The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward ice.
Further to your point, I liked this reaction to the "just" article (beware, wince-worthy header image in the link):
This week everyone's been talking about an article in the Economist explaining how men's use of language undermines their authority. According to the author, a senior manager at Microsoft, men have a bad habit of punctuating everything they say with sentence adverbs like 'actually', 'obviously', 'seriously' and 'frankly'. This verbal tic makes them sound like pompous bullshitters, so that people switch off and stop listening to what they're saying. If they want to be successful, this is something men need to address.
OK, people haven't been talking about that article--mainly because I made it up. No one writes articles telling men how they're damaging their career prospects by using the wrong words. With women, on the other hand, it's a regular occurrence.
That's a good point. Why aren't there articles about verbal tics that made men (mostly) sound like pompous bullshitters? I'd read them. Plus, it seems like it would have a Slate-pitch-y boost.
So, I have a whole series of verbal tics that annoy me, but I never, ever share them as that just makes people use them.
Gee, maybe women do this because they understand quite well that they need to temper direct statements in order to make people willing to listen to them. FFS. I have a chipper business woman email tone that I hate, but will quite consciously adopt sometimes because it gets people to reply and gets things done.
Some guy I once met somewhere deliberately delays on tasks if the person isn't his actual boss and if the pushiness of the request seems to outstrip the actual importance of the task. But he's a feminist, so he does this for both women and men.
Oh, you wouldn't believe all the problems he's caused me.
13 would only be cool if he accompanied the late work with a note saying "You're not the boss of me!"
Also, I want a nameplate for my desk that lists my title as "the boss of you."
That article that Witt linked in 3 is just so good.
(Ok, I just had to do it. Ack).
I got a great out of office autoreply that said "if this is an urgent request then it is possible that you are unfamiliar with the actual meaning of the word 'urgent'."
11: Yup. It's almost as if there are reasons for particular conventions of speech!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=19766
Obviously, it depends on power. But it also depends on context. There are situations where I'd be using permission-seeking or apologizing words with people who are less powerful than me (they do exist) and other situations where I used very forceful words with people who are more powerful than me (because I'm either that sure I'm right or because I'm trying to follow orders from somebody more powerful that both of us).
Katie Surrance at LGM led to the article in 3 above, which is indeed excellent, and includes a link to an excerpt from Deborah Cameron's book, which is excellent. I'm very interested, cause of course, pretty much the only spoken language I hear is Japanese, that brutally sexist patriarchal hierarchical linguistic hellhole, you know?
As far as they go, which isn't far enough.
Because Blume's 11 is the point, and sorry every individual discursive transaction pretty much has to be examined in situ, with most generalities forgone, from those we like or those generalities we don't...
...to see what the fuck is actually going on, who is doing what with whom, and who is profiting from the transaction. Power is not global. Ever.
You have to be aware of how your language usage reflects on you, but it's a lot more complicated than telling women to avoid certain words. E.g., when I was a young graduate student, I would do the academic thing where the academic prefaces a question by saying "Could you say a little more about X, because I didn't see how it related to Y?" which, coming from an old dude professor, is a fairly standard way of saying "Here is my devastating objection to X, concerning Y." I found that when I asked questions in that way, I'd get responses that were hilariously literally-minded, explaining the concepts as if I were a toddler who'd wandered in from daycare.
So I stopped saying that. I have heard that other young women are given the same advice. Oddly, however, this hasn't solved the gender-related problems of the profession.
PS: In reading all the links, I had a lot of fun replacing all the instances of "just" with my favorite and constant null..."fucking." Try it. From Surrance
'I wonder if you could just fucking move a few feet to the left'."
Except in very rare circumstances, "Did you correct for multiple comparisons?" means "Go fuck yourself."
Comment from from "Diane NYC" which is the more common reaction
"I am so tired of these articles pointing out what women do wrong, and how that explains their lower status in the workplace, unequal pay, lack of opportunities etc...
