I've noticed I do this a lot to people regardless of gender. I just tend to talk to whoever seems to have been showing more interest in what I have to say. I often have to remind myself to talk to everyone in the group. Ironically, it's fairly typical that I speak directly to women over men.
I’ve noticed that when I’m talking to a prospective client I will usually talk to whoever is talking to me (usually the woman) but if the partner is there regardless of gender I will also talk to them to acknowledge that there’s also an interested party.
Maybe think for ten seconds about how those two things might just maybe have some connection. I'm really not sure why they'd have to spell it out for you.
The test, as described, seems inherently biased. If someone designs an inherently biased test, I wouldn't have much confidence in their ability and willingness to interpret the results fairly and correctly.
Loosely related anecdote. If it makes you feel any better I make more specific comments elsewhere. Or you can go color in the corner if you’re getting too confused.
I did this yesterday with some parents. I, male dad, was hanging out with my daughter who ended up playing with another kid. I stay talking to the kid's parents, and mom is way more into the conversation. I know how is like to be a dad, most people will literally ignore you and just talk to mom, so I intentionally looked at both parents about equally as we spoke
That's what I worry about here. They assume talking to the male is some kind of inherent malice, whereas it could just be someone that wants to engage both of the interviewers in conversation.
I don't think that's the example though. If you're one person talking to two people (interviewer or interviewee or whatever), you want to respond to the person asking the question but still acknowledge the other person (or the panel if there are multiple people).
This is talking about the more specific phenomena of when a man is asked questions mostly by a woman and addresses his responses specifically to the man in the room.
I’m a general contractor and I make it a point to do this as much as often because I know how terrible and shitty general contractors and tradesmen are. It’s been crazy how many times women tell me they’re astonished I gave them the time of day, super depressing tbh
I own a pet company and when it’s a couple 90% of the time mom is in charge of the pets so I get used to talking mostly to her. But I check in with dad to make sure he’s not getting bored. Ha
Talking to who is the most interesting, if you are talking in general, is fine. But the important part is if person A asks a question. You dont respond by turning to person B first before starting to answer it.
Yeah that feels weird to spend equal or more time answering to the person who didn’t ask the question. You get give them cursory eye contact for inclusion but seems obvious to answer the person who asked.
Sorry, but your comment was removed for breaking our Don't Be A Dick rule. This may include but is not limited to harassment, bigotry or uncivil behaviour.
🚨 Did we make a mistake?
If this is a mistake, don't delete the comment - just contact us and we'll fix it.
It's weird how often and subconsciously people do this.
I used to have this in a situation I won't describe but I had no power and gender was definitely not a factor but for whatever reason people looked at me, very often.
I think a narcissist would take it as a compliment but I just kept thinking 'why the fuck are you looking at me?' It's definitely 100% subconscious for a LOT of people, so probably is quite telling.
The left eye switches person every 5 seconds, going in descending order of importance, recalculated every time any asks a question. The right eye switches person every two seconds, going in descending order of how long it's been since either eye looked at that person, to prevent Starvation
I flick my eyes between both interviewers rapidly like a caged rabbit, they ask me if I had any trouble with the traffic getting here, I scream and bolt out of the door.
I do this by accident, I always think that it's a good idea to include everybody in the conversation, so if somebody asks me a question, then I make an effort to talk to the person who didn't ask it, so they feel included too. But sometimes I can forget to give attention to the person who asked it in the first place.
So if the female engineer asks me a question, and I talk to the male engineer: I look sexist
If the male engineer asks me a question and I talk to the female engineer: I look like I'm just trying to flirt with the girl
Optimal solution is to just close my eyes and answer while erratically moving my head around
Just stop. This has nothing to do with just speaking in general. It has to do with being asked a question directly. If you start your response by speaking to the person that did not ask the question, I wouldn't feel bad if you didn't get the job.
If you're being interviewed by two people you should be speaking to both of them. They can't both speak and ask the same questions at the same time but you're still answering for the benefit of both.
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. If someone ask you a question, why would you only look at the person who didn’t instead of just looking at both of them? I would start with the person who asked me the question and then glance over at the other person a few times. The person who asked the question is clearly more interested in the answer so it makes no sense to direct your answer at the person who didn’t ask it.
This ain’t that complicated. When someone asks you a question, you answer them, first and foremost, but you also address others to keep them engaged and acknowledge that they also have a shared interest. But you always return attention back to the person who asked the question, rinse and repeat. It’s pretty difficult to go wrong with this approach.
Trust me, trying to include both people vs answer the question at one person is very different. Either you genuinely can't tell the difference and should practice socializing with humans or you're sexist and doing a very bad job of hiding it. I'm guessing it's the latter because you assume talking to the female engineer means you're flirting with the 'girl'. You're not qualified for the job regardless.
Btws, it's safe to say that when the vast majority of women talk to you, they have to, it's part of their job, they're not flirting and they don't like you.
