The Myth of Mars and Venus

What language barrier?

It is a truism that men and women do not communicate in the same way. But is there really any evidence to support this Mars-and-Venus theory? Oxford language professor De orah !ameron investigates in the first of three extracts from her new oo" De orah !ameron The Guardian# Monday Octo er $# %&&' Do men and women spea" the same language? !an they ever really communicate? (hese )uestions are not new# ut since the early $**&s there has een a new surge of interest in them. !ountless self-help and popular psychology oo"s have een written portraying men and women as alien eings# and conversation etween them as a catalogue of misunderstandings. (he most successful exponents of this formula# such as De orah (annen# author of +ou ,ust Don-t .nderstand# and ,ohn /ray# author of Men 0re 1rom Mars# 2omen 0re 1rom Venus# have topped the estseller lists on oth sides of the 0tlantic. 0dvice on how to ridge the communication gulf etween the sexes has grown into a flourishing multimedia industry. /ray-s official we site# for instance# promotes not only his various Mars and Venus oo"s# ut also seminars# residential retreats# a telephone helpline and a dating service. 3eaders who prefer something a little harder-edged can turn to a genre of popular science oo"s with titles such as Brain 4ex# 4ex on the Brain# (he 5ssential Difference# and 2hy Men Don-t Iron. (hese explain that the gulf etween men and women is a product of nature# not nurture. (he sexes communicate differently 6and women do it etter7 ecause of the way their rains are wired. (he female rain excels in ver al tas"s whereas the male rain is etter adapted to visualspatial and mathematical tas"s. 2omen li"e to tal"8 men prefer action to words. 2riters in this vein are fond of presenting themselves as latter-day /alileos# raving the wrath of the political correctness lo y y daring to challenge the feminist orthodoxy that denies that men and women are y nature profoundly different. 4imon Baron-!ohen# the author of (he 5ssential Difference# explains in his introduction that he put the oo" aside for several years ecause 9the topic was :ust too politically sensitive9. In the chapter on male-female differences in his oo" a out human nature# (he Blan" 4late# 4teven ;in"er congratulates himself on having the courage to say what has long een 9unsaya le in polite company9. Both writers stress that they have no political axe to grind< they are simply following the evidence where it leads# and trying to put scientific facts in place of politically correct dogma. +et efore we applaud# we should perhaps pause to as" ourselves< since when has silence reigned a out the differences etween men and women? !ertainly not since the early $**&s# when the previous steady tric"le of oo"s egan to develop into a raging torrent. By now# a writer who announces that sex-differences are natural is not 9saying the unsaya le9< he or she is stating the o vious. (he proposition that men and women communicate differently is particularly uncontroversial# with cliches such as 9men never listen9 and 9women find it easier to tal" a out their feelings9 referenced constantly in everything from women-s maga=ines to humorous greeting cards.

(he idea that men and women 9spea" different languages9 has itself ecome a dogma# treated not as a hypothesis to e investigated or as a claim to e ad:udicated# ut as an un)uestioned article of faith. Our faith in it is misplaced. >i"e the scientists I have mentioned# I elieve in following the evidence where it leads. But in this case# the evidence does not lead where most people thin" it does. If we examine the findings of more than ?& years of research on language# communication and the sexes# we will discover that they tell a different# and more complicated# story. (he idea that men and women differ fundamentally in the way they use language to communicate is a myth in the everyday sense< a widespread ut false elief. But it is also a myth in the sense of eing a story people tell in order to explain who they are# where they have come from# and why they live as they do. 2hether or not they are 9true9 in any historical or scientific sense# such stories have conse)uences in the real world. (hey shape our eliefs# and so influence our actions. (he myth of Mars and Venus is no exception to that rule. 1or example# the wor"place is a domain in which myths a out language and the sexes can have detrimental effects. 0 few years ago# the manager of a call centre in north-east 5ngland was as"ed y an interviewer why women made up such a high proportion of the agents he employed. Did men not apply for :o s in his centre? (he manager replied that any vacancies attracted numerous applicants of oth sexes# ut# he explained< 92e are loo"ing for people who can chat to people# interact# uild rapport. 2hat we find is that women can do this more ... women are naturally good at that sort of thing.9 Moments later# he admitted< 9I suppose we do# if we-re honest# select women sometimes ecause they are women rather than ecause of something they-ve particularly shown in the interview.9 (he growth of call centres is part of a larger trend in economically advanced societies. More :o s are now in the service than the manufacturing sector# and service :o s# particularly those that involve direct contact with customers# put a higher premium on language and communication s"ills. Many employers share the call-centre manager-s elief that women are y nature etter )ualified than men for :o s of this "ind# and one result is a form of discrimination. Male :o applicants have to prove that they possess the necessary s"ills# whereas women are :ust assumed to possess them. In today-s increasingly service- ased economy# this may not e good news for men. But it is not only men who stand to lose ecause of the widespread conviction that women have superior ver al s"ills. 4omeone else who thin"s men and women are naturally suited to different "inds of wor" is Baron-!ohen. In (he 5ssential Difference he offers the following 9scientific9 careers advice< 9;eople with the female rain ma"e the most wonderful counsellors# primary school teachers# nurses# carers# therapists# social wor"ers# mediators# group facilitators or personnel staff ... ;eople with the male rain ma"e the most wonderful scientists# engineers# mechanics# technicians# musicians# architects# electricians# plum ers# taxonomists# catalogists# an"ers# toolma"ers# programmers or even lawyers.9 (he difference etween the two lists reflects what Baron-!ohen ta"es to e the 9essential difference9 etween male and female rains. (he female- rain :o s ma"e use of a capacity for empathy and communication# whereas the male ones exploit the a ility to analyse complex systems. Baron-!ohen is careful to tal" a out -9people with the female@male rain9 rather than 9men and women9. Ae stresses that there are men with female rains# women with male rains# and individuals of oth sexes with 9 alanced9 rains. Ae refers to the ma:or rain types as 9male9 and 9female9# however# ecause the tendency is for males to have male rains and females to

