The Use of Female Speech Patterns
How communicating in a female manner tends to lower male status
One of the things that has become very clear over the past few days of discourse on this site is the fundamental difference between conventional male and female patterns of communications. These differences, which are readily visible even in the written format, are even more obvious when vocalized.
Consider, by way of example, two extremes taken from some recent discussions here. Content aside, it probably would not even be necessary to label them to know which quote was written by a female commenter and which one was posted by a male commenter.
FEMALE: We really truly are trying to work out a full systematic description of all of this. I have done blog posts for decades on the experience of "being a woman," we have done multiple sets of Mosaic Ark videos on it, there is an ongoing discussion on my Telegram channel/chat about it, and I have written (as Vox knows) extensively on the effects of feminism on women's ability to see their relationships with each other and men clearly. HOWEVER: everything that you guys in SocialGalactic and here have seen is reduced to a few comments on blogposts, which means, no, of course I haven't explained it all OR reduced it to a simple system (we're working on that).
MALE: The thing with the SSH is that the socio and the sexual align. The male profiles are the same whether among men or women. The guy who produces a male response to Bravos among men produces a female reaction to Bravos among women. Different reactions, obviously, but the profiles hold up. Female status in the social and romantic domains isn’t consistent like this, at least according to the discussions. Intra and inter-sex impacts aren’t totally unrelated, but not totally consistent either. There may be structural consistency, but if so, it isn’t obvious behind so many moving parts.
Observe the differences. 39.3 words per sentence vs 13.9 words per sentence. 5 neo-parentheticals vs none. A disjointed flow broken up by constant attempts to clarify and explain vs a logical progression from one topic to the next. Six self-references vs zero. About the only thing that is missing is the usual rhetorical questions.
Now, the point here is not to criticize female modes of communication or to pronounce the superiority of one form over another, but rather a) to accept that these differences exist and b) to utilize them as a means of analyzing male status.
And what I have observed is that the lower the male status, the more likely he is to utilize one or more female modes of communication. These include:
Talking too much.
Talking too fast.
Interrupting frequently and talking over the other party’s speech.
Inserting parentheticals and clarifications.
Offering unrequested explanations.
Going into multiple levels of detail.
Asking rhetorical questions.
Posing questions to which the answer is already necessarily implied.
Seeking clarifications and definitions.
Self-references.
Making the interlocutor the subject.
Leaping from tangent to tangent.
Utilizing a sharp, high-pitched tone of voice.
Conversational aggressiveness.
Redirecting the conversation toward oneself.
No doubt there are more of these speech patterns worthy of note, and perhaps some of you can add a few of them in the comments as they happen to occur to you. But the important takeaway is the observation that the more female a man’s form of speech tends to be, the lower his SSH status is perceived to be.
And therefore, if you wish to rise up within the SSH, it is advisable to adopt more masculine speech patterns while eliminating the female patterns from your communications with men and women alike.
You’re simply never going to be perceived by anyone as a strong, silent Clint Eastwood-type if your communications style can be reasonably described as “Chatty Kathy”.
When men talk about ideas, you wouldn't necessarily know if they subscribe to an idea.
When women talk about an idea, they often use adjectives that make it clear how they view the idea and how the reader/ listener should view the idea.
I ran a restaurant and two bars in a 4-star hotel underneath a female GM and alongside another man. Time and time again when myself and my other male colleague would recommend promoting a well-trained, proven male employee to a leadership role, she would respond with, "who, him? No, I don't like the way that he talks to me," or, "him? No, he's just weird." We both ended up leaving because the restaurant would crash time and time again during busy services and she'd tie our hands on implementing solutions because of how it made her look. The same large hotel corporation denied a raise from a 10% increase to an 18% increase after a performance evaluation because, and I quote, "we can't give such a raise to a white male. That's just not going to happen. How would it look?" My director filled me in to those details off the record. I left shortly afterwards.