How about focusing on the outside factors for a change, such as the lack of role models, lack of encouragement and mentorship, or the old boys club atmosphere that still dominates many places? If we had at least some of these consistently, it would work wonders for our confidence..."
IOW
You're not the boss of me, why are you judging, criticizing, being mean to women...
...but it's ok, sweet sister, I understand you're just fucking robotically controlled by the Patriarchy Inc, and by changing this to "aren't men meanies" we can bond again.
Let's watch.
I have a chipper business woman email tone
I sometimes do the "just" thing, and I certainly have a chipper businessman email tone that effectively "asks permission" in the way that the linked article objects to.
On review, I'm saying the same thing that Moby said in 21.
As with most other things, Ari Gold shows the way forward here.
Yeah. I'm not even sure this is exactly gendered and not just a show of perky/upbeat/nonaggression, which everyone does when context demands. The only problem is that context demands this display of perkiness more from women, which is a silly thing to just just just just just.
The only problem is that context demands this display of perkiness more from women
Maybe women are also penalized for it in a way that men aren't.
26. Bob, you're being an ass. An unjust one at that.
So just how bad would it be to submit an honest self-review in your first performance review at a new job, in which you say outright that you ought to be fired and that your performance is terrible across the board? Will you get talked down from the ledge or fired?
My friend is an adult and knows the answer, but claims to be pretty daunted by the task of preparing hirself to lie like a rug.
32: False dichotomy.
You can be honest about where you're struggling without suggesting what action your supervisors should take.
You can be honest about where you're struggling and also -- without using evaluative language -- narrate all of the steps you've taken to address what you perceive to be your weaknesses.
Perhaps most importantly, I strongly suspect your friend is comparing him/herself to the ideal worker, not to his/her actually-existing coworkers -- or predecessors. That can really screw with your perspective on your own performance. Is there any trustworthy colleague who could give an impartial assessment, informally?
I've had staff members who struggled quite a bit, who were still FAR more capable of learning from their mistakes than their predecessors in the same position. If someone asked them, they might have said they were failing. If someone asked me, I would have said they were failing...on a much faster upward trajectory than my previous staff.
If you're floundering miserably because you're literally incapable of doing the job -- like you're a pilot but your vision is 20/400 with no hope of improvement -- that's a different problem. Then you need job-search advice, so you can find something that doesn't make you feel stupid every day.
32: Certainly what Witt said. I suspect the actual outcome would be a very awkward meeting with your supervisor where they try to give constructive feedback to improve your weaker areas while assessing what you are doing OK. The awkwardness will linger, though, and they'll probably worry about an employee who's either a perfectionist or very unhappy.
If I were advising said friend how to write a review, I'd pick one or two things where s/he has improved as positive things, then pick one or two areas where the right kind of help would actually improve performance, with notes about what might be needed.
People who really ought to be fired almost never notice that they can't do the job. Or at least, they are greatly outnumbered by those who think they can't for reasons like Witt mentions or depression or something.
Oh my word is 35.1 ever the truth. Dunning-Kruger in action.
Huh, I wonder what I would say if I had to do a self review for this job. I do an ok job but even submitting something that says that breaks the conventional tone of Everyone is At Least 80% Great that workplaces like to maintain.
32: Always lie and cover up. Self-reviews are all about managerial laziness - they want you to give them something to talk about during a performance review because they don't pay that much attention to your work. If they haven't noticed some sucky aspect of your performance, you don't need to tell them about it.
If you want to improve your performance, then do it. And if you need your boss's help to improve, then ask for help. Otherwise, be silent.
Of course, if they've already told you there's something they want you to improve on, and you think they're right, then you can just feed that back to them. If they haven't done that, they suck, they don't deserve to be assisted, and they are probably so dumb that they put "need to give better feedback to subordinates" on their own self-reviews.
Why do people get so uptight about imposter syndrome? People around me have an inflated idea of my competence, and I think that's fucking awesome!
Are they people whose job it is to judge your competence? If so, I know a theory that might apply.