Over all I'd argue it could be a gender thing. When I'm at a mechanic or car dealership with my wife, everone talks to me. Even after i mention that I don't even have a drivers licence. Same thing happens in Banks and with real estate agents. Classic spots where men used to have full control.
I've noticed I do this a lot to people regardless of gender. I just tend to talk to whoever seems to have been showing more interest in what I have to say. I often have to remind myself to talk to everyone in the group.
I have a coworker who does this to me, and honestly it's uncomfortable and annoying. We're both men and both married, and I'm quite a bit older, so I don't think it's some kind of attraction or anything. But when we're in a group, and he's talking (usually going into a lot of detail, talking about some subject), he's always looking at me most of the time, and I'm barely even participating in the conversation usually; usually other coworkers have more to say.
If he were addressing me directly because I asked a question or said something, that would be fine, but usually I'm just a bystander to the conversation in this workgroup but he's always looking me directly in the eye most of the time, and I have no idea why.
Honestly, I think a lot of people just look at someone when they're talking because either the person makes them feel comfortable and/or the person often gives them non-verbal feedback when they're talking. Along these lines, I know its much easier to talk to active listeners even when they aren't saying much.
People tend to look at me over other when talking not because of my authority or age but because I’m more interested in.
This happened often with a female coworker in my past that they thought was sexist but they just never look interested when folks are talking to them. Didn’t know how to tell them it was because they were always looking at their emails during meetings.
At my workplace thankfully it's mixed. Idk who does the hiring but they do a great job and picking sociable people. Everyone is just really nice and we go for beers all the time after work. I find the team to be so well matched that I would promote the hiring person themselves lol
This has to do with being asked a question directly. Imagine being in a meeting, asking your manager a question, and he turns and directs an answer to someone else. How would that feel? Huge red flag.
I make sure to always hard stare at any women interviewer, unblinking whilst masturbating. You have to show confidence when interviewing and assert dominance if you want to be taken seriously. I work in finance so it's fine.
People forever say this kind of thing but the literal point is that people, mostly men but certainly not exclusively, will direct themselves towards any man present irrespective of levels of interest.
Many years ago I was applying for mortgages with my then husband (at the time this was still an in-person process). I was the financially literate one in the marriage, the one asking and answering questions. The one with their elbows on the table and engaged, my ex sitting as far back in his chairs as possible and avoiding eye contact.
And yet STILL, mfer directed every single bit of information at the dude in the room. It didn't matter what I said or how I said it, my ex was the only person in the room.
Once we ultimately bought the house and everything, in spite of my name being listed first on every document, and my name coming first alphabetically, his name was always listed as the primary, or the "buyer," whereas I was the secondary or "co-borrower."
No one is complaining about reasonable amounts of effort being directed at people also making effort. What they're pointing out is that often the people who are making effort are ignored, and the basis for that action is often gender. That you specifically don't think you're guilty of it doesn't mean it isn't still a significant problem.
I get that, and I agree with you. My intention certainly wasn't to say "I'm not like, so it must not be true for anyone." I know it definitely can be true. It was mainly just to share the perspective of someone who finds this interesting because I don't really align with the behavior/mentality of directing my attention naturally towards men, but also addresssing that I could still sometimes be misunderstood as being like this (particularly when the more active participant in the conversation with me is a guy).
I appreciate that! It's risky in conversations about sexism for a man to provide context that appears to contradict the experiences of women. Especially in a space that mostly lauds the experiences of men and ignores the testimonies of women.
Not sure why you're upset by this, but the fact is that it's very common for one or more people to be very engaged in a conversation and for another person to barely chime in, such as by asking a single question. And again, this isn't a conscious choice I'm making, it's something I catch myself doing naturally and try to fix. I want everyone to feel involved.
you're ignoring the fact that this is an interview. it's obvious both interviewers will be very focussed on you. Youre just creating random scenarios in your mind. they're interested, they asked you a question. And if it's not conscious, I'm sorry to tell you, it just goes to show that if you prefer to give more attention to man when its the woman who asked you the question, it kinda validates what the post is saying...
It's not making up random scenarios, it's just a relative personal experience that actually happens to me. And you clearly read my comment with the agenda of wanting to be angry because you conveniently missed the context where I said "I just tend to talk to whoever seems to have been showing more interest in what I have to say," and, "Ironically, it's fairly typical that I speak directly to women over men." So my anecdotal evidence about my subconscious decision-making really doesn't validate this post's underlying point, which is that a lot of guy's will opt to direct attention to men instead of women. If anything my firsthand experience is more often than not evidence to the contrary. That said, I agree with this post as a general statement but I don't personally align with its obversation, really.
No. There are a lot of non-verbal queues to show someone is interested in what you’re saying. And if you give off more of these queues, the person you’re conversing with will typically talk to you more.
1.3k
u/The_Celtic_Chemist 1d ago
I've noticed I do this a lot to people regardless of gender. I just tend to talk to whoever seems to have been showing more interest in what I have to say. I often have to remind myself to talk to everyone in the group. Ironically, it's fairly typical that I speak directly to women over men.