have female rains. 0nd at many points it ecomes clear that in spite of his caveats a out not confusing gender with rain sex# he himself is doing exactly that. (he passage reproduced a ove is a good example. Baron-!ohen classifies nursing as a femalerain# empathy- ased :o 6though if a caring and empathetic nurse cannot measure dosages accurately and ma"e systematic clinical o servations she or he ris"s doing serious harm7 and law as a male- rain# system-analysing :o 6though a lawyer# however well versed in the law# will not get far without communication and people-reading s"ills7. (hese categorisations are not ased on a dispassionate analysis of the demands made y the two :o s. (hey are ased on the everyday common-sense "nowledge that most nurses are women and most lawyers are men. If you read the two lists in their entirety# it is hard not to e struc" y another 9essential difference9< the male :o s are more varied# more creative# and etter rewarded than their female counterparts. Baron-!ohen-s :o -lists ta"e me ac" to my schooldays ?B years ago# when the aptitude tests we had to complete efore eing interviewed y a careers adviser were printed on pin" or lue paper. In those days we called this sexism# not science. 0t its most asic# what I am calling 9the myth of Mars and Venus9 is simply the proposition that men and women differ fundamentally in the way they use language to communicate. 0ll versions of the myth share this asic premise8 most versions# in addition# ma"e some or all of the following claims< 1 >anguage and communication matter more to women than to men8 women tal" more than men. 2 2omen are more ver ally s"illed than men. 3 Men-s goals in using language tend to e a out getting things done# whereas women-s tend to e a out ma"ing connections to other people. Men tal" more a out things and facts# whereas women tal" more a out people# relationships and feelings. 4 Men-s way of using language is competitive# reflecting their general interest in ac)uiring and maintaining status8 women-s use of language is cooperative# reflecting their preference for e)uality and harmony. 5 (hese differences routinely lead to 9miscommunication9 etween the sexes# with each sex misinterpreting the other-s intentions. (his causes pro lems in contexts where men and women regularly interact# and especially in heterosexual relationships. (he literature of Mars and Venus# in oth the self-help and popular science genres# is remar"a ly patronising towards men. (hey come off as ullies# petulant toddlers8 or Ceanderthals sul"ing in their caves. One 6male7 contri utor to this catalogue of stereotypes goes so far as to call his oo" If Men !ould (al". 0 oo" called If 2omen !ould (hin" would e instantly denounced8 why do men put up with oo"s that put them on a par with >assie or 4"ippy the Bush Dangaroo 69Aey# wait a minute - I thin" he-s trying to tell us somethingE97? ;erhaps men have realised that a reputation for incompetence can sometimes wor" to your advantage. >i"e the idea that they are no good at housewor"# the idea that men are no good at tal"ing serves to exempt them from doing something that many would rather leave to women anyway. 6(hough it is only some "inds of tal"ing that men would rather leave to women< in many

contexts men have no difficulty expressing themselves - indeed# they tend to dominate the conversation.7 (his should remind us that the relationship etween the sexes is not only a out difference# ut also a out power. (he long-standing expectation that women will serve and care for others is not unrelated to their position as the 9second sex9. But in the universe of Mars and Venus# the fact that we 6still7 live in a male-dominated society is li"e an elephant in the room that everyone pretends not to notice. My father# li"e many men of his generation# held the elief that women were incompetent drivers. During my teenage years# family car :ourneys were invaria ly accompanied y an endless running commentary on how adly the women around us were driving. 5ventually I ecame so irritated y this# I too" to scouring passing traffic for counter-examples< women who were driving perfectly well# and men who were driving li"e idiots. My father usually conceded that the men were idiots# ut not ecause they were men. 2hereas female idiocy was axiomatically caused y femaleness# su standard male drivers were either 9yo os9 - people with no consideration for others on the road or anywhere else - or 94unday drivers9< older men whose driving s"ills were poor ecause they used their cars only at wee"ends. 0s for the women who drove unremar"a ly# my father seemed surprised when I pointed them out. It was as if he had literally not noticed them until that moment. 0t the time I thought my father was exceptional in his a ility to ma"e reality fit his preconceptions# ut now I "now he was not. ;sychologists have found in experimental studies that when interpreting situations people typically pay most attention to things that match their expectations# and often fail to register counter-examples. It is not hard to see how these tendencies might lead readers of Mars and Venus oo"s to 9recognise9 generalisations a out the way men and women use language# provided those generalisations fit with already familiar stereotypes. 0n anecdote illustrating the point that# say# men are competitive and women cooperative conversationalists will prompt readers to recall the many occasions on which they have o served men competing and women cooperating - while not recalling the occasions# perhaps e)ually numerous# on which they have o served the opposite. If counter-examples do come to mind 692hat a out ,anet? 4he-s the most competitive person I "now97# it is open to readers to apply the classic strategy of putting them in a separate category of exceptions 69of course# she grew up with three rothers @ is the only woman in her department @ wor"s in a particularly competitive usiness97. In relation to men and women# our most asic stereotypical expectation is simply that they will e different rather than the same. 2e actively loo" for differences# and see" out sources that discuss them. Most research studies investigating the ehaviour of men and women are designed around the )uestion< is there a difference? 0nd the presumption is usually that there will e. If a study finds a significant difference etween male and female su :ects# that is considered to e a 9positive9 finding# and has a good chance of eing pu lished. 0 study that finds no significant differences is less li"ely to e pu lished. Most people# of course# do not read academic :ournals< they get their information a out scientific research findings from the reports that appear in newspapers# or from (V science documentaries. (hese sources often feature research on male-female differences# since media producers "now that there is interest in the su :ect. But the criteria producers use when deciding

which studies to report and how to present them introduce another layer of distortion. 0nd sometimes headlines trumpet so-called facts that turn out# on investigation# to have no asis in evidence at all. In %&&F# for instance# a popular science oo" called (he 1emale Brain claimed that women on average utter %&#&&& words a day# while men on average utter only '#&&&. (his was perfect material for sound ite science - it confirmed the popular elief that women are not only the more tal"ative sex ut three times as much - and was reported in newspapers around the world. One person who found it impossi le to elieve was Mar" >i erman# a professor of phonetics who has wor"ed extensively with recorded speech. Ais scepticism prompted him to delve into the footnotes of (he 1emale Brain to find out where the author had got her figures. 2hat he found was not an academic citation ut a reference to a self-help oo". 1ollowing the trail into the thic"ets of popular literature# >i erman came across several competing statistical claims. (he figures varied wildly< different authors 6and sometimes even the same author in different oo"s7 gave average female daily word-counts ranging from G#&&& to %B#&&& words. 0s far as >i erman could tell# all these num ers were pluc"ed from thin air< in no case did anyone cite any actual research to ac" them up. Ae concluded that no one had ever done a study counting the words produced y a sample of men and women in the course of a single day. (he claims were so varia le ecause they were pure guesswor". 0fter >i erman pointed this out in a newspaper article# the author of (he 1emale Brain conceded that her claim was not supported y evidence and said it would e deleted from future editions. But the damage was already done< the much-pu licised sound ite that women tal" three times as much as men will linger in people-s memories and get recycled in their conversations# whereas the little-pu licised retraction will ma"e no such impression. (his is how myths ac)uire the status of facts. Do women and men really speak so differently? In %&&B# an article appeared in the :ournal 0merican ;sychologist with the title (he /ender 4imilarities Aypothesis. (his title stood out as unusual# ecause# as we have seen# the aim of most research studies is to find differences rather than similarities etween men and women. +et# as the article-s author ,anet 4 Ayde pointed out# on closer inspection# the results of these studies very often show more similarity than difference. Ayde is a psychologist who specialises in 9meta-analysis9# a statistical techni)ue that allows the analyst to collate many different research findings and draw overall conclusions from them. 4cientists elieve that one study on its own does not show anything< results are only considered relia le if a num er of different studies have replicated them. 4uppose that the )uestion is< who interrupts more# men or women? 4ome studies will have found that men interrupt more# others that women do# and others may have found no significant difference. In some studies the reported gender difference will e large# while in others it will e much smaller. (he num er of people whose ehaviour was investigated will also vary from study to study. Meta-analysis ena les you to aggregate the various results# controlling for things that ma"e them difficult to compare directly# and calculate the overall effect of gender on interruption. Ayde used this techni)ue to review a large num er of studies concerned with all "inds of putative male-female differences. In (a le $# I have extracted the results for :ust those studies that dealt with gender differences in linguistic and communicative ehaviour.

