase" answers are not going to solve wicked problems.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
all of these things are still present in our civilization, but the nature of our problems has changed. a steady hand is needed, but also an ability to synthesize multiple constituents, contradictory trends, and emotional arguments into a coherent vision. my understanding of the article is not "action-oriented"="bad," or "football coach"="sexual assaulter," but that "cut to the chase" answers are not going to solve wicked problems.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
There was a story on the radio this morning about sexual abuse on Canada's Olympic gymnastics team, and it reminded me that that, too, is a product of the "trust and obey" ethos of the Cult of Coach. You're supposed to just listen and do what the coach says, because the coach knows best. In certain situations, it's ripe for abuse.
posted by clawsoon at 10:14 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 10:14 AM on October 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
This seems like kind of a mess to me. Conflating Coach Taylor's terse style with Kavanaugh's anger, dismissiveness, and lying, and putting the whole thing under the umbrella of "white male leadership style" is a problem. And Kavanaugh's example doesn't begin to prove that his style works. He has the lowest national approval of any confirmed justice, ever, and scraped through on what was almost a strict party-line vote in an incredibly partisan era. There is no justice on the court who had less support than he does. That's a very poor example of a supposedly successful style.
I'm also really hung up on the part where her students performed better, and she still isn't willing to consider that maybe the Coach Taylor style has some advantages, or that it could be one tool in a diverse set of leadership strategies that needs to be employed sometimes. (I'm very much on Team Multiple Styles for Multiple Situations). If her students are doing better with a terse style, isn't it doing them a disservice to refuse to employ it? What exactly is the downside? That the students don't feel they are equal partners in a collaboration with a tenured PhD? I think we can live with that.
With colleagues, it's a different matter. You don't want to be a dictator. But sometimes there's nothing more productive to say, and someone needs to make the call. You might be able to serve your organization best by doing that. That isn't an argument for "Be Coach Taylor All The Time." The leadership of the church I am a part of just rolled out a plan for the future that no one outside of a select few had any hand in crafting, and I called up the pastor for a long talk about what a disaster for community morale that kind of top-down, anti-collaborative leadership model is. In some settings, for some kinds of decisions, being Coach Taylor won't fire up the team, it'll burn them out. But this article, where Dr. Taylor started off opposed to the Coach Taylor style, then tried it, got good results with less energy, and concluded "yeah, no one should do that" just mystifies me. An essay about why she thinks that style is problematic and what the research shows about its downsides would be a lot more persuasive than "It works for men! It works for women! It takes less energy! Students perform better! We have to stop doing this!"
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:03 AM on October 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
I'm also really hung up on the part where her students performed better, and she still isn't willing to consider that maybe the Coach Taylor style has some advantages, or that it could be one tool in a diverse set of leadership strategies that needs to be employed sometimes. (I'm very much on Team Multiple Styles for Multiple Situations). If her students are doing better with a terse style, isn't it doing them a disservice to refuse to employ it? What exactly is the downside? That the students don't feel they are equal partners in a collaboration with a tenured PhD? I think we can live with that.
With colleagues, it's a different matter. You don't want to be a dictator. But sometimes there's nothing more productive to say, and someone needs to make the call. You might be able to serve your organization best by doing that. That isn't an argument for "Be Coach Taylor All The Time." The leadership of the church I am a part of just rolled out a plan for the future that no one outside of a select few had any hand in crafting, and I called up the pastor for a long talk about what a disaster for community morale that kind of top-down, anti-collaborative leadership model is. In some settings, for some kinds of decisions, being Coach Taylor won't fire up the team, it'll burn them out. But this article, where Dr. Taylor started off opposed to the Coach Taylor style, then tried it, got good results with less energy, and concluded "yeah, no one should do that" just mystifies me. An essay about why she thinks that style is problematic and what the research shows about its downsides would be a lot more persuasive than "It works for men! It works for women! It takes less energy! Students perform better! We have to stop doing this!"
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:03 AM on October 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
Part of what you accomplish by working in a collaborative fashion with dialogue, debate, an effort to treat all voices fairly, and show respect for others and acknowledgement of their fundamental autonomy as human beings is...
