When I first heard it, I thought it was some kind of political satire. Later I realised it was, infact, a dead serious notion which then made me laugh even harder. So, you may be asking what on Earth I am talking about? Well, earlier today some gender studies professors and other kinds of "experts" gathered to discuss the lastest of burning women's rights issues- men who don't ask women questions. I am not even joking. Apparently, these experts have noticed that often when women ask men questions, men take a very long time to finish, they just go on and on and on. Then, once they've answered the question, they never ask the woman a counter-question. The conclusion then, is that this behavior - just like everything else - is a form of power expression; a way for men to oppress women. And the solution suggested is the most hilarious part, women should go on a strike and stop asking men questions! How much of an issue do you think this really is? Have you ever experienced it? How ddo you feel about a full-out female "question-strike"?
Doubt you understand Swedish so it would be quite useless to post it. At least the actual audio from the radio-show won't make much sense, but you can always try Google translate for tne text. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1637&artikel=6509215
Only in Sweden would this be 'normal' and BTW it doesn't confirm what you put in your OP (unless there is an error in translation) You said - "Apparently, these experts have noticed that often when women ask men questions, men take a very long time to finish, they just go on and on and on." where as the report states "The phenomenon went up for Åsa Beckman last summer, when she sat on a bed and breakfast in France and watched the couples at the tables around. The women asked questions and was interested in his company. The men were dead silent all the time." .. the direct opposite of what you wrote.
No. That is correct, but if you listen to the clip you'll hear them go through what I said. It actually is mentioned in the introduction of the article as well; "Is it time for women to go on a question-strike? According to DN's[largest paper in Sweden] literature critic, Åsa Beckman the answer is 'yes'. Today she writes in her article that men often give long and thorough answers to the questions asked by women, but once they are done yabbing, it gets quiet- men don't ask any counter-questions."
so because some men take longer to answer a women's question then a man's, women are supposed to stop asking men questions, that makes no sense maybe these men just do not women to ask questions of men so are telling them to do this...??? I know many men and women that when I ask them questions go on and on rather then get to the point too, but I wont stop asking questions if the need arises, I may say to get to the point though .
Gender Studies is, we have to remember, not a real science. Moreover is it a political tool, it is a way of vuewing society from a highly biased lens. Add to this that it is, almost, exclusively Marxist in its theoretical framework and you know we are dealing with something very dangerous. In Sweden this discipline gets more attention and funding than it deserves. It actually even has managed to fain strong politivcal influence. Highly Orwellian if you ask me. Obviously, men and women are different. By nature. I see this as simply natural, women are more social than men. Men do not like small talk and modt men would probably be really happy if women stopped asking their silly questions; "Red or blue?" "Go fir tbe red one?" "What's wrong with the blue?" Lol.
There are questions and then there are "questions." Both genders are using the asking and answering of questions to vie for a type of power in the relationship and the relationship that includes the surrounding group members. The type of power is called "permission". Permission for autonomy and control in the decision making processes of the relationship and group. The only way to "win" is to place this knowledge on the table and only interact with people who will negotiate each context equitably. This may seem tiresome and tedious but in time an understanding of values and fairness will be achieved and all interaction will become almost effortless by comparison. To attempt to "win" with strategy one up-man-ship will result in one down man without a ship. People who are less than equitable or think they can use another's feeling as a weapon against themselves must be identified and ostracized.