(o read this ta le you need to "now that 9d9 is the formula indicating the si=e of the overall gender difference< minus values for 9d9 indicate that females are ahead of males# whereas plus values indicate that males are ahead of females. Gender differences in erbal!communicati e beha iour "ocus of research ! #o$ of studies analysed ! %alue of d ! &ffect si'e 3eading comprehension< %? @ -&.&F @ close to =ero Voca ulary< GG @ -&.&%-H&.&F @close to =ero 4pelling< BI @ -&.GB @ moderate Ver al reasoning< BI @ -&.&% @ close to =ero 4peech production< $% @ -&.?? @ small !onversational interruption< '& @ H&.$B-H&.?? @ small (al"ativeness< '? @ -&.$$ @ small 0ssertive speech< 'B @ H&.$$ @ small 0ffiliative speech< GF @ -&.%F @ small 4elf disclosure< %&B @ -&.$J @ small 4miling< G$J @ -&.G& @ moderate ( Cote< asteris"s indicate cases where the small num er of studies analysed is compensated for y the fact that they were conducted with very large controlled samples. 4ource< adapted from Ayde# -(he /ender 4imilarities Aypothesis-. 4o# for instance# the ta le tells us that when the findings of different studies are aggregated# the overall conclusion is that men interrupt more than women and women self-disclose more than men. Aowever# the really interesting information is in the last column# which tells us whether the actual figure given for d indicates an effect that is very large# large# moderate# small# or close to =ero. In almost every case# the overall difference made y gender is either small or close to =ero. (wo items# spelling accuracy and fre)uency of smiling# show a larger effect - ut it is still only moderate. (here were a few areas in which Ayde did find that the effect of gender was large or very large. 1or instance# studies of aggression and of how far people can throw things have shown a considera le gap etween the sexes 6men are more aggressive and can throw further7. But in studies of ver al a ilities and ehaviour# the differences were slight. (his is not a new o servation. In $*JJ Ayde and her colleague Marcia >inn carried out a meta-analysis of research dealing specifically with gender differences in ver al a ility. (he conclusion they came to was that the difference etween men and women amounted to 9a out one-tenth of one standard deviation9 - statistician-spea" for 9negligi le9. 0nother scholar who has considered this )uestion#

the linguist ,ac" !ham ers# suggests that the degree of non-overlap in the a ilities of male and female spea"ers in any given population is 9a out &.%BK9. (hat-s an overlap of **.'BK. It follows that for any array of ver al a ilities found in an individual woman# there will almost certainly e a man with exactly the same array. !ham ers- reference to individual men and women points to another pro lem with generalisations such as 9men interrupt more than women9 or 9women are more tal"ative than men9. 0s well as underplaying their similarities# statements of the form 9women do this and men do that9 disguise the extent of the variation that exists within each gender group. 5xplaining why he had reacted with instant scepticism to the claim that women tal" three times as much as men# >i erman predicted< 92hatever the average female versus male difference turns out to e# it will e small compared with the variation among women and among men.9 1ocusing on the differences etween men and women while ignoring the differences within them is extremely misleading ut# unfortunately# all too common. Do women really talk more than men? If we are going to try to generalise a out which sex tal"s more# a relia le way to do it is to o serve oth sexes in a single interaction# and measure their respective contri utions. (his cuts out extraneous varia les that are li"ely to affect the amount of tal" 6li"e whether someone is spending their day at a Buddhist retreat or a high school reunion7# and allows for a comparison of male and female ehaviour under the same contextual conditions. Cumerous studies have een done using this approach# and while the results have een mixed# the commonest finding is that men tal" more than women. One review of BF research studies categorises their findings as shown here< )attern of difference found ! #umber of studies Men tal" more than women @ ?G 6F&.JK7 2omen tal" more than men @ % 6?.FK7 Men and women tal" the same amount @ $F 6%J.FK7 Co clear pattern @ G 6'.&K7 ( 4ource< ased on De orah ,ames and ,anice Dra"ich# -.nderstanding /ender Differences in 0mount of (al"-# in De orah (annen 6ed.7# /ender and !onversational (he reviewers are inclined to elieve that this is a case of gender and amount of tal" eing lin"ed indirectly rather than directly< the more direct lin" is with status# in com ination with the formality of the setting 6status tends to e more relevant in formal situations7. (he asic trend# especially in formal and pu lic contexts# is for higher-status spea"ers to tal" more than lower-status ones. (he gender pattern is explained y the o servation that in most contexts where status is relevant# men are more li"ely than women to occupy high-status positions8 if all other things are e)ual# gender itself is a hierarchical system in which men are regarded as having higher status. 93egarded9 is an important word here# ecause conversational dominance is not :ust a out the way dominant spea"ers ehave8 it is also a out the willingness of others to defer to them. 4ome

experimental studies have found that you can reverse the 9men tal" more9 pattern# or at least reduce the gap# y instructing su :ects to discuss a topic that oth sexes consider a distinctively female area of expertise. 4tatus# then# is not a completely fixed attri ute# ut can vary relative to the setting# su :ect and purpose of conversation. (hat may e why some studies find that women tal" more in domestic interactions with partners and family mem ers< in the domestic sphere# women are often seen as eing in charge. In other spheres# however# the default assumption is that men outran" women# and men are usually found to tal" more. In informal contexts where status is not an issue# the commonest finding is not that women tal" more than men# it is that the two sexes contri ute a out e)ually. If it does not reflect reality# why is the fol"- elief that women tal" more than men so persistent? (he feminist Dale 4pender once suggested an explanation< she said that people overestimate how much women tal" ecause they thin" that# ideally# women would not tal" at all. 2hile that may e rather sweeping# it is true that elief in female lo)uacity is generally com ined with disapproval of it. (he statement 9women tal" more than men9 tends to imply the :udgment 9women tal" too much9. 60s one old prover charmingly puts it< 9Many women# many words8 many geese# many turds.97 (he fol"- elief that women tal" more than men persists ecause it provides a :ustification for an ingrained social pre:udice. 5volutionary psychology is open to a similar criticism< that it ta"es today-s social pre:udices and pro:ects them ac" into prehistory# thus elevating them to the status of timeless truths a out the human condition. !hampions of the evolutionary approach often say it is their opponents whose arguments are ased on pre:udice rather than facts or logic. (hey complain that feminists and other 9;!9 types are unwilling even to consider the idea that sex-differences might have iological rather than social causes. Instead of :udging the arguments on their merits# these politically motivated critics :ust denounce them# and those who advance them# as reactionary and igoted. But their stories have a asic flaw< they are ased not on facts# ut on myths.