An environment in which respect and collaboration are the norm.
You reduce heirarchy to a tool that is not employed reflexively and without consideration for its impact on personal relationships - which exist both within and without the context of whatever heirarchical structure is understood by all parties. You foster a healthier self-confidence rather than one defined by strongly defensive reactions to continuous assertions of authority.
It is easy to argue that in specific situations a "grand old man" was the boss but everyone still felt good about themselves. (It is usually worth asking more marginalised individuals in the group if they really felt this way...). But even if a social situation is seen as healthy and stable under the aegis of a dominant figure, the question naturally arises - what happens when that figure is gone? How do the individuals in the group function and interact when the guiding force was regularly enforced heirarchy rather than principles of collaboration and a consensus that respect for all individuals was a given?
Moreover, it is impossible to divorce the way this plays out from the social context in which it exists - the coach Taylor approach functions not just on a foundation of organisational position but also in the context of assumptions about primacy based on gender, race, class, heteronormativity, etc. Can you imagine the show if coach Taylor were a financially struggling disabled black trans woman?
The author tries on the approach, but effectively from an existing position only one step removed from white male. How would it have played out if she started from a less-relatively advantaged position?
Part of the author's work is helping her students develop as good adult humans and as individuals who will function in an academic environment. Like all of us, she holds views about what constitutes positive and negative social dynamics. I suspect her students get plenty of examples of coach Taylor in their lives without her needing to provide another.
Even if she found the coach Taylor approach effective in achieving one part of her work, does that necessarily mean she should ignore the other effects it has?
posted by allium cepa at 2:55 PM on October 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
An environment in which respect and collaboration are the norm.
You reduce heirarchy to a tool that is not employed reflexively and without consideration for its impact on personal relationships - which exist both within and without the context of whatever heirarchical structure is understood by all parties. You foster a healthier self-confidence rather than one defined by strongly defensive reactions to continuous assertions of authority.
It is easy to argue that in specific situations a "grand old man" was the boss but everyone still felt good about themselves. (It is usually worth asking more marginalised individuals in the group if they really felt this way...). But even if a social situation is seen as healthy and stable under the aegis of a dominant figure, the question naturally arises - what happens when that figure is gone? How do the individuals in the group function and interact when the guiding force was regularly enforced heirarchy rather than principles of collaboration and a consensus that respect for all individuals was a given?
Moreover, it is impossible to divorce the way this plays out from the social context in which it exists - the coach Taylor approach functions not just on a foundation of organisational position but also in the context of assumptions about primacy based on gender, race, class, heteronormativity, etc. Can you imagine the show if coach Taylor were a financially struggling disabled black trans woman?
The author tries on the approach, but effectively from an existing position only one step removed from white male. How would it have played out if she started from a less-relatively advantaged position?
Part of the author's work is helping her students develop as good adult humans and as individuals who will function in an academic environment. Like all of us, she holds views about what constitutes positive and negative social dynamics. I suspect her students get plenty of examples of coach Taylor in their lives without her needing to provide another.
Even if she found the coach Taylor approach effective in achieving one part of her work, does that necessarily mean she should ignore the other effects it has?
posted by allium cepa at 2:55 PM on October 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
Has no one who writes these "I wore a baseball cap for 2 weeks and was kind of a dick to people and now I know what it's like to Be a Man" articles ever talked to a trans man? You know, someone who has thought about and lived with this kind of stuff for more than 2 weeks?
posted by speicus at 5:00 PM on October 22, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by speicus at 5:00 PM on October 22, 2018 [8 favorites]
Mmnnnn here's the thing. A good leader listens, then decides. If you do too much listening and don't decide firmly, you're not a good leader (you might be a facilitator). If you don't listen and simply issue orders, you're also not a good leader (you might be a dictator).
It always comes back to Captain Jean-Luc Picard as the best.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:18 AM on October 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
It always comes back to Captain Jean-Luc Picard as the best.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:18 AM on October 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
« Older Day of the Devs | Love. Always. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clawsoon at 12:21 PM on October 21, 2018 [1 favorite]