29, 30: The only problem is that context demands this display of perkiness more from women
I hate to do this, but ... does it, really, at all times when women employ the "just" locution? (Or the "I wonder if" or "I'm thinking that" or "It seems to me that" or simply "Maybe" locutions, all of which are hedges signalling a subordinate status or merely non-aggression, a state of doubt on the part of the speaker).
Is it always necessary, or have (some) women been trained -- or trained themselves -- that it is simply necessary at all times?
I'm not sure I buy the claim that inserting these hedging terms is a matter of minimal politeness, as the Katie Surrence piece claims.
I think there's a lot of policing of it both ways. I notice it when commenting places that I'm not truly anonymous but not currently recognized as a woman - coder sites, mostly. Hedging as I would naturally do sounds odd in context, but if I'm as brusque as is normal I have a small expectation of very nasty push back when All is Found Out: girls don't get to talk like that.
As a result of my charismatic Christian youth, "just" and "really" are inescapably associated in my mind with gushing prayers into a microphone with eyes closed and hands raised. "O Lord, we really just want to praise you because you're just so really good to us ..." In that context, their frequency of use was completely ungendered (though of course it was mostly men who had access to the microphone).
Good things just don't happen here
Good things don't just happen here
Good things don't happen just here
re: 40
I certainly use a lot of those hedging terms, especially when I'm emailing people I'm in charge of.* Out of politeness, and a desire not to be a dick, I think.
I may be less inclined to use them, when emailing 'up' so to speak, as I want, not necessarily consciously, to convey confidence.
* which, because my boss is leaving, is now a fair number of people.**
** without the fair bit of money to go with it.
I hedge and soften everything I have to say as hard as possible, and people still seem to hear it as very direct. I blame my eyebrows.
I definitely use hedging terms when asking students/postdocs in my group for things.
I also notice that I've started to use exclamation points in emails (e.g. "Thanks!") more than I used to. Mainly because everyone else does it, so it seems like I'd come off as deliberately cold if I didn't. I'm not sure whether my eyebrows figure into this one way or the other.
In general, I think these small courtesies are a good thing, and I'm not at all bothered by the increased frequency of exclamation points in my emails. I agree with the criticisms of the original article. I understand the motivation, but articles like that implicitly promote the idea that we should all emulate the most obnoxious guy in the room.
Exclamation points are the gateway drug to emoticons, Dr. Feelgood.
I hedge routinely (I think), but that is mostly a confidence issue. I also sometimes do the mildly paradoxical use-more-confident-words-with-superiors thing. In general I'm pretty sure I'm part of the problem of unintentionally enforcing gender norms on speech intensity, but I'm trying to be better.
47: Before long they'll be freebasing hard emoji.
Speaking of drugs, the first sign of anything happening in the Coop that isn't merely a sign has appeared. They've put up some kind of barrier so they can do work behind it. Hopefully, this will involve a whole new facade.
My boss uses "Thanks!". I am still a little self-conscious using it though I like it when he uses it.
50: You mean like "Thanks!" in an email? I write that in emails about 20 times a day, and 95% of the time the person hasn't done a thing for me. The subtext is "I'm a grateful and subservient peon! Don't fire me!"
re: 50 & 51
I do it, too. Both to people senior to me, and to people further down the chain. In fact, I think 'Thanks!' is more or less my default sign-off, unless I'm writing a deliberately formal email to, say, a senior person in the nacitaV, or some crusty Prof.
"Thanks" is fine. "Thanks!" is trying too hard.
Oh yes, me too. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!
"Thanks!" all the time. Also find myself saying "No problem" (or "np" on Slack) a lot for recognition I've done something for someone else.
"Thanks" is fine. "Thanks!" is trying too hard.
I disagree. A plain "Thanks" without exuberant punctuation can be read as passive-aggressive, uttered grudgingly through clenched teeth.
My point is, for most emails I prefer not to adopt the mental voice of Dirty Harry.
Without passive-aggression, I'd hardly ever be allowed to be aggressive.
In fact, I think 'Thanks!' is more or less my default sign-off, unless I'm writing a deliberately formal email to, say, a senior person in the nacitaV, or some crusty Prof.
