Perception is Bliss…Especially if You’re an Idiot – The Kornheiser Analysis

In his essay “No Detail is too Small For Girls Answering a Simple Question,” author and

sports T.V. host Tony Kornheiser had attacked the age-old dilemma of female and male

communication with a slightly humorous if not highly un-substantial approach. In his essay, he

compared the differences of speech patterns he discovered between his young son and daughter.

Unfortunately, his “comparison” which was drawn from both of their accounts of a previous

sleep-away camp visit served only to further the stereotype that females talk both more about and

more in general about everything than males. Kornheiser’s essay subterraneously touched on the

idea that males and female’s conversation patterns change in correlation to whether they are

talking amongst their own gender or they intermix. This belief is the only one of Kornheiser’s

that held any weight. Besides the after – mentioned point, Kornheiser failed to purport any

supporting evidence as well as faced an overwhelming amount of scientific revelations that were

in direct conflict with his views and served to disprove them.

The idea that females in general speak both much more and in more detail than males is a

very common stereotype. It is completely unfounded and can be debunked in several different

instances. For example, according to Kornheiser, when asking females for information you

“must be specific...unless you have nowhere to go until Thursday”, while on the contrary males

only “restrict themselves to true/false” types of responses (306). This statement was quickly

dissolved when compared to a factual source. In her essay “Women Talk too Much,” Janet

Holmes discussed several studies centering around the amount of talk used by males and females

in different contexts. These studies, held by Canadian, American, and New Zealand researchers,

all concluded that “males generally dominate the talking time…even when they hold influential

positions, females sometimes find it hard to contribute as much ...to a discussion” (300). It is
easy to assume from this information that Kornheiser’s initial remark was completely lacking in

supplemental representation and fell flat when pressed against factual statistics. While Holmes’

discoveries found a completely factual ground to stand on, Kornheiser’s argument rested its legs

on shaky, unsupported ground.

In addition, Kornheiser had stated that females gather information and repeat it without

any differentiation (306). When faced off with actual statistics, he was again backed into a

corner, as Holmes was able to retort with the conclusions of researchers that indicated that males

tended to contribute more informational and opinionated talk, while females contributed more

encouraging and supportive talk (302). From this we can again deflate Kornheiser’s statement as

nothing more than satirical opinion. It is only through the separation of fact and opinion can the

truth be completely found and the fallacy subdued. Ultimately, his belief that females in general

spoke both much more and in more detail than males pointed in the direction of a pure

stereotype, which in any instance lacked supportive evidence.

The idea that males in general speak more brief and concise than females is another

notorious stereotype that can be silenced by several opposing instances. For example, when

addressing the males’ tendencies towards voicing ideas, Kornheiser insisted that males “do not

gather and retain information; they focus on results…short and to the point” (306). In yet

another jab to his credibility, Holme’s essay made known a statistically backed study conducted

by British, New Zealand, and American researchers that concluded the opposite, stating that

“males dominate the talking time in committee meetings, staff meetings, seminars, and task-

oriented decision-making groups” (301) . Kornheiser’s sexist, male-favored claim was as

baseless as his previous view that females talked more frequently and in more depth, as it lacked
any statistical or professional backing. The statistics provided by Holmes actually ended up

serving to prove the complete opposite of what he intended.

Not unusually due to his obvious opinion on the matter, Kornheiser also attempted to

display the brevity of males when compared to females in an analogy of his son and daughter

describing their sleep-away camp experiences. His daughter, he claimed, would not stop in her

long retelling, while his son simply said he busted a friend’s nose and then asked to go to go to

McDonald’s (306). If males do in fact talk more than females, why was this so? Holmes

provided a reasonable answer, citing that the few studies performed on informal interviews

between males and females discovered there are fewer differences in the amount contributed by

females and males in congenial contexts (302). Translating the results, Holmes remarked that

females were more willing to talk more in relaxed social environment, especially where the talk

turned into developing and maintaining a social relationship (302). The assumption to be drawn

from this finding is that while there are few instances where females may in fact talk more than

males, they stem from the level of personal and relaxed contexts in which the conversation takes

place. In most other cases, males trump females in their talking length and time. At last

dissected, the idea that males speak more brief and concise than females is more stereotype

fodder, able to be dethroned with facts and data.

There is little to argue against idea that communication styles seem to be based on

gender, as Kornheiser’s essay has continually touched upon. The styles of both genders change

drastically when they are confined to their own sect in conversation. For example, in her essay

“The Party Line,” Rachel Rafelman recounted her experience at a private party, discovering that

females and males separated into their own separate groups within the hour of the party

beginning. She observed “tipsy girls talking ‘girl talk;’ even tipsier men discussing business,
sports, and politics” (316). The fact that males and females confined themselves to their own

gender groups plays a large part in the determination of their conversational choices. As females

tend to carry more personal, explorative conversations (previously cited by Holmes), they will in

fact display this behavior among their own gender. Males follow suit as well, attempting to play

into their stereotype of keeping conversation professional and less personal.

To further this point, Rafelman listed a personal experience written by author Kate

Fillion. In her experience, Fillion noticed that if a female declined to conform with the gender

split and found herself enjoying the conversations of males, it could be seen as flirtatious or

showing off. She also noted that other females became annoyed because she was prolonging an

uninteresting, male-dominated conversation (319). Fillion’s experience provided strong support

as to why females would choose to avoid intermixing altogether, as it causes dissension among

their own ranks. In capturing the attention of a females, males show their true nature of being

the notorious long-talking gender group with the woman usually listening more often than not.

As a result, the females partaking in the male conversation are looked at as if they are showing

off or making romantic or flirty advances at the males. To summarize, the conversation styles of

both males and females change significantly from statistical incriminations when they are

confined within their own genders.

Kornheiser’s personal experience and sarcastic charm on the subject of male and females

speech patterns failed to justify any of his claims in his essay, with the notable exception of

communication styles being based on gender. His lack of finding and citing any factual or

statistical data showed both his close-mindedness on the subjects discussed and perhaps an

overall lack of interest on his part. His views that females are endless yakking zombies and that

males are simple, concise machines built for vocal proficiency fell completely to the wayside
when placed up against the detections of Holmes. By the end of the comparisons between both

author’s essays, it became next to impossible to find any siding ground for Kornheiser. It was

Rafelman’s essay that lent Kornheiser a helping hand, helping to re-affirm his entire essay’s

unstated idea that males and females communicate differently among each other in comparison

to being among the opposite gender. Kornheiser’s essay was a strong, beautifully illustrated

example of how important it is to back up any outlandish claims or statements, or risk

disappearing into the abyss when being compared against more qualified opponents that actually

did their research.