*peak up+ , can-t hear you

!an it really e true that men and women understand language in different ways? Consense# says De orah !ameron in this second extract from her new oo" - the supposed miscommunication is a myth Deborah .ameron /uesday 0ctober 2+ 2112 Guardian ,ohn /ray-s Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus contains a chapter entitled 4pea"ing Different >anguages. In it# /ray says that the 9original9 Martians and Venusians communicated without difficulty# ecause they "new their languages were mutually incomprehensi le. Modern men and women# y contrast# are under the illusion that they spea" the same language. But though the words they use may e the same# their meanings for each sex are different. (he result is that men and women often do not understand one another. (he idea that men and women metaphorically 9spea" different languages9 is not# of course# new# ut the myth of Mars and Venus has given it new currency and legitimacy. 2hat was once :ust a metaphor has ac)uired the status of literal# scientific truth. (oday# it is widely elieved that misunderstanding etween men and women is a widespread and serious pro lem. But is our concern a out it :ustified y the evidence# or is 9male-female miscommunication9 a myth? Before the myth of Mars and Venus# the idea that women communicate less directly than men was associated with concerns a out women-s alleged lac" of assertiveness and confidence. (he importance of spea"ing directly was a staple topic in assertiveness training# and advice ased on the same principle was common in self-help oo"s and women-s maga=ines# especially those addressed to professional women. 1or instance# a $**% article in Options maga=ine on 9$& classic career mista"es all women ma"e9 lists using 9tentative language9 as num er nine. 9Aow many times have you heard someone say things li"e# -I-m not really sure if I-m right# ut perhaps ...-?9 the article as"ed. 92ith that "ind of tal"# who is going to elieve we are confident in what we are saying? ... (oo often we ma"e statements as if they were )uestions# such as# -2e-ll ring the deadline forward# OD?-9 Options counsels women to avoid tentative language on the grounds that it ma"es them sound wea" and indecisive - the argument put forward y 3o in >a"off in her influential $*'&s text# Language and Woman's Place. But# over time# a different argument has ecome more popular. (he following tip comes from Glamour maga=ine< 94pea" directly to male su ordinates. 2omen tend to shy away from giving a latant order# ut men find the indirect approach manipulative and confusing.9 Aere women are told to spea" directly to men# not ecause indirectness undermines their authority# ut ecause men find it 9manipulative and confusing9. (he su stance of the advice has not changed# ut the theory ehind it has shifted from a 9deficit model9 of gender difference 6women-s ways of spea"ing are inferior to men-s7 to a 9cross-cultural approach9 6the two styles are e)ually valid# ut the difference etween them can lead to misunderstanding7. (his raises two )uestions. 1irst# if the male and female styles are e)ually valid# why does it always seem to e women who are told they must accommodate to men-s preferences - even# apparently# when the men are their su ordinates? Is avoiding male-female miscommunication an exclusively female responsi ility? 4econd# though# why is it assumed that indirectness causes miscommunication in the first place? 2hat is the evidence that men are confused y it?

Glamour is not the only source for this allegation. In a section of his oo" which explains how to as" men to do things# /ray says that women should avoid using indirect re)uests. 1or instance# they should not signal that they would li"e a man to ring in the shopping y saying# 9(he groceries are in the car9< they should as" him directly# y saying# 92ould you ring in the groceries?9 0nother mista"e women ma"e is to formulate re)uests using the word 9could9 rather than 9would9. 9-!ould you empty the trash?-#9 says /ray# 9is merely a )uestion gathering information. -2ould you empty the trash?- is a re)uest.9 /ray seems to e suggesting that men hear utterances such as 9!ould you empty the trash?9 as purely hypothetical )uestions a out their a ility to perform the action mentioned. But that is a patently ridiculous claim. Co competent user of 5nglish would ta"e 9!ould you empty the trash?9 as 9merely a )uestion gathering information9# any more than they would ta"e 9!ould you run a mile in four minutes?- as a polite re)uest to start running. /ray is right to thin" that the 9!ould you do L?9 formula has oth functions# ut wrong to suppose that this causes confusion. Auman languages are not codes in which each word or expression has a single# predetermined meaning. 3ather# human communication relies on the a ility of humans to put the words someone utters together with other information a out the world# and on that asis infer what the spea"er intended to communicate to them. 4ome individuals - for instance# people with autism - may indeed find indirectness confusing8 they find a great deal of human communication confusing# ecause their condition impairs their a ility to ma"e inferences a out what is going on in other people-s minds. But this "ind of pro lem is exceptional< we define it as a disa ility precisely ecause the a ility to infer othersintentions plays such a crucial role in communication. Does /ray thin" that maleness is a disa ility? 0nd if he really elieves men cannot process indirect re)uests from women# how does he explain the fact that men )uite fre)uently ma"e indirect re)uests to women? 0 friend once told me a story a out the family dinners of her childhood. 5ach night as the family sat down to eat# her father would examine the food on his plate and then say to his wife something li"e# 9Is there any "etchup# Vera?9 Ais wife would then get up and fetch whatever condiment he had mentioned. 0ccording to /ray-s theory# he should have reacted with surprise< 9Oh# I didn-t mean I wanted "etchup# I was :ust as"ing whether we had any.9 Ceedless to say# that was not his reaction. Both he and his wife understood 9Is there any "etchup?9 as an indirect re)uest to get the "etchup# rather than 9merely a )uestion gathering information9. +et if my friend made the same re)uest# her mother-s response was different< she treated it as an information )uestion and said# 9+es# dear# it-s in the cup oard.9 ;resuma ly# that was not ecause she had suddenly ecome incapa le of understanding indirectness. 3ather# she pretended to hear her daughter-s re)uest as an information )uestion ecause she wanted to send her a message along the lines of# 9I may get "etchup for your father# ut I don-t feel o liged to do the same for you.9 2hat this example illustrates is that some 9misunderstandings9 are tactical rather than real. ;retending not to understand what someone wants you to do is one way to avoid doing it. (his may e what is really going on when a man claims not to have recognised a woman-s 9!ould you empty the trash?9 or 9(he groceries are in the car9 as a re)uest. (he 9real9 conflict is not a out what was meant# it is a out who is entitled to expect what services from whom. By recasting this type of domestic dispute as a pro lem of 9male-female miscommunication9# the myth of Mars and Venus :ust o scures the real issue. 0nd while arguments a out who empties