I prefer "Tremble and obey!"
I think that co-workers who know me would think I was being sarcastic if I used an exclamation point.
"My undying gratitude for your noble sacrifice" might be going too far.
My old sign- off was Thanks, BG, but this doesn't seem to be standard anymore. The exclamation points are common following Perfect!
If somebody was been useful or relevant or done something beyond the call of duty, I would say something wordier than just "Thanks," but I still wouldn't use an exclamation point.
A plain "Thanks" without exuberant punctuation can be read as passive-aggressive, uttered grudgingly through clenched teeth.
A signoff of "There! That wasn't too difficult, was it?" is, while more satisfying, not always as effective.
"From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
re: 60
Heh. It's somewhat ironic that my day job overlaps so much with the subject matter of MR James and Dan Brown stories, and yet remains not really that exciting.
See, I thought young folks went more with 'Thanks?' these days.
60 -- I you had a couple of pet wolves, you wouldn't have to write that.
68: Who knows? We're all old, aren't we?
#include
main()
{
printf("Thanks");
}
Is it always necessary, or have (some) women been trained -- or trained themselves -- that it is simply necessary at all times?
No, of course it's not always necessary. And there are potentially lots of little filler words that a person may want to train themself out of, for the sake of clarity and directness. But people who are generally in control of their tone know what they're doing, and it's not because they've drunk the Stupid Woman Kool-Aid.
Kool-Aid was invented in Nebraska. I don't know why I can't stop myself from mentioning that.
So was Dorothy Lynch salad dressing. "Lynch" is her name, not her hobby. It's basically French dressing.
I prefer "Tremble and obey!"
You tremble, carcass? You would tremble more if you knew that I remain, as ever,
Yours,
ttaM
I assume they are pretty much the same. I hear that Vancouver and Toronto are big places, like Omaha.
Come to think, just a week or two ago I spent an annoying twenty minutes being berated? volubly whined at? by a subordinate for insufficient hedging, leaving him feeling disrespected. (Disagreement on a point of law, in which I stated my position as if it were correct, rather than as merely my opinion. Just because he didn't have a convincing argument to the contrary at his fingertips doesn't mean his opinion as a professional shouldn't be respected.)
Dude had some other work stuff to be upset about, so I let him vent at me (admittedly, without perfect command of my facial expressions. There was a break in the middle of the speech where he complained that now I was laughing at him. Which, a bit, but I'm only human.) And he apologized the next day. But still, a bizarre little interaction.
If you lived in a regular city, I'd assume he was supposed to distract you so that somebody could steal stuff from your car.
Actually, if you weren't in your office for that, you should probably check to be sure nothing is gone.
An author of Southern Gothic was vaunting her genre recently by saying that really everyone is not the hero but the victim in their own narrative (and S.G. validates this). Everyone? Well, 80, maybe everyone. Except LBs eyebrows, before whom all tremble and obey.
80.1 -- were you right? "You inappropriately failed to hedge your correct description of the law to spare my feelings" seems like pretty weak sauce from a lawyer.
Also, all boringly serious, does he whine at your male colleagues who don't coddle him? A mirror reflecting him at twice his natural size, forsooth.
There's not really anyone male he'd be in a position to whine to, so hard to tell. But yes, impressively weak sauce.
I can't imagine complaining to someone that they were treating me in a way that communicated disrespect. Correcting their manners, possibly, I might do if they were really egregious. But complaining about perceived disrespect would imply that I gave a damn about the direspector's opinion in a way that I have much too much ego for.
It doesn't seem likely that anyone showing open disrespect would change based on complaints from the target.
That's why I never fill out the customer satisfaction surveys from Comcast.
I just got an email consisting solely of the following: "Thank you!!"
It was from a woman. Was she flirting with me? Indicating disrespect? Apologizing?
If this was in reply to your plan about the bear hunting, it's either flirting or disrespect.
Check out #BusinessTips4Ladiez on Twitter.
