Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ask Joe: Two sides of a story

Ask Joe: Two sides of a story

Hi Joe,

I read your last article where you gave a woman advice on how to deal with her boss who keeps cutting her off in meetings. I think you gave some good tips, but you also mentioned that she may be talking too much as an option for what the problem is. Don’t you think by saying this that you are doing the same thing the boss is doing? To me, it comes across as another white man telling a woman how to act.


Keeping it Real

Hello Keeping it Real,

I really appreciate your question and the invitation for me to “keep it real”. I think if more of us had the courage to hold one another accountable in a respectful and curious way, we would have less arguments, fights, breakdowns in communication and therefore fewer opposition. As I always do when someone brings attention to something I’ve said or done, I take time to contemplate and consider their perspective. So, thanks for that opportunity.

My intention with my response to “Shut Down” in the last article was to give her different ways to look at the situation to help her arrive at the clearest perspective. When someone shares a situation with me, I must keep in mind that they can only offer me their perception of what is happening with only a few sentences to do so. As a mediator and peace advocate, I have to consider that this is not enough to get a complete picture.

In my book Fierce Civility, I discuss a pattern that many of us have where we quickly listen to the facts of a situation, or we read a post on social media. We often unintentionally add our interpretation of the story based on our own life experiences and draw our conclusions or judgments based on that. I talk extensively about how our internal polarizations color how we perceive reality. For instance, we seem to very quickly pick a “good guy” and “bad guy” in challenging events; this unfortunately sets up allies and adversaries before we even get a chance to gather the facts.

Having worked for many years with organizations around the world focused on addressing gender justice, I am very aware of signals where women are marginalized and oppressed. When I read “Shut Down’s” depiction of the story, my first quick reaction was to conclude that this is an example of a man putting a woman down. So, I had to make the pivot from my biases to remembering that my “interpretation” can only be confirmed as true when I take the time to investigate further.

This is what I am noticing is often forgotten in the process of getting to the truth of a situation and also a fundamental cause of our extreme polarization; which is a breakdown of civil discourse and inability to get to inclusive and fair solutions to our current problems. While our assumptions may be true, we will resolve issues faster and with more lasting results when we can still be curious, give others the benefit of the doubt, and remember that we all have the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

I believe that objectivity is an effective tool for solving problems. This helps me get to the root cause of the issue and break my polarizing way of seeing things. Yes, it is certainly true that women and other marginalized people are commonly shut down and disempowered in male dominated-cultures and environments. Additionally, it is also true that people in general take up a lot of time in meetings with their words. Both can be, and are, true.

I made sure not to interpret, judge or accuse in my previous article, and tried my best to objectively name the behavior. In doing so, I offered an opportunity for consideration that the problem may be that she is “taking up too much of the meeting with [her] words…”; this may or may not be true. Yes, this is a risk for me to suggest because of the depth of pain and trauma that women often experience. However, I feel that limiting the potential roots of the problem may actually be contributing to our inability to have effective conversations. I felt it worthwhile to take that risk.

So, Keeping it Real, while it certainly can look like I am hindering someone’s voice, my intent is to offer an alternate course of events (that it may be true that she takes up a lot of time in meetings). Through both fierce and civil dialogue, we can seek out ways to solve our problems, and perhaps we also can all grow and deepen relationships.

Please keep keeping it real,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Check out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

Have a question for Joe? Send an email to AskJoe@fulcrum.us.


Read More

Texas Capitol building

Texas Capitol, Austin

Texas GOP’s Closed-Primary Push Hits Pause. The Next Fight Is in Austin

Austin, Texas—A federal court effectively told the Republican Party of Texas Friday that—at least for now—if they want primary elections closed, they will have to convince their members in the legislature to do it. This puts the matter on hold until the 2027 legislative session.

It wasn’t a dismissal. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Texas’ open primary system. Instead, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk paused the GOP’s lawsuit, stating that the Legislature may soon take steps to close the state’s primary elections on its own.

Keep ReadingShow less
First Amendment being torn

First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept

Getty Images

Lawsuit Says Press Access Is Essential to Democratic Accountability

When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.

According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Cropped shot of a group of people joining their hands in solidarity

A new union political director explains why labor membership has halved since 1983 even as public approval hits record highs—and what's driving the gap.

LumiNola/Getty Images

The Ongoing Fight for Bread and Roses

Last Monday, I started a new job as the political director for IBEW 569, a local electrical workers' union based here in San Diego. In talking to friends about what I’m doing–while learning, fast, in real time, how to do the job myself–it occurred to me that there’s actually quite a knowledge gap in society today regarding an understanding of what unions are and what they’re supposed to do. So let’s get into it.

A union is, at its core, a group of workers who agree to negotiate together instead of alone. One worker asking a boss for a raise has almost no leverage. A thousand workers asking together hits different. That leverage of teamwork, that collective bargaining, is how the overtime pay, workplace safety standards, and employer-sponsored health insurance all came to exist in this country. None of it was handed down out of corporate goodwill. Fair wages (bread) and dignity (roses) were won, often at real cost. In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees and building tradesmen was around 100 hours or more. Workers in Chicago who rallied for an eight-hour workday faced police violence, but we have that and weekends now because people were willing to lose their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to organize for it.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

Research shows Americans see political opponents as more extreme than reality. Learn how closing this 'perception gap' can restore civil discourse.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Closing Perception Gaps Strengthens the Whole Democracy Ecosystem

Perception gaps — misunderstandings about our fellow Americans across the political spectrum — are damaging the fabric of our country. Correcting these gaps is essential to preserving the kind of democracy that respects free speech, individual dignity, and civic responsibility.

At their core, perception gaps reflect a tendency to see those in the other party as more extreme and worse than they actually are. Too often, Americans assume their political opponents are more hostile, closed-minded, dishonest, or even supportive of political violence and rule-breaking than in reality. These caricatures drive fear and division.

Keep ReadingShow less