In Sweden, we have unisex toilets with locks that can be opened from the outside with a coin. I therefore spent ten years in school terrified that someone would break into the loo. So it does not make sense why a Swedish school thought this painting outside one of their toilets was a good idea:
Besides reminding students of the dangers of poor locks and toilet-related harassment, the painting was offensive. 14-year old student Astrid pointed this out to the school several times, but was ignored. One day when she was home sick, the school did a survey about the wall painting. When Astrid returned, the results were published next to the wall painting, including lovely quotes such as ‘How is it mentally possible [to be offended]?’. They also added a sign next to the wall painting saying ‘the most famous painting in the school’.
Have you ever encountered similar tactics when voicing a concern at work? Then you have been the target of a competing conflict style. It can be found in situations where there is a power imbalance or someone is used to having interpretation prerogative, and is therefore common in organisations. It’s then used to quickly resolve the issue (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010: 807). Everyday sexism has several work-related examples:
Competing conflict styles can also involve using authority or power to discredit the opponent’s (Fisher and Ury 1991: 6). The school used the survey to ridicule Astrid, told her that she misinterpreted the painting (it’s FUNNY) and overreacted (GOD CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?). It can also be subtle: by giving the impression that the person is not listening or questioning authority or experience.
A competing conflict style is problematic because it does not deal with the problem, but the reactions to it which legitimises the problem. Astrid was made out to be the villain instead of the wall painting. The person on the receiving end feels run over, and often leaves the conflict feeling worse than before (Robbins and Judge 2010: 406). Astrid is probably not happy about her school now which will affect their future relationship.
Also, power does not always equal influence, and if you want to influence your co-workers you should probably go for another strategy. The offended person often grows resentful, which can result in a backlash effect (Oade 2010: 28). Astrid’s story had a ‘nice’ twist, as far as these stories have one: she received support from social media. This shows how unpredictable power relations are when you use forcing conflict styles; you might end up forcing the other side into submission, or you may end up on the receiving end of the power tactics.
For bibliography and further reading, click here.
What experiences do you have with forcing conflict styles? How do you respond to them?
Jo Oldenburg 
I run an organization on campus that supports ways to get girls around the world access to education. Therefore, it is obviously ok to call us “crazy feminists,” because we’re pushing an agenda of…I honestly can’t tell you what the argument is.
We gave a lecture almost a week ago, and some guys walked out muttering about how they didn’t want to be told women aren’t equal because it’s a waste of time because we have rights in the U.S. Needless to say…I rather disagree. A LOT. There is always room for improvement; I don’t understand the root of these put-downs. We didn’t say men are bad – in the presentation, we even pointed out that our service in our local community caters to ALL youth receiving access to a good education.
I don’t know what to tell you. We just smile anyway, and take comfort in knowing a number of people can be, and are, far more supportive. Best wishes.
Thank you for sharing your experiences!
Eurgh, it’s common that people use the word feminist, often together with ‘angry’ or ‘crazy’. It’s a great way to minimise what you’re doing and to make you feel that you’re taking it ‘too far’. I’ve also seen people use ‘logic’ such as facts (women have rights now!) to make your arguments seem emotional and less real.
I think it’s common when one group is used to have interpretation prerogative. If they haven’t experienced the problem, it just can’t exist. Which also means that they can’t acknowledge other people’s views, and they end up being pretty ignorant.
It’s nice to hear that the members in your organisation support each other. In the case with the wall painting, the story spread on social media and the school was forced to change. I guess this doesn’t happen in most cases though, but it’s comforting to know that numbers can make a change. I try to confront people, but I’m not sure if it’s the best way to deal with it. I feel that if someone refuses to acknowledge my view point, there’s no use in trying because they won’t listen. Have you experienced this as well?
This afternoon, actually. I went into an organization as a guest lecturer to tell them how they could improve their image using social media. Of course, as a journalism major, I mean nothing to a room full of engineers and they were absolutely awful to me. You wouldn’t think this is on par with controversial issues like women’s rights, but I would swear there is not only a gender bias, but an actual lack of respect. I know they weren’t listening, and I know what I said won’t matter. The response is “we don’t need that” or “that isn’t our problem.”
Just as with rights issues, they won’t even acknowledge the validity of your argument, so it’s almost like your viewpoint doesn’t even exist. It was a colossal waste of time, which I regret immensely. Unfortunately, that doesn’t offer me any encouragement for dealing with ways to change attitudes about women. Does it ever seem hopeless to you? Not that I would ever quit…it’s just other people make it difficult to find equality in the world.
I’m so sorry, that sounds like a horrible experience. It seems hopeless sometimes, because it is so difficult to deal with a large group, who refuses to acknowledge you.
A Swedish blogger (zettermark.blogg.se) has written about this. Her advice is to to highlight the issue, confront the person by telling them how it makes you feel and to tell them how to change their behaviour. She also recommends using examples that the audience can relate to if people question your relevance. It requires a lot of courage though, and I imagine it can be difficult to do in front of a larger group.
I’ve also had a similar experience to yours, although I was in the audience and not the speaker. I attended a guest lecture on gender issues in organisations. Most of the audience studied either engineering or economics. People were talking, interrupting her and leaving mid-class, it was horrible and really unacceptable. Because the speaker is perceived as an ‘outsider’, people often ignore them, or use power tactics which really isn’t OK. And these people are also more visible, which obviously is the purpose with these tactics.
But there will also be people who do listen although these aren’t as noticeable, which hopefully makes it seem less hopeless. The lecture I mentioned before inspired me and two other students to focus on gender perspectives for the rest of our studies, so the lecturer did get through to some :)
I’m glad to hear some of her lecture might have sunk in, and completely agree with the “outsider” paradigm. I talked some after the meeting about how the leadership could perhaps say exactly what I said and have it sink in because it comes from “inside” sources.
My org actually started considering how we could approach rape education through this lens – that it might be better to have a lecturer selected with gender in mind, as an appeal from a male might strike a male more poignantly than a lecture from a female.
Do you think a gender-considerate (or major-considerate, or any demographic, really) could help lectures like the one you attended reach more people? Is it the way we present information, who presents it, or the information itself that people want to ignore or discredit?
Your organisation sounds great, wish we had something similar here! I’m personally against excluding someone, it justifies the behaviour that leads to the exclusion in the first place. I agree with you though that it’s important to have the audience in mind when choosing a speaker, so the lecture is relevant to the audience and the issue. Which obviously isn’t the same as excluding someone.
It can be a good idea to include a male speaker if you’re targeting a male audience. He’s likely to have experienced the problematic structures from the same angle as the audience. I attended a lecture on rape culture with both male and female speakers. It was great because it offered really good insights and several perspectives, which I don’t think one speaker would have contributed towards.
Your last question is tricky. I’ve seen speakers being ignored or discredited no matter how good they or their arguments are. I’ve also seen audiences struggle to understand the speaker and the information, because it isn’t presented in a ‘language’ they are familiar with. Information itself doesn’t seem to be that problematic, it seems to be how it’s said and how it’s perceived that causes problems. What do you think?
I honestly don’t know. I’m a firm believer in the power of words, so your rhetoric should be able to create an impact no matter who is listening.
However, as we both surely know, this is not the case. I hate to say it, but I think there is a subset of people who will never be willing to listen to some types of information, no matter how well it is presented. Although, if you find a magical remedy for how to get through to these individuals, just let me know!