80, 84:
That is what makes lawyers such horrible spouses. We spend our days telling other people that they are wrong and having them tell us that we are wrong. Often directly, without softening the blow.
|| Actually, it was a producer from NPR, doing a story on Katrina, who found my name in connection with a very short lived DC lawsuit in 2007 over demolition of some NO public housing and called wanting to talk about it. She was pleasantly surprised that I'm the right person. I shouldn't be but am amazed at the footprints we leave and the ability of modern technology to unearth them. Anyway, I sent her what she needed from the case -- we had some great affidavits from former residents -- and so then she flirted/dissed me. |>
And I just got an email soliciting applications for a lawyer position that included the following in its qualifications section:
Should have gumption and grit.
I should have sold Grit when I had the chance.
Man, now's the time to invest in decorative gravel. Well, two years ago was the time to invest in decorative gravel.
I don't personally need any decorative gravel at the moment. But I am seeing yard conversions everywhere. I shoulda thought ahead. And had money to do that with. And known how to invest in decorative gravel. All those things.
I can't imagine complaining to someone that they were treating me in a way that communicated disrespect.
I sometimes feel disrespected, and am annoyed about it. I have a massive chip on my shoulder, generally. But I can't remember an instance where I've complained to the person about it.
In the future, decorative gravel will be used for currency, like cans of formula are now.
Ugh, I've had students complain that I was speaking to them disrespectfully. I never quite know what to say. "I'm sorry you didn't like my tone while I explained why your answer didn't deserve any partial credit?"
"Partial Credit" would be a good name for a bank.
Does it sound better in Greek or German?
I spoke too soon. I meant to say that I should have invested in decorative blue glass.
OT: Is there any way to opt out of some of the emergency warnings on your phone without shutting them all off? I'd like to know if there's a tornado, but the constant flash flood warnings are getting old.
I'm coming back to this thread way late.
41: Hedging as I would naturally do sounds odd in context, but if I'm as brusque as is normal I have a small expectation of very nasty push back when All is Found Out: girls don't get to talk like that.
Comparing to my own experience: hedging is not natural for me. (Actually I've learned to do it much more, and unfogged has taught me it.) It is true that being taken for a male allows a declarative or assertive tone to pass where it might not for a female. I still claim that (some) women preemptively and unnecessarily assume that cannot pass.
You shall not pass.
74: No, of course it's not always necessary. And there are potentially lots of little filler words that a person may want to train themself out of, for the sake of clarity and directness. But people who are generally in control of their tone know what they're doing, and it's not because they've drunk the Stupid Woman Kool-Aid.
Right, certainly. To my mind, not everywoman is in control of her tone, and it's to those people that the caution is directed. I understand that the claim on the part of some critics of the original article is that virtually every woman who uses hedge terms is doing so in full awareness, but I doubt that's true.
With regard to "Thanks!" as a sign-off, I prefer "Cheers!"
No, really, I prefer "Let me know." Depends on context.
I am amused & pissed off at the idea of LB's subordinate upbraiding her. That is ballsy. And yeah, I think it is male subordinate to female superior behavior.
Lawyerstyle.
Lawyer-on-top.
Sixty-lawyer.
107.3: i get extra hedging from writing science prose, but have this minor expectation of major pushback among programmers. Coder gender dynamics are a minefield this decade.
109: I don't have too much time to engage about this in a lot of comments, but it's not my position that everyone is in perfect control of her tone at all times. My position is that there isn't an objective answer to how much one ought to soften one's requests or expression of opinion, yet somehow only women are publicly taken to task for their speech patterns. There is obviously lots of cultural variation, including microcultures in particular workplaces or between particular people, that determines conventions of speech. Extreme bluntness isn't some cardinal virtue. The only case you can make for an "objective" problem with softening requests is if the are softened so far they are unclear. Otherwise, if you say, "Could you just make these copies for me?" and you don't get it done because you're a woman, the problem is hardly that you said, "just." Nor is the problem that likely to be magically resolved if you stop saying it. My boss recently said to me, "Can you do me a favor? After all the moving is done, can you clean your office?" The message was communicated to me just fine, even though he said it politely. And because there's no particular virtue in omitting softening words, any article admonishing women to do so has at least the burden of acknowledging that it's advice to jump through a bullshit hoop and conform to a norm for a speech pattern that's no better for being more stereotypically "male."
