Conversational Misogyny: What You Need to Know

Source: Mikhail Nilov/Pexels

Formed from the Greek roots misein μισείν (“to hate” or “to detest”) and gynē γυνή (“woman”), misogyny refers to animosity towards women. While misogyny is often used as a label for men who hate women, this usage fails to capture the prevalent phenomenon of female misogyny.

Regardless of the gender of the offender, misogynistic behaviors—including speech—need not occur consciously, purposefully, or knowingly but can take the form of an implicit gender bias.

It’s this subtler form that most frequently shows up in everyday conversations. Implicit misogyny is also the more insidious form because it tends to be more challenging to recognize and stop than explicit misogyny.

Everyday discourse that manifests implicit misogyny is thus more likely to reinforce stereotypes, undermine women’s authority, and perpetuate gender hierarchies in ways that go unnoticed.

The insidiousness of subtle, conversational misogyny makes it paramount to learn how to recognize it and respond effectively.

The Presumption of Lesser Competence

One of the most common ways implicit misogyny infiltrates everyday conversations is through the use of language that presupposes that women are less competent or authoritative than their male counterparts.¹

Using diminutives and infantilizing terms like “honey,” “sweetpea,” or “girl” to address adult women with whom the speaker has no intimate connection can seem benign. However, it effectively portrays women as sweet things or children and, thereby, as less authoritative.²

Referring to women as “emotional” but to men behaving similarly as “passionate” or “enthusiastic” or labeling female leaders as “bossy” but their male counterparts as “confident,” thereby insinuating asymmetries where none exist, is another example of how subtle misogyny can manifest linguistically.³

Skewed expectations underlie other forms of conversational misogyny as well. For example, they contribute to women’s conversational intentions being misinterpreted and their linguistic competence and truthfulness being subjected to scrutiny and skepticism.^{1, 4}

For example, women’s conversational contributions are more likely to be followed by phrases like “I think what she meant to say was…” or “Are you sure?” subtly signaling that what they said requires correction or can’t be trusted.⁴

Such conversational patterns align with gendered expectations that men, by default, have authority and expertise that justifies taking their statements at face value, whereas women must prove their expertise and status.^{5, 6}

Rectifying Conversational Misogyny

One of the most effective ways of addressing conversational misogyny is to stop the speaker in their tracks through call-outs and call-ins.^{7, 8}

A call-out is a direct, often public, confrontation of problematic speech or actions. The goal is to hold the person publicly accountable and clarify that their behavior is unacceptable. Call-outs are typically used in formal or high-stakes settings where immediate correction is necessary.

To illustrate, suppose at a work meeting, your coworker Spencer keeps interrupting your coworker Elise before she can finish making her point. To hold Spencer accountable, you can call out, saying, “Spencer, if you don’t mind, I’d like to hear Elise finish her point.”

A call-in is a more private and empathic way of addressing misogynistic speech or behavior. It involves pulling the inadvertent misogynist aside and engaging them in a dialog that encourages reflection and change without publicly shaming them.

For example, instead of calling out Spencer during your work meeting, you might speak privately to him after the meeting, saying, “I noticed you spoke over Elise a few times. I know you didn’t mean to, but it might make her feel dismissed.”

The empathy and privacy of call-ins make them more akin to invitations to change than accusations of wrongdoing.⁸

When to Call In and Out?

When holding people to account, the one-million-dollar question is whether the best choice is to call them out or call them in.⁶

Call-ins can help prevent escalating a hostile home, school, or work environment and foster change without antagonizing the offender. By encouraging self-reflection without putting them on the defensive, call-ins can be more effective than call-outs for long-term change.

Bias Essential Reads

What Accounts for Anti-Immigrant Prejudice?

Would You Wear Hitler's Sweater?

But call-outs have their place, too. A call-out can be necessary when a call-in isn’t feasible. To illustrate, suppose a keynote speaker at a conference keeps characterizing female CEOs as “aggressive” and male CEOs as “assertive.”

In this scenario, a call-in isn’t feasible for audience members, who can only access the speaker during the Q&A. So, to hold the speaker to account, an audience member might opt to call out during Q&A, saying, for instance, “You kept referring to female CEOs as ‘aggressive’ and male CEOs as ‘assertive.’ That’s a double standard—why not call both assertive?”

A call-out may also be preferable when someone has been called in before but continues the unwarranted behavior. For example, if Spencer continues interrupting women after you have addressed the issue with him privately, you could opt for a call-out.

In environments in which implicit misogyny is rampant, calling out an offender publicly can help send a message to everyone who regularly engages in similar, unwarranted conversational patterns.

For example, suppose that employees frequently ignore their female colleagues’ ideas in meetings at the office where you work and give credit to male colleagues who restate their points.

In this scenario, the best choice may be to call out the conversational behavior next time it happens, saying something to the effect of “I want to point out that Julia made this exact suggestion earlier, which wasn’t acknowledged. This keeps happening, and it’s unacceptable. Let’s ensure we’re giving proper credit where it’s due.”

By calling out the problematic conversational pattern in front of everyone, all the offenders will hopefully take the lesson to heart.

Finally, a call-out is generally preferable when objectionable speech or behavior requires an immediate response to prevent further harm.

By way of illustration, suppose you are on a university panel when a panelist dismissively interrupts a female professor mid-sentence, saying, “Let’s get back to a more rational perspective,” implying that her argument is emotional rather than logical. The audience laughs, exacerbating the disparaging effects of the scathing remark.

To stop the humiliation of the female professor, you might call out the original offender, saying, for instance, “Excuse me, Professor Jackendoff, but that remark was dismissive and inappropriate. Rational discourse isn’t exclusive to men, and cutting off a colleague like that is unacceptable. Let’s allow Professor Rodriguez to finish her point without interruption.”

Both “call” strategies may thus have their place when addressing implicit conversational misogyny, depending on the context, the relationship with the person, and the goal of the intervention.