Women, Men and Type of Talk

Well, this is basically a short, point-form truncated summary of the article I presented on class; basically whatever I was reading off my laptop!

Women, Men and Type of Talk: What Makes the Difference?

Alice F. Freed & Alice Greenwood

- Examine: “you know” and use of questions

- Study based on: same-sex conversations broken up into three parts (Spontaneous talk, Considered talk, Collaborative talk) + Experimental setting

- Asserts that: though previously associated with female speech styles, it is not so – instead, it is the particular context of the conversations and the particular requirements – men and women use them with equal frequency and in comparable ways

o What accounts for this = requirements associated with the talk situation responsible for eliciting/supporting specific discourse forms not the sex or gender of speakers

- Countering: gender-based patterns of communication and the characterization of men and women having distinct conversational styles

o “The concept of stable and mutually exclusive gendered speech styles, uniquely associated with women and girls or men and boys, is unfortunately still pervasive in the field of linguistics”

o Results of early cross-sex studies cannot be unproblematically transferred to generalized conclusions about the speech styles of men and women in all contexts

o Conception of gender: unquestioningly treated as a dualistic, polarized category parallel to sex = simplistic and naive

§ Need to re-evaluate some of the principal categories of analysis that have been previously accepted in language and gender studies

- “You Know” : often described as a female hedging device, and interpreted as a marker of both insecurity and of powerlessness, subordination of the female – counters Lakoff

o Their data = increase in frequency of occurrence of “you know” in same-sex interaction; in informal dyadic conversation – not unusual for one partner to use ‘you know’ more than the other

o Hearer-oriented expression, checking for shared background information, reassurance, intimacy signal, positive politeness, mutual involvement – assists in joint production of conversation

- Use of Questions: stereotypically associated with the conversational style of women – counters Lakoff (again) who interprets it as a sign of women’s hesitancy and societal powerlessness

o Brings in Tannen: question asking is seen as part of women’s cooperative speaking style and a device for sharing the floor

o Cameron: the absolute necessity of considering forms in their linguistic and social context, and not in general

o Men: more expressive style questions, women – more relational questions

§ Different socialization practices, engage in different activities and practices – different language behaviour as they may not participate in similar types of discourse

Blog Assignment #2

The article "Translating Men-speak" seeks to give an insight into the different interactions between men and women, elaborating upon the different connotations that men and women seem to attach to different words. The article starts off with the phrase "sexual stereotypes are bunk", followed by the use of the word "regresses" to describe change in the male brain. This leads us to think that the writer will come from a constructionist perspective; though it fails to deliver on that -when the following part of the article takes on an essentialist nature when using the phrases 'he said' and 'he really means'.

The article is based on the underling premise that inherent differences exist in men's and women's choice of words and language - to the extent that each sex requires a translation to understand the other. This is further reinforced by the title of the article, where 'Man-speak' implies that language use is inherently gendered.

The article is written in the style of a self-help book which seeks to dispense advice and solutions which can be easily adopted by the readership. The title attracts the attention of women who have recently quarreled with their (male) partner, and also women in general since this seems to be a 'prevalent' problem. The article is conversation-scenario based with translations, paralleling Gray's use of the Martian-Venusian dictionary in his book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. This structure allows for the encapsulation of the conversation within a specific context, instead of being a general overview. Furthermore, within each "He Said What' capsule, the 'advice' is further broken down into "He Really Means" - the writer's interpretative translation of 'man-speak'; and "Now You Say" - advice as to what the (female) reader should do in such a situation. This is lastly followed up by a pseudo-conclusion "Why It Works - that seeks to sum up the argument and convince the reader that this is logical and effective.

Situating the article in context, we see that it is meant for publication in Women's Health magazine, and we can thus assume a largely female readership. Such an article is based on the assumption that there are inherent gendered differences in choice of language and wording. The wording of the article ('really means" and "why it works") seeks to put the writer in a more authoritative position since there is only a singular point of view being put forth. In every "Why it Works" section, a scientist or academic will be quoted, serving to increase the credibility of the advice provided and increasing the authorial authority of the writer.

The publication of such an article on gender differences and miscommunication in a health magazine further lends 'scientific factuality', embedded within the general context of diet and exercise. possibly misleading the readership to believe in that essential differences exist between men and women. The scenarios in themselves are generic and homogenous, and do not make distinctions based on social positioning, context, social environment or ethnic cross-cultural variations, instead assuming that men and women are homogenous groups who view and interpret the social world in a singular fashion.

Furthermore, even though analysis is contextualised in a specific scenario, the wording and language cited as examples of Man-Speak can be applied to both sexes. However, this style is probably chosen to appeal to the female readership.

This article subverts the traditional notion that only women's speech needs to be translated because it is indirect, proposing that men's language needs translations too.