"Could you just" seems much more potentially offensive than the other uses of "just". It diminishes the apparent amount of work that the requestee has to do. Probably not an issue if the work truly is trivial, but otherwise it'll either seem like an attempt to deceive or at best not acknowledge the full amount of work that has to be done.
So I guess it isn't so much "just" or the softening but what it's trying to soften. "Could you just come in on Sunday?" would rankle me even more than the Officespace formulation, and I don't think that's me being sexist. But maybe.
117.lastish: Is "clean [out?] your office" being used as a euphemism for laying you off/firing you? If so, that's awful.
My office was messy. Unprofessionally so. It needed cleaning. I cleaned it. Now it is messy again.
You can't trust people with neat offices.
117: I likewise don't have a lot of time to get into depth here, but your position seems to involve two things:
(a) somehow only women are publicly taken to task for their speech patterns
and (b) Extreme bluntness isn't some cardinal virtue.
Taking just (b): is the original article's claim really that there are only two options, such that reducing one's use of hedge terms amounts to extreme bluntness? I don't think so.
In any case, My position is that there isn't an objective answer to how much one ought to soften one's requests or expression of opinion
Agreed. I just don't think anyone's saying there is.
Also, sorry I haven't read the comments over at LGM. For all I know, these things have been said; or maybe the thread descended into madness!
119: Oh, phew. I maybe be revealing some programmer privilege since my cube is a mess, but I can't imagine being told to do anything about it.
But I really should try to keep my schedule of cleaning my coffee mug at least once a month.
No, the original article's claim is that "just" is a "child"/"permission"/"subordination" word, and that women should not use it. If this is not making an objective claim about how much women should use that particular expression, I don't know what is.
My theory is that I can't really get food poisoning from a coffee mug if I never put anything but coffee in the mug and I don't leave standing liquid in it.
Eventually a bacterium will evolve which lives on the rings on the inside empty office coffee mugs; then it will mutate to become highly toxic to humans; then we will all die.
125: Okay, apologies for reading into it (reasonableness) what wasn't there.
I don't know what the obsession with "just" is about, anyway: there are other entirely hedging phrases that signal much more strongly a child/permission/subordination stance where it may well not be necessary.
To be clear, though, I understand what the resistance is about: too often a policing of a feminine presentation amounts to a call to affect masculine behaviors as though they are the preferred default. Sure. What I push back against is the supposition that the subject feminine behaviors are always just fine.
I'll make a confession: I would find it unbearable to work in a place surrounded by coworkers who always and constantly uptalked to one another. I'd just be like, "Dude, are you asking me or telling me? I'm right here with you, I get what you're saying, you don't have to keep asking whether I follow you. Please just make statements."
And to be extra super clear: I don't think masculine typical behaviors are always fine either.
You don't like uptalk. I am actually not in love with it either. Here's a true, dark confession from me: I have worked with an uptalker who would be very well described as "basic." She annoyed me. You and I have a right to these aesthetics. But it's just that, a private aesthetic. The more you take your private aesthetics public and turn them into public moralizing, the more you have to consider what political work you're doing. Even though I don't like uptalk, if Leanse had written an article that said, "Ladies, this makes you sound like a valley girl and it's the reason you don't get taken seriously," it would have been equally worth the pushback. Just because something validates our private peeves doesn't make it smart or right or just.
Just because something validates our private peeves doesn't make it smart or right or just.
Maybe not *your* peeves.
It seems like it's well past time for valley girl-speak to make a comeback. Or maybe it never went away?
I have a (genuinely excellent) co-counsel on a case right now who has the full-on Valley Girl accent and intonation (no, she doesn't say "tubular" in court). It's pretty effective in both argument and deposition. And she's in fact from the Valley, so she comes by it honestly.
