Getting Heard

[dana ann dudle]

Eric Grunden (egrunden at prairienet.org) wrote:

: My suggestion is this; speak much slower and more deliberately while
: looking members of the audience in the eye to guage whether they are
: following or not. You may have to speak at a rate that almost seems
: retarded to you (as a woman), but I feel that men tend to "tune out"
: when the velocity of ideas/words being thrown at them exceeds their
: slow/deliberate comprehension rate. What you refer to above as
: "unintentional sexism" might actually be a true biological or social
: conditioning difference between men and women in their speech and
: communication patterns. I hope this helps.

: 						= eg =

I haven't tested the theory that women in science talk more quickly or 
use more words than men, but I have been told in several situations that 
in order to communicate more effectively in groups, I should lower my 
voice (in terms of pitch, not volume) or speak without moving my 
hands, or be less "feminine" in my speech.  One of these situations 
was a teaching workshop, and I was very annoyed at the implication that I 
would be a more effective teacher if I spoke in a more masculine (I 
suppose the presenter meant authoritative) way.

Am I paranoid to be concerned that perhaps the best way to get heard is 
to sound like the people who are ignoring me?

At any rate, I think the eye-contact idea is a very good one.  It seems 
that it would be a lot harder to ignore someone who was looking straight 
at you.

Dana Dudle
Indiana University