the trash or unloads the groceries may e petty# there are other conflicts etween men and women where far more is at sta"e. 0t a !anadian university in the $**&s# two women students made complaints against the same male student after they discovered y chance that they had oth# on separate occasions# gone out on a date with him and een sexually assaulted at the end of the evening. (heir complaints were heard y a university tri unal whose proceedings were recorded for a linguistic research pro:ect. >i"e many rape and sexual assault cases# this one turned on whether or not the defendant could reasona ly have elieved that the complainants consented to sex. Both incidents had egun consensually# with the women inviting the man into their room and engaging in activities such as "issing and touching8 ut they claimed he had gone on to force them into further sexual activity which they made clear they did not want. Ae maintained that they did want it - or at least# had said nothing to ma"e him thin" they did not. In this extract from the hearing# one of the complainants# MB# has :ust told the tri unal that the defendant persisted in touching her even after she had repeatedly communicated to him that she did not want to have sex. 0 tri unal mem er# /D# then as"s her the following )uestion< 90nd did it occur to you through the persistent ehaviour that may e your signals were not coming across loud and clear# that -I-m not getting through what I want and what I don-t want?- . . . (his is the whole thing a out getting signals mixed up. 2e all socialise in one way or the other to read signals and to give signals. In that particular context# were you at all concerned your signals were not eing read exactly and did you thin"# since signals were not eing read correctly for you# -4hould I do something different with my signals?-9 /D evidently interprets the incident as a case of miscommunication 69getting signals mixed up97. 4he also appears to hold the complainant responsi le for the rea"down in communication. 4he phrases her initial )uestion using a formula 69Did it occur to you that . . . ?97 which usually implies that the point should have occurred to the addressee. Aer su se)uent )uestions 692ere you at all concerned that . . . ?9# 9Did you thin" that . . . MyouN should . . . ?97 are phrased in a similarly loaded way. /D is not so much as"ing a out MB-s view of events as communicating her own< MB should have realised that her signals were not getting through# and she should have acted on that realisation y 9doing something different with MherN signals9. 4usan 5hrlich# the linguist who analysed the tri unal proceedings# notes that the defendant is never challenged in the same way a out his response to the complainants- signals. 0t one point he is as"ed why he persisted in sexual activity with MB when she was either asleep or pretending to e asleep. Ae replies. 94he said that she was tired# you "now# she never said li"e -Co-# -4top-# -Don-t-# you "now# -Don-t do this-# uhm# -/et out of ed-.9 Co ody as"s him why he did not consider the possi ility that y saying she was tired and then apparently falling asleep# MB was communicating that she wanted him to stop. +ou don-t have to e a roc"et scientist to wor" out that someone who feigns unconsciousness while in ed with you pro a ly doesn-t want to have sex. But no ody criticises the defendant for eing so o tuse. In these proceedings# the assumption does seem to e that avoiding miscommunication is not a shared responsi ility# ut specifically a female one. (his assumption oth reflects and reinforces the traditional tendency of rape trials - especially where the parties are ac)uainted - to focus more on the character and ehaviour of the complainant than on that of the alleged perpetrator. Aer clothing# her alcohol consumption# her

previous sexual conduct and reputation# are all scrutinised minutely for any sign that she might have een willing all along. By suggesting that men have trou le understanding any refusal which is not maximally direct# the myth of Mars and Venus has added to the urden :udicial proceedings place on women who claim to have een raped. (hey can now e challenged not only to prove that they did not consent to sex# ut also that they refused in a manner sufficiently direct to preclude misunderstanding. (he women in the !anadian case were una le to satisfy the tri unal on that point. (he tri unal-s written :udgment criticised their ehaviour< 9(here is little dou t that oth complainants did not expressly o :ect to some of the activity that too" place that evening. It is also clear that their actions at times did not une)uivocally indicate a lac" of willing participation.9 (he defendant was found guilty# ut the tri unal declined to impose the recommended punishment# expulsion from the university. Instead# they anned him from campus dormitory uildings. (his decision reflected their view that the complainants were partly responsi le for what had happened to them. Aad they communicated differently# they could have prevented it. (hat idea also features prominently in sex education and 9rape prevention9 programmes# which instruct women that if they do not want to have sex they should 9,ust say no9. It is stressed that a woman-s refusal should ta"e the form of a firm# unvarnished 9Co9 6spo"en in a tone and accompanied y ody language that ma"e clear it is a real# rather than a to"en# refusal7# and that it is not necessary - in fact# it is counter-productive - to give reasons for refusing. Only y "eeping the message short and simple can you e sure that it will not e misunderstood. (his advice may e well-intentioned# ut linguistic research suggests it is highly )uestiona le. (he researchers !elia Dit=inger and Aannah 1rith conducted focus-group interviews with BJ women and as"ed them how# in practice# they communicated to men that they did not wish to have sex. Despite eing familiar with the standard rape-prevention advice# all ut a tiny handful of the women said they would never 9,ust say no9. (hey :udged this to e an unaccepta le way of doing things# and li"ely to ma"e matters worse y giving men an additional reason to feel aggrieved. (he strategies the women actually reported using were designed to 9soften the low9# as one put it# in various ways. One popular tactic was to provide a reason for refusing which made reference to a woman-s ina ility# as opposed to her unwillingness# to have sex. 5xamples included the time-honoured 9I-ve got a headache9# 9I-m really tired9 and 9I-ve got my period9. 0s one woman explained# such excuses would prevent the man from 9getting really upset9 or 9 laming you9. 0nother softening tactic was to preface the refusal with something li"e 9I-m incredi ly flattered# ut . . .9 2omen also reported telling men that they were not yet ready for sex# when they "new in reality that they would never e interested. 0ll this might seem li"e depressing evidence that psychologists are right a out women lac"ing assertiveness# confidence# or self-esteem - except for one crucial fact. 0ll the strategies the women reported using in this situation are also used# y oth sexes# in every other situation where it is necessary to ver alise a refusal. 3esearch on conversational patterns shows that in everyday contexts# refusing is never done y 9:ust saying no9. Most refusals do not even contain the word 9Co9. +et# in non-sexual situations# no one seems to have trou le understanding them. If this sounds counter-intuitive# let us consider a concrete example. 4uppose a colleague says to me casually as I pass her in the corridor< 90 few of us are going to the pu after wor"# do you want to come?9 (his is an invitation# which calls for me to respond with either an acceptance or a

