All conversation, in addition to whatever else it does, displays, and asks for recognition of, our competence.

Part of the reason images of women in positions of authority are marked by their gender is that the very notion of authority is associated with maleness.

The Pavlovian view of women voters - plug the words in, and they will respond - sends a chill down my spine because it sounds like an adaptation of something I have written about communication between the sexes: When a woman tells a man about a problem, she doesn't want him to fix it; she just wants him to listen and let her know he understands. But there's a difference between a private conversation and a presidential election, between what we want from our leaders.

In dialogue, there is opposition, yes, but no head-on collision. Smashing heads does not open minds.

Relationships are made of talk - and talk is for girls and women.

Critiquing relieves you of the responsibility of doing integrative thinking.

The one who decides who goes ahead has the upper hand, regardless of who gets to go. This is why many women do not feel empowered by such privileges as having doors held open for them. The advantage of going first through the door is less salient to them than the disadvantage of being granted the right to walk through a door by someone who is framed, by his magnanimous gesture, as the arbiter of the right-of-way.