What I push back against is the supposition that the subject feminine behaviors are always just fine.
And what I push back against is your insistence, once again, that women check themselves. "Hey laydeez, there's a pretty good chance you're doing it wrong!"
Further: it's not actually about the behavior under discussion. It's about the inappropriateness of singling out women as a group subject to certain kinds of policing.
One's coffee mug should be whiter than one's teeth.
131: You and I have a right to these aesthetics. But it's just that, a private aesthetic. The more you take your private aesthetics public and turn them into public moralizing, the more you have to consider what political work you're doing.
Fair enough, and I could see that coming. I'll have to think about it. At the moment, I have a very hard time with normalizing uptalking. I don't think (at this moment) that it's a merely private aesthetic: it has broader ramifications. It blurs the line between whether the speaker is actually unsure of their* statements, or whether they're confident, and that's important. I want to know whether the speaker is actually asking for independent confirmation: that's the point of presenting a claim with a concluding question mark. If you present virtually every sentence with a concluding question mark, I can't tell when you're actually asking. I guess you have to add extra words to signal that.
*I'm trying really hard to get used to singular "they"!
138: It's about the inappropriateness of singling out women as a group subject to certain kinds of policing.
I agree that men should be subject to policing about their forms of bad things.
137: Blume. I don't think there's a pretty good chance that ladies are doing it wrong.
Maybe not *your* peeves.
I've just now realized that when we acquired our new cats last year, I failed to seize the opportunity to name both of them "Peeve."
It blurs the line between whether the speaker is actually unsure of their* statements, or whether they're confident, and that's important. I want to know whether the speaker is actually asking for independent confirmation: that's the point of presenting a claim with a concluding question mark. If you present virtually every sentence with a concluding question mark, I can't tell when you're actually asking.
I think it's worthwhile doing some self-examination on this, and trying to figure out whether you are genuinely confused listening to uptalkers, or whether it's a manner of speech you find grating, and so you're looking for objective reasons to disapprove of it. In context, I think it's very rare to be actually in doubt as to whether the person you're talking to is asking a question, whether or not they uptalk.
145: Fair question. I don't encounter uptalkers often, so I can only imagine, but I think if I were hearing it more or less constantly, yes, I would begin to be in doubt about their level of confidence in their remarks.
That said, if someone wants to write a Slate-pitchy piece In Defense of Uptalking, I'll be interested to hear it. They could go on about how it's a girl/woman thing, and don't you dare find it problematic, because then you're obviously just dissing the ladies tout court, being a masculinist or something, a tool of the patriarchy.
----
I fear I'm becoming grumpy about this. Over and out.
144: You can change a cat's name any time you want.
145 is right, and 141/146 is bonkers. Spend a few minutes searching "uptalk" on languagelog if you want some empirical info on whether uptalk correlates with lack of confidence (hint: it doesn't, and people who think it does are groping for a justification for their peeves).
Also, men do it as well, but it's only identified as a problem indicating lack of confidence when women do it. On men, it's just a quirk of millennials and the generation immediately preceding them.
Gen X, the generation that is just now getting into the chronic pain phase of life.
Speak for yourself. I, myself, am blindingly fit and rippling with muscle.
The parts of me with the most muscle are the ones with the chronic pain.
(This is the beauty of text-based interaction. It could be true.)
Valley Girl Feminism: an idea whose time has come.
155: Clearly! Maybe came a long time ago.
148.1 Nuh-uh
I'm reading everyone's comments in this thread with an uptalk mental voice.
Omitting "just" is a fun game. There are degrees of uptalk: most are fine, some are piercing.
I work in a predominantly male office and am constantly amazed/amused by the dominance behaviors on display. It seems like the implicit directive for women is not to act like a man, but to act like a relatively subordinate man: that's plenty assertive for a chick.
Cultural differences scramble this analysis a lot -- as anyone in Silicon Valley should know -- but I have no objective data here so I won't put my foot in it. (I have this vague sense that white U.S. women are socialized to talk a lot in general, many words per sentence, but that might be way off.)