refusal. If I am going to accept# I can simply say 9+es# I-d love to9 or 94ure# see you there.9 If I am going to refuse# y contrast# I am unli"ely to communicate that y :ust saying 9Co# I can-t9 6let alone 9Co# I don-t want to97. 2hy the difference? Because refusing an invitation - even one that is much less sensitive than a sexual proposal - is a more delicate matter than accepting one. (he act of inviting someone implies that you hope they will say yes< if they say no# there is a ris" that you will e offended# upset# or :ust disappointed. (o show that they are aware of this# and do not want you to feel ad# people generally design refusals to convey reluctance and regret. Because this pattern is so consistent# and ecause it contrasts with the pattern for the alternative response# acceptance# refusals are immediately recognisa le as such. In fact# the evidence suggests that people can tell a refusal is coming as soon as they register the initial hesitation. 0nd when I say 9people9# I mean people of oth sexes. Co one has found any difference etween men-s and women-s use of the system I have :ust descri ed. 0s Dit=inger and 1rith comment# this evidence undermines the claim that men do not understand any refusal less direct than a firm 9Co9. If 9ordinary9# non-sexual refusals do not generally ta"e the form of saying 9Co9# ut are performed using conventional strategies such as hesitating# hedging and offering excuses# then sexual refusals which use exactly the same strategies should not present any special pro lem. 91or men to claim that they do not understand such refusals to e refusals#9 Dit=inger and 1rith say# 9is to lay claim to an astounding and implausi le ignorance.9 5ven so# you might thin" that if a woman is worried a out eing assaulted she should err on the side of caution< forget the usual social niceties and 9une)uivocally indicate a lac" of willing participation9. (he !anadian tri unal was clearly pu==led y MB-s failure to do this. (hey pressed her a out it until she finally offered an explanation. >i"e the women in Dit=inger and 1rith-s study# MB felt it was prudent to try to 9soften the low9. 4he did not confront her assailant directly# she said# ecause she was afraid of him - and of what# eyond sexual assault# he might do to her if she provo"ed him< 9+ou do whatever you have to to survive. M!ryingN I mean# I was :ust thin"ing how to survive that second. I mean# I didn-t care if that meant getting ac" into ed with him. If he didn-t hurt me I didn-t care at that second . . . I did whatever I could to get y.9 (his raises dou ts a out the wisdom of expert advice on rape prevention# which tells women to do the opposite of 9softening the low9< in essence# it tells them to aggravate the offence of re:ecting a man-s advances y ver alising their refusals in a highly confrontational way. (his advice presupposes that men who persist in ma"ing unwanted sexual advances are genuinely confused# and will e happy to have their confusion dispelled y a simple# firm 9Co9. It does not allow for the possi ility that men who ehave in this way are not so much confused a out women-s wishes as indifferent to them. !onfronting a violent and determined aggressor is not necessarily the safest option and# to a woman who is terrified# it may well seem li"e the most dangerous# putting her at ris" of eing eaten as well as raped. 2omen are not wrong to fear the conse)uences of following advice to 9:ust say no9. But than"s to the myth of Mars and Venus# they are not only receiving ad advice on how to prevent rape# they are also eing held responsi le for preventing it and lamed if they do not succeed. (he $*F' prison film !ool Aand >u"e is remem ered# among other things# for a line spo"en y the prison warden to >u"e# an inmate who persistently re els against authority. 92hat we have here#9 says the warden# 9is failure to communicate.9 Both of them "now that communication is

not the issue. >u"e understands the warden# ut chooses to defy him. 2hat the warden really means is 9failure to do what I want you to do9. 0 similar 6mis7use of the word 9communication9 has ecome increasingly common in our culture. !onflicts which are really caused y people wanting different things 6he wants her to have sex and she does not want to8 she wants him to do his share of the housewor" and he wants her to stop nagging a out it7 are persistently descri ed as 9misunderstandings9 or 9communication pro lems9. If someone does not respond in the way we want them to# it means they cannot have understood us - the pro lem is 9failure to communicate9# and the solution is etter communication. (his elief# or hope# is undou tedly one of the things that ma"e the idea of male-female miscommunication appealing to many people. In the words of De orah (annen< 9.nder- standing style differences for what they are ta"es the sting out of them. Believing that -+ou-re not interested in me-# -+ou don-t care a out me as much as I care a out you- or -+ou want to ta"e away my freedom- feels awful. Believing that -+ou have a different way of showing you-re listening- or -4howing you care- allows for no-fault negotiation< you can as" for or ma"e ad:ustments without casting or ta"ing lame.9 It is comforting to e told that no ody needs to 9feel awful9< that there are no real conflicts# only misunderstandings# and no disagreements of su stance# only differences of style. 0c"nowledging that many pro lems etween men and women go deeper than 9failure to communicate9 would ma"e for a much lea"er and less reassuring message. But the research evidence does not support the claims made y (annen and others a out the nature# the causes# and the prevalence of male-female miscommunication. Co dou t some conflicts etween individual men and women are caused y misunderstanding< the potential for communication to go awry is latent in every exchange etween humans# simply ecause language is not telepathy. But the idea that men and women have a particular pro lem ecause they differ systematically in their ways of using language# and that this is the ma:or source of conflict etween them# does not stand up to scrutiny.

3ack down to &arth

2hy# when men and women are more e)ual than ever# is the myth a out the sexes coming from different planets so popular?

Deborah .ameron Wednesday 0ctober 3+ 2112 Guardian Co group of men and women in history has ever een less different# or less at the mercy of their iology# than those living in western societies today. 0nd yet %$st-century westerners are drawn to a mythology that says that differences etween men and women are profound and unaltera le. 4o what is it that attracts us to the concept of Mars versus Venus? (he idea that men and women metaphorically 9spea" different languages9 - that they use language in different ways and for different reasons - is one of the great myths of our time. 3esearch de un"s the various smaller myths that contri ute to it< for instance# that women tal" more than men 6research suggests the opposite78 that women-s tal" is cooperative and men-s competitive 6research shows that oth sexes engage in oth "inds of tal"78 that men and women systematically misunderstand one another 6research has produced no good evidence that they do7. (here is a great deal of similarity etween men and women# and the differences within each gender group are typically as great as or greater than the difference etween the two. Many differences are context-dependent< patterns that are clear in one context may e muted# nonexistent or reversed in another# suggesting that they are not direct reflections of invariant sex-specific traits. If these points were ac"nowledged# the science sound ites would e headed 9Men and women pretty similar# research finds9# and popular psychology oo"s would ear titles li"e (here-s Co /reat Mystery 0 out the Opposite 4ex or 2e .nderstand 5ach Other 2ell 5nough Most of the (ime. Of course# these titles do not have the ma"ings of estsellers# whereas the 9men and women are from different planets9 story is a tried and tested formula. 2hat does the myth of Mars and Venus do for us# that we return to it again and again? /he importance of being normal In %&&?# a we site called the /ender /enie# which claimed to e a le to diagnose an author-s sex from a B&&-word sample of writing# ecame a favourite with we surfers. (heir comments made clear that they had all given the /enie samples to analyse. O viously# they didn-t need the /enie to tell them if they were male or female 6which is :ust as well# since its error rate is high7. 2hat they wanted to "now was how their writing measured up against the /enie-s criteria for male- or femaleness. One logger# recommending the /enie to others# said< 9/o play with it< find out if you write li"e you-re supposed to write.9 (he /ender /enie in fact says nothing a out how men and women are supposed to write. (he /enie is a machine that has een programmed to loo" for certain features whose fre)uencies were found to differ in male- and female-authored texts in a controlled sample of written 5nglish. It counts the fre)uency of those features# then delivers a guess ased on the num ers. 0ll it tells the user is whether his or her writing supports the hypothesis that the fre)uency of particular features is diagnostic of a writer-s sex. Cevertheless# among the $&& loggers whose responses I examined# all ut a handful assumed that the /enie-s :udgment said something a out them# rather than something a out the /enie.