What's obscure to you might be straightforward to someone else.

Conversation - Tales of Mere Existence

A small take on how come men and women seem to have so much problem getting along ;) We see here how the words used can all have a multitude of different connotations which might thus give rise to miscommunication, but on the other hand, we can observe conversation patterns - such as interrupting, not talking or being combative.

"Teacher's Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women use Language Differently" - Deborah Tannen

Deborah Tannen's article “Teacher's Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently” comes across to me as a very persuasive piece of writing which serves to communicate a point convincingly across.

Tannen attempts to get teachers to evaluate the way they teach, depending on the gender make-up of the class. She hints that current methods of teaching (described by one male teacher as 'I have students read an article, and then I invite them to tear it apart. After we've torn it to shreds, we talk about how to build a better model”) are insufficient in promoting total class participation, based on the primary assumption that males and females are inherently different, and because of this, women tend to be more quiet in classrooms which have a competitive and expressive atmosphere. This, she argues, is disadvantageous to women and thus, supports her argument that teachers should change the way they teach.

Through the use of personal examples and anecdotes, Tannen tries to insert and position herself as one of the intended audience (academia and teaching staff), showing that she too knows what it is like to teach a class, putting herself on a peer-to-peer level instead of that of an academic sitting in an ivory tower. As such, the article comes across as somewhat informal, adopting a casual tone which is made more 'credible' through her use of personal examples. It seems as though she is entering a conversation with her readers, similar to a casual interaction that might take place at any kitchen table – rather than hard-selling her point. This helps her to avoid a defensive and critical response which might have come with an academic critique of teaching practices, and instead gain support for her argument and convince others that teachers should review the way they conduct her classroom. She ends off, not with a strong proposition urging people to change their classroom strategies to a 'correct' way (and hinting that what is being done now is wrong) but instead on a gentler note, encouraging her peers to think about her argument and how it is or is not in line with their current teaching practices.

It has often been stereotyped that women are generally the more expressive sex, preferring to talk about things and express their emotions whilst men are more to-the-point and communicating to give/share information. However, Tannen points out that this is not the case in a classroom atmosphere, where “male students are more likely to be comfortable attacking the readings ... (while) women are more likely to resist discussion they perceive as hostile”. Based on this observation, she argues that classrooms are wildly different places and hospitable to different students based on different teaching styles. As most university lecturers tend to be male, she is insinuating that such methods disadvantage the female gender by encouraging an openly verbal atmosphere which forces students to speak out and argue their point (which, to Tannen, is favourably biased towards males).

In line with the expectation that all scholarly articles should cite other academic work as proof of background research, Tannen does indeed included findings by other people in the academic community, particularly the research of anthropologists and sociologists on the topic of gender. Not only does this serve to back up her argument, it also situates her within the community, which possibly helps her gain more support in terms of readership. However, I find certain faults with how she has included such previous research. Firstly, I find that Tannen is selective in terms of the arguments she uses – she generalizes them and takes them out of context; making findings come across as facts. For example, she cites that “the research of sociologists and anthropologists such as Janet Lever, Marhorie Harness Goodwin and Donna Edner has show that girls and boys learn to use language differently in their sex-separate peer groups”, yet does not qualify the statement in terms of space and time – in short, taking it out of context and presenting only one side of the research on the effect of peer socialization on language patterns. Besides such generalizations, Tannen is also implicitly implying her view that gender differences in language are essentially so (an essentialist view), merely paying lip service to the fact that there is another school of thought, namely the social constructionists.

The bulk of Tannen's article describes her own experience in the form of a narrative case study of the 'mini-experiment' she conducted on her class, though I feel that this is not convincing as it is not as generalizable as she presents it to be. However, this is in line with how she has structured her academic argument; to convince, and not to present research.

In conclusion, I feel that Tannen has made use of an innovative strategy to encourage her readers to think about her argument, though I still have a few reservations regarding her essentialist stance, stereotypical assumptions and selective use of data. This piece makes for easy reading and encourages us to take her argument up as food for thought, though I would not consider it to be very academic in terms of writing style and examples used.

Why Women Stay Single

Something I found on Youtube, which is so stereotypical of men and booze that it's funny. just for sharing; Enjoy! :)

Blog Post #1 - Difference Between Men and Women

(Apologies for the disabled embedding, you can click on the link and watch it on youtube instead!)

This video is a short excerpt from the TV sitcom Friends, detailing a scene where Rachel and Ross have just returned home from their date, and are telling their friends about their first kiss. It is a telling clip of a stereotype present in gender communication, of how men and women communicate differently about the same event, to friends of the same sex.

