zlacker

[return to "Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up"]
1. igorkr+5i[view] [source] 2021-03-28 20:15:52
>>femfos+(OP)
I'm a bit sad about how eager everyone is jumping on the idea that "candid advice" will always be construed as possibly sexist. I'm from Germany and we are famously blunt, so maybe there is a cultural aspect to this, but to me candor != risk of sexism. If your advice is candid, it also shouldn't leave any ambiguity..."I'm unsure about you doing the pitch because the last N times you froze up and you seem nervous again" makes your reasoning clear without beating around the bush. How can you twist this into something sexist?
◧◩
2. sneak+sJ[view] [source] 2021-03-28 23:14:32
>>igorkr+5i
A lot of Americans of any gender would be put off by a lot of very routine and candid professional communications that happen in Germany. I find American English in general to be tending toward the near universal avoidance of direct speech and statements, independent of speaker/listener identity.

Importantly the speaker and listener are not consciously aware of this happening. The net result is that you can say literal/plain thing A and the listener can hear literal/plain thing B.

Speaking to Americans requires a significantly accurate modeling of the listener's mind and expectations to be able to be clearly understood, much much moreso than any other language I have studied or even heard of.

Basically, it is very easy to be totally misunderstood when using plain, literal speech (such as is common in Germany or in Slavic countries).

I've written about it: https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/

◧◩◪
3. soared+j31[view] [source] 2021-03-29 02:04:04
>>sneak+sJ
Very interesting to read. I wonder if some of this is due to neutral statements in English tending to carry a negative connotation. If I say "I want to come over tomorrow but I'm not sure if I can make it" - that actually means "I do not want to come over tomorrow".

You /can't/ communicate without euphemisms, and trying to will always fail and make you seem like a dick even though you're just being straightforward. That is likely where the difficulty you've experienced comes from.

(For context, your exact situation occurred this weekend. I was invited to an event and said yes, but both me and my friend knew that I would not attend)

◧◩◪◨
4. Khaine+pi1[view] [source] 2021-03-29 05:11:08
>>soared+j31
No, its cultural. Australians and Brits don't suffer from the same over-the-top positivity for positivity sake
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. twic+n12[view] [source] 2021-03-29 12:41:44
>>Khaine+pi1
But Brits certainly do use the same kind of highly indirect non-literal phrasing. We're famous for it.

This reminded me of this infamous bit from Yes, Minister, and although it's not actually entirely an example of this, it's too good not to share now i've found it:

Sir Frederick: There are four words to be included in a proposal if you want it thrown out.

Sir Humphrey: Complicated. Lengthy. Expensive. Controversial. And if you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".

Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?

Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!

[1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v4rhe?start=1100

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Khaine+Djp[view] [source] 2021-04-06 10:32:53
>>twic+n12
Right, but brits don't use that language to puff people up.

There is a reason america is number 1 in confidence, but ranked 25th in math and 21st in science out of the top 30 developed countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atkimTc_Pi4

[go to top]