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

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less