Rachel, for example, goes home, closes the door and excitedly exclaims "Ross kissed me!!!" to her friends Monica and Phoebe, who were apparently already waiting for her to get back and share the story. Rachel's excitement spreads across the whole room, and Monica gets up to get wine glasses and rushes back, screaming "don't start without me! don't start without me!" whilst Phoebe asks her to "describe the whole thing" - ("was it like a soft brush against your lips, or was it like a 'I gotta have you now' kind of kiss?" and how it ended. Rachel, on the other hand, does her part by going into very detailed descriptions of how Ross held her, and how it felt.

The camera then cuts to the next scene, which shows Ross hanging out with his friends Joey and Chandler at the kitchen table, with pizza on the table. He starts off saying that "Then I kissed her". to the almost nonchalent response of his friends; Joey asks "tongue?" to which he replies yeah, and Joey replies "Cool." with a full stop. All go back to being more obsessed about their pizzas.

This short clip has encapsulated what, to me is the main difference between the way men and women talk - women go into the details and share the emotions with their friends, whilst men on the other hand state the facts, mainly for information exchange and then the conversation ends there. In reference to Tannen's first piece about the difference between men and women, I feel that this is especially emblematic of the example of 'Information vs Feelings'. In that, she writes "All Rebecca's life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information."

Phoebe further reinforces the notion that women talk to gain empathy and support when she asks hurriedly "does it end well? do we need to get tissue or...?" whilst this does not happen at all, on the men's side.

Adopting the social-constructionist perspective, I feel that this could be due to childhood gender socialization, especially the notion of 'boys don't cry'. Boys are taught to be strong and masculine, and that expressing emotions are wrong (though this approach is slowly changing in post-modernity) whilst girls are encouraged often to be more expressive with their feelings. As such, perhaps this can explain why exchanges amongst men are usually short and to the point, at risk or exposing their emotions and seeming like a women, crossing the gender boundaries. However, women are allowed to go into the detail and share the information with their friends for social support and empathy. This further reinforces prior research that men generally focus more on the content while women focus more on the relationship dimensions of communication. With recognition of such difference, one will presumably be better able to remove a potential barrier to communication by being sensitive to how the opposite sex is feeling.

Rachel and Ross' different reactions to the same event also illustrate how differently men and women can react to the same event; to Rachel it seems like an earth-shattering development, whilst to Ross it seems almost mundane. Perhaps if they had seen each other's responses, Rachel would have been very hurt to find that Ross was not as 'into it' as she was - and this might possibly lead to further miscommunication.

"Can't We Talk?" - Deborah Tannen

Tannen's article seems to be written for a popular, general audience as seen from the way she approaches the subject matter - primarily through the use of scenario-based examples which can be easily related to. She then seeks to explain (albeit based on her own opinions and not entirely justified) why the characters acted/reacted the way they did, providing a more informative view on the subject matter.

I liked the article as it made for easy reading, allowing me to easily identify with the examples provided, which were generic and common. I liked how Tannen sought to provide both sides of the argument, explaining why the men and women might have acted in different ways, giving a balanced point of view instead of one which put either sex in the wrong. Furthermore, her writing style is more communicative and engaging, rather than coming across as her authoritative view. This writing style also means that the audience (the readers) feel more connected to her in an 'Aunt Agony' sense, believing that she is writing this article in hope of really helping to bridge communication differences between men and women.

The analogy of Rebecca getting angry over Stuart reading the newspaper particularly interested me. Not only was it an interesting read and a scenario many will be able to imagine and laugh about, Tannen managed to effectively weave in a piece of advice to her audience: to make adjustments and compromise, on the part of both parties. I feel that even though this might seem as common-sense advice to many, seeing it being written in words, even though in an informal sense, does make people ponder more about the issue. As can be seen, despite her background as a scholar, Tannen does not only stick to the abstract theories and analogies, but instead brings the subject matter down to the ground, to her audience - using everyday examples and 'common-sensical' advice to bring across her point - all in simple English.

In fact, Tannen's piece is not just informative (about how miscommunication arises between men and women), her article is styled like a piece of self-help advice, a piece which can easily be found in self-help books which usually employ the use of analogies to help people identify with the 'problem' or scenario, as well as simple, casual language to engage the readers. This, in my opinion is what makes Tannen's piece so engaging, and convincing at the same time, despite the lack of academic seriousness in her writing.

I agree with Tannen, though I feel that she has left out a very important point - contextualizing her examples. The examples and solutions given are generic such that they may be able to appeal to a wider target audience, but in doing so, I find that Tannen also makes the mistake of generalizing her advice and findings, sometimes even to the point of stereotyping. While she does give convincing explanations to the way men and women react in situations of conflict, she fails to qualify these in terms of social background and context - instead making it seem as though her answers were applicable to every person out there.