Bloggers whose sex was guessed wrongly often sought reasons in their life experience. One woman suggested she had een classified as male ecause she had een educated at a oysschool# while several others recalled that as children they had een tom oys. Men :o"ed sometimes with o vious unease - a out the possi ility that they were gay. 2hen the /enie guessed right# y contrast# no one loo"ed for a reason. (he loggers- understanding of what the /ender /enie tells its users is typical of the way we approach sex differences. 2e have a tendency to treat any generalisation a out men and women as a source of information a out 9normal9 ehaviour# which therefore has implications for how we ourselves should ehave. Of course# there are some people who actively want to e different from the norm. But for most people# the desire to e normal is strong< 90m I normal?9 is one of the hardy perennials of the pro lem page. 1or the past $B years# the myth of Mars and Venus has told us what is normal for men and women in the sphere of language and communication. Its generalisations a out male and female language use have come to influence our expectations and our :udgments of how men and women communicate. .nli"e the /ender /enie# this is not :ust harmless fun. 2e see its less enign conse)uences when employers view women as etter candidates than men for :o s that demand the a ility to chat 6and men as etter candidates than women for :o s that demand ver al authority and directness7. 2e see them when parents and educators expect girls to e etter at languages# and oys to e etter at maths. 2e see them when :urors at rape trials give men who claim to have 9misread a woman-s signals9 the enefit of the dou t. 0nd we see them in a small way every time someone ma"es a :o"e a out how much women tal" or how useless men are at expressing their feelings. /he importance of being different 4ex differences fascinate us to a degree that most iological differences don-t. It is conceiva le# for instance# that you could diagnose a writer-s age from a sample of prose# ut no one would design a /enie for that purpose. 0nd to my "nowledge# there has never een a estselling popular science oo" a out the differences etween right- and left-handed people. Aandedness ma"es an instructive comparison with sex# ecause it too is associated with differences in the organisation of the rain. In Decem er %&&F# for instance# an article in the :ournal europsychology reported that left-handed people were )uic"er and more efficient than right-handers at tas"s such as computer gaming that re)uired the simultaneous processing of multiple stimuli. If that had een a sex-difference finding# it would surely have got the same attention as the 9men have trou le listening to women9 study# the 9men are etter shoppers9 study# and the 9women tal" three times as much as men9 claim. But it wasn-t# and it didn-t. If handedness generates fewer sound ites than sex# it is pro a ly ecause findings a out it cannot e slotted into any larger narrative a out the difference etween right-handed and lefthanded people. 2e don-t conceive of them as different species from different planets8 we don-t see them as loc"ed in an eternal 9 attle of the hands9. 5xcept perhaps in sport# we rarely thin" a out them at all. Aandedness# in short# is not significant for the organisation of human social affairs< it does not determine a person-s identity# role# or status in society. 0n account of how lefthanders differ from right-handers would therefore lac" one of the crucial ingredients that draw us to accounts of how women differ from men< it would not serve the purpose of :ustifying institutionalised social ine)uality y explaining it as the inevita le conse)uence of natural differences.

Is that what the myth of Mars and Venus is a out? I-ll let the ac" cover of Why Men !on't "ron have the first word< 9Much of what is written and taught today presumes that most of the differences etween women and men have een caused y society and can therefore e altered. Once this is done# men and women will ecome ali"e. 0nd so men are challenged# pestered and lectured to change from the old dominant male to get in touch with their feminine side. But what if that feminine side does not exist? Men-s rains are wired very differently from women-s# so their reactions to stimuli cannot e the same. (hus# increasing feminisation of society# of food and of education is detrimental to men and eventually will e to women too.9 (his elongs to a time-honoured tradition of dire warnings a out the dangers of altering the alance of nature y changing the relationship etween men and women. 0lthough it is contradictory 6if the wiring of our rains renders all efforts to change men and women futile# how has the 9increasing feminisation of society9 een a le to occur?7# the political message is clear enough. 2e would all e etter off if we reverted to the natural order in which the sexes were different and males were dominant. But this seems an unli"ely message to e sending here and now. In the societies where the Mars and Venus myth has flourished# it is o vious that gender differences have ecome less significant socially than they were in even the recent past. It is also clear that many aspects of sexual iology are ecoming more suscepti le to the intervention of technology. 9/ender reassignment9 is now done routinely8 so are the procedures that ena le the single# the gay and les ian# the infertile# the post-menopausal# and sometimes even the dead to reproduce. 5ven our genes# where so many sex differences allegedly reside# are no longer eyond our power to alter. (he age-old certainties of gender# then# are visi ly eing challenged. Meanwhile# we have developed an insatia le appetite for material that recycles the traditional ideas a out men-s and women-s 9natures9. Is that a contradiction? Or could our uncertainty a out the future significance of sex and gender e precisely what is ena ling the myth of Mars and Venus to flourish? -4 rupture in human historyIn ,anuary %&&'# the Cew +or" (imes reported one of the most significant findings of the %&&B .4 census< for the first time in history# a ma:ority of 0merican women were not living with a spouse. In Britain a month later# the Office of Cational 4tatistics revealed that the num er of marriages ta"ing place in the .D had fallen to an all-time low. 0 num er of factors are contri uting to this trend# including women marrying later# widows surviving longer# and more unwed couples living together. But one ma:or factor is the choice more and more women are ma"ing not to marry# or not to remarry after divorce. (hey prefer independence8 and today it is within their grasp. Cot long ago# most women-s earnings were insufficient to maintain a household. (he social price of independence was also high# since a 9respecta le9 woman could not have sexual relationships or children outside marriage. (he pu lic policy scholar 0lison 2olf has argued that recent changes in the position of educated women in developed societies constitute nothing less than 9a rupture in human history9. In the past# 2olf notes# the lives of women in every class revolved around their domestic roles. But in the past G& or B& years# technological and social changes have given women more choice a out how they live their lives. 1or an elite minority of women# the possi ility now exists of leading lives that are more or less indistinguisha le from the lives of their male e)uivalents.

