Why do men in business, use few words?

[Leigha]

In email exchanges, I mean.  

I work with mainly men, and I've learned to use less words, to ask a succinct question, or offer a brief answer that gets to the point. (But, that doesn't come naturally to me.) I've read that women are explainers, and tend to elaborate unnecessarily in business. (I've fallen into that category, at times.) But, why is this? I've just had two email exchanges with two guys, from two completely different companies - both used exactly four words to reply to my question. 

[Zinjanthropos]

two guys, from two completely different companies - both used exactly four words to reply

One too many.

[C C]

In email exchanges, I mean.  

I work with mainly men, and I've learned to use less words, to ask a succinct question, or offer a brief answer that gets to the point. (But, that doesn't come naturally to me.) I've read that women are explainers, and tend to elaborate unnecessarily in business. (I've fallen into that category, at times.) But, why is this? I've just had two email exchanges with two guys, from two completely different companies - both used exactly four words to reply to my question. 

While a female touch would indeed expand the flexibility options of information transactions, a potential problem with conclusions like this (excerpt at bottom), which revolve around epistemic injustice templates, is that they may be myopic in their own right. By their interpreting every disconcerting facet at work as being the product of male cultural customs and biased perspectives.

Which is to say, when permitted to evolve, it's not surprising that business would orient toward efficiency, get to the point attitudes, and various reductions of waste. In order to compete with rivals and stay afloat. (Even though I've never seen a large one yet that wasn't permeated with squandering behaviors. But there must be a threshold or magnitude to avoid for when that finally becomes crippling.)

But considering a laconic messaging trait first in local, contingent context -- before getting to the grand narratives we abstract about a whole group... With a younger individual it could be erratic laziness/boredom. Another conditional cause might be impatience triggered by multi-tasking overload. All risky whenever being more elaborative to clients and ensuring clear, in-house communication to avoid errors is a necessity.

Now shifting to generalization... Before the internet and phone texting, a number of men didn't seem very written-word oriented (occasionally even after receiving higher education); and that could still be the mitigated case, particularly with older guys and the so-called "self-made" venturing up from scraggly origins. Entertainment-wise and prior to effective feminist influences, the 1960s (and the early '70s) reveled in portraying even vocally taciturn male characters as being macho. Ray Donovan was a throwback to those terse caricatures, and no less created by a woman who had no qualms in one interview about admitting she wasn't attracted to the metrosexual look/demeanor, or the rehabilitated masculinity.

- - -

The problem with telling women to email like men: . . . One rationale behind this advice is pragmatic. If a stereotypically “male” style of emailing—confident, emotionally detached, light on exclamation points—is seen as more professionally competent, then women who want to get ahead may do well to mimic this. (Of course, it’s not just gender that’s at issue; behaviors associated with race, ethnicity, class, and age can also be negatively judged. An obvious example would be the use of slang vocabulary more prevalent among particular demographics or communities.)

The problem with this, however, is the same as with any other kind of Lean In model of feminism. It places the onus to change on the individual, when the problem is societal. It asks those who are already disadvantaged by social structures—in this case, male-dominated corporate culture—to put in extra work only to further uphold those very same structures. Women shouldn’t have to write “like men” to be taken seriously. People should just take women seriously. After all, there’s no reason that emailing like a stereotypically heterosexual man is any more workplace-appropriate. The only reason we think so is because we associate professionalism with men.

[Zinjanthropos]

I wouldn't go so far to say men have sole dibs on speaking with fewer words. Apart from no words, as in the occasional glare I get from my wife, it took a Canadian woman to invent Toki Pona.

[C C]

I wouldn't go so far to say men have sole dibs on speaking with fewer words. Apart from no words, as in the occasional glare I get from my wife, it took a Canadian woman to invent Toki Pona.

"One of the language's main goals is a focus on minimalism. It is designed to express maximal meaning with minimal complexity."

Sounds vaguely reminiscent of that stripped-down English spoken by Jadis and the other scrapyard Scavengers in the "The Walking Dead". She later explained in a season-9(?) episode that their way of speaking had something to with an artistic impulse of her party of survivors seizing the opportunity to re-create themselves after the zombie apocalypse. There were hints that she might have been an arts teacher back in her former life.

[Syne]

Fewer words means there's less room for misinterpretation. Elaboration can tend to wander about enough to make a clear and decisive answer or point unclear. Aside from the fact that many people have lots of emails to handle every day, and it's just courteous and respectful of their time to be brief and to the point.