[21echoes]

Yes, it is possible to have absolutely, completely emotion-less arguments. No, it is not easy, or particularly common.

If you truly feel like you & your work environment do have such pure-truth-seeking arguments: great. However, please take some time to really critically evaluate & test that assertion -- the people who are most at home in such an environment are the people least likely to notice its negative effects on other team members & potential hires. I'm speaking from experience here: I love arguing (or "debating" as I prefer to think of it), and have been on plenty of teams where it was a common interaction. It was only with some time, helpful feedback from my direct reports, and critical examination that I was really able to see the subtle ways in which it was hurting our org.

Re: gender -- I hope you see why gender was brought up in the article. No, it was not some "spin" or needless us vs. them. Women are, as the article states, the canary in the coal mine of toxic & aggressive interpersonal dynamics. Not because of any weaknesses of women, but rather because men have been shown over and over again to reject the arguments of assertive women no matter their merits, and to accept the same arguments from equally assertive men instead (cited in the article). In other words: an argumentative environment is one which punishes women by putting them in a position where their peers judge them in a gendered way.

[anaximander]

I guess I didn't mean to imply that I live in a world where everyone can have these "pure-truth" arguments. In fact, it's a rare and often rewarding experience if it does happen. I also know that there's a time and a place for debating and it requires consent of all parties. It also requires that some value is being generated, if we're talking about debating in the workplace.

I guess I am having trouble appreciating the relation of this article to gender, for two reasons.

1. The author is claiming that "men are aggressive" and then claiming that "aggression" is the problem, so the point of the article really seemed to be "men are the problem". I find this in some ways offensive, especially since I (a man) think that I don't do the things mentioned in the article. Maybe I'm overreacting to being accused of something based on my gender.

2. The author states "Crossing boundaries and using aggression to win an argument includes making personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly than an opponent, or entering someone's personal space." I completely agree that these behaviors are unacceptable. But, I think that these are all gender neutral behaviors, and it harms people of any gender when they are used against them. Is it really important to designate men as the ones who must follow these rules?

[21echoes]

Mmm, I didn't get 1) from the article at all. Rather, I got "men and women can be equally aggressive, but women are punished (socially & professionally) more for it than men". Re: 2) -- not the whole article was about gender. It was about the negative effects of having an argumentative workplace overall.