(hat possi ility has come a out ecause of the opening up of previously restricted educational and career opportunities. 2olf notes that during the first B& years of its existence# all ut a handful of the students of 4omerville !ollege 6one of Oxford .niversity-s first women-s colleges7 went on# if they too" :o s# to wor" in either teaching or other 9caring9 professions. (his was not ecause the wor" suited their female rains# ut ecause other professions were closed to females. 2hen that changed# so did women-s career choices. By the $*J&s# 4omerville was producing more accountants than teachers. (oday# a woman graduate who remains childless can expect to rise as high and earn as much in her lifetime as a man with the same )ualifications. Other social changes have een more difficult to measure precisely. (hings my own parents treated as un rea"a le rules - men and women socialising separately 6even if they were in the same pu or room7# not having opposite-sex friends# pursuing different leisure activities# playing distinct roles within the family - are no longer rigidly adhered to. (hough ine)ualities remain# western women have far more freedom than they once did. (he sexes even loo" less different than they did two generations ago. Cone of this is to say that gender has ecome irrelevant# or that men and women are now in all respects e)ual. 2olf stresses that outside the educated elite# economic ine)ualities remain mar"ed. Others have noted that certain pro lems affecting women as a group# such as the prevalence of sexual violence# may e intensifying rather than diminishing. But the sharp differentiation of the sexes that was once all-pervasive in society has wea"ened significantly. In their aspirations# their opportunities# their lifestyles# and their outloo"s on life# educated men and women are now more similar than different. !hanges of this "ind are never painless. Our ideas# our feelings# our sense of who we are# and our eliefs a out what is right do not always "eep pace with technological and economic changes. (his is not ecause our ways of thin"ing have een wired into our rains since the 4tone 0ge. It is ecause culture is not# in fact# the superficial and ephemeral thing it is often ta"en for. 6!onversely# iology is not the fixed and unaltera le thing it is presented as in oo"s li"e Why Men !on't "ron.7 !ulture change is hard< it causes anxiety# conflict and# in some )uarters# resistance. (hat is why the myth of Mars and Venus has had such a warm reception from the educated western middle classes. .hange and the problem of couple communication (he target audience for Mars and Venus material is prototypically a middle-class one# and the main theme is the difficulty middle-class men and women have communicating with one another. (hat difficulty - presented# typically# as age-old and universal - is put down to the fact that men and women inha it separate social worlds# which give them mutually incomprehensi le ways of using and interpreting language. But that raises the )uestion of why male-female 6mis7communication does not seem to e such a pro lem in other societies and communities. More pu==ling still# if its cause is indeed social segregation# the communities in which it is seen as a ma:or issue appear to e those where there is least segregation. In her classic $*F% study #lue $ollar Marriage# the sociologist Mirra Domarovs"y reported that the wor"ing-class 0merican women she interviewed did not generally expect to have extended conversations with their hus ands. In their community# sex segregation was extensive< for everyday companionship and emotional support# they relied on female friends and "in. Most did

not regard this as settling for second est. (o them it seemed not natural# ut on the contrary# rather eccentric to want your spouse to e your est friend. (his attitude is typical of traditional societies and traditional wor"ing-class communities. (he ideal of 9companionate marriage9# in which the partners do most things together# spend a lot of time interacting and regard each other as friends# is essentially a modern# middle-class one. It is made possi le y the fact that middle-class men and women do not# in fact# inha it separate social worlds# and it is made necessary y the fact that middle-class men and women generally do not have the close-"nit# locally ased networ"s of same-sex friends and "in that supported Domarovs"y-s su :ects. (oday# far fewer westerners live in communities li"e the one descri ed in Blue !ollar Marriage. 5conomic and social changes - greater mo ility# smaller families# increasing rates of divorce have wea"ened the onds that held traditional families and communities together. One result has een to reduce the si=e of most people-s support networ"s# ma"ing them more reliant on a small num er of 9significant others9. In these conditions people expect more from communication with their spouse or partner. 2hen it falls short of their high expectations# the stage is set for communication etween men and women to e perceived as a serious social pro lem. (here are other reasons for that perception. (he more similar men and women ecome# the more they are in direct competition for :o s# status# money# leisure time and personal freedom. My parents# who married in the mid-B&s# never argued a out who should ta"e out the trash# pic" up groceries# wash dishes# drive the car# choose what to watch on (V# or ma"e financial decisions. Cor were they ever in conflict a out whose :o came first or whose life had to e fitted around domestic commitments. (hese things were settled in advance y the asic fact of gender difference. 1or couples today# y contrast# everything is up for negotiation. (hat has the potential to lead to conflicts. 0 recurring theme in Mars and Venus literature is men-s allegedly underdeveloped capacity for empathy and caring. (his testifies to what has not changed. 2hen 2hy Men Don-t Iron tal"s a out an 9increasing feminisation of society9# that is presuma ly a reference to the greater visi ility# status and influence of women in domains where they were previously excluded. But what has happened in the past G& years might e etter descri ed as an increasing masculinisation of society# in the sense that the ma:or shift has involved middle-class women-s aspirations and attitudes ecoming more li"e men-s# focused on individual achievement and individual freedom. 0lison 2olf points out that this has led to a massive exodus of middle-class women from the engagement in paid and unpaid caring that once occupied them for most of their lives. (his change has not een compensated for y any reciprocal shift in men-s attitudes. 0lthough we hear much a out the so-called 9new man9 with his commitment to domesticity and active parenthood# surveys consistently find that men-s contri ution to oth domestic wor" and routine forms of childcare is not much greater than efore. 2omen are still doing most of the caring# ut - unsurprisingly# given how much else they now do - they are more inclined to )uestion why it should fall to them alone. (hat is another source of conflict in contemporary male-female relationships. 5lite women often resolve the pro lem y contracting out what is still regarded as 9their9 wor" to less privileged women< paid nannies# cleaners and carers. 4omething that cannot easily e contracted out# however# is the tas" of caring for a partner-s emotional needs. It is not a

coincidence that one of the "ey issues Mars and Venus oo"s address is women-s complaint that 9I ta"e care of his feelings# ut he doesn-t ta"e care of mine9. (he genius of the myth of Mars and Venus is to ac"nowledge the pro lems many people are now experiencing as a result of social change# while explaining those pro lems and conflicts in a way that implies they have nothing to do with social change. (hey are as old as humanity 6)uite literally# in some versions of the myth7 and their root cause is the irreduci le difference etween the sexes. (he solution# it follows# is to do nothing< we should accept what cannot e altered# and suppress any urge to apportion lame. In practice this tends to result in women eing made responsi le for ensuring that communication flows smoothly. Once again# 9personal stuff9 is assumed to e women-s usiness rather than the usiness of oth sexes. But this isn-t :ust personal stuff< these pro lems are symptomatic of deeper social dislocations. (he elief that they are timeless# natural and inevita le stops us thin"ing a out what social arrangements might wor" etter than our present ones in a society that can no longer e run on the old assumptions a out what men and women do. 2hen the myth of Mars and Venus emphasises that our modern pro lems are caused y age-old natural differences# it is y implication saying that nothing important has changed. Aowever similar men and women appear on the surface - getting the same education# doing the same :o s# earning the same money# see"ing out the same pleasures - at a deeper level# in their minds# they are still fundamentally different. (hat too is reassuring to many people# ecause most of us do not li"e change. 0nd even if gender no longer determines our life experiences to the extent it once did# it remains an important part of our identities# our social lives# and our sexual lives. 2e may not want to return to the traditional arrangement etween the sexes# ut that does not mean we want to live in a world where the difference etween men and women is no more significant than whether someone is right- or left-handed. But if we want real understanding to ta"e the place of mythology# we need to re:ect trite formulas and sweeping claims a out male and female language use. (he evidence is more in line with what it says on a postcard someone once sent me< 9Men are from 5arth. 2omen are from 5arth. Deal with it.9 !linging to myths a out the way men and women communicate is no way to deal with it. (o deal with the pro lems and opportunities facing men and women now# we must loo" eyond Mars and Venus. 5xtracted from The Myth of Mars and Venus# Oxford .niversity ;ress