I introduced the book “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps” by Allan and Barbara Pease during the classroom discussion. A short excerpt from Chapter One is provided in the link below. In this book (which has an admittedly eye-catching title), the husband-and-wife team used personal anecdotes, simple scientific language and humour to bring across their views on gender and language differences. It is evidently obvious that the authors are proponents of the “biological” theory, which states men and women communicate (and perceive words within a communication) differently. Misunderstandings are claimed to be a result of fundamental biological differences between men and women, and these inherent differences are dedicated to Mother Nature’s construct instead of gendered power relations in society that feminists (and Robin Lakoff) often harp on.
The authors have also co-authored another book called “The Definitive Book on Body Language” prior to “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Cannot Read Maps”. The grandiose-sounding title of the former may be viewed cynically by some, but it is to note that the authors show, in this fashion, that they are already cognizant of body language and varying tones of voice present in speeches when men and women speak to one another. The authors acknowledge, in the same breath, that body language form the main bulk of communication. Yet, they are still insistent that certain body language, nuances and tones of voice from females cannot be detected (or correctly interpreted) by (only) men, and this “ignorant men” syndrome mirrors what was written in “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” by their predecessor, John Gray. Many parallels are also drawn with “S/He Brain” by Robert Nadeau, especially with regard to the latest scientific methods that allow scientists to use fMRI (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to see brain stimulus (brain activity) in real time. Nadeau’s analogy of “hunters” and “gatherers” for men and women respectively are also expanded upon by the Peases, who went a step further to introduce what is recently termed as “evolutionary biology” to explain differences between men and women and how we are all determined by the prehistoric Neanderthal past. Our body biology is described to be “seriously out of date” as compared to modern society, and communication is only one of the many areas in which men and women differ from one another (there is a major chapter on Perception of Sex – the one associated with physical declaration of love, not the scientific grouping of gender – but one will have to read the book to find out more).
The book is definitely an interesting read, but it once again falls under the “popular science” category with a few generalizations. For example, it is mentioned that fMRI and real-time cognitive processes in the brain is still a relatively unexplored field as the fMRI technology is still rather recent, but the authors are still too quick to link physical structure of the brain to function (agreeing that thicker corpus callosum equates to better interactivity between two brain hemispheres and that this gives rise to a marked increase in number of words used by women in conversations, as well as more liberal use of metaphorical language – in that case, isn’t “famous male poets” an oxymoron?). The authors failed to account for other causal factors and totally dismissed the role of society, stating in the book that young children can be placed on an island far away from civilization but males would also form hierarchies where the fittest would be the strongest and females would still form groups and take care of one another. This is especially hard to believe or justify, since it cannot be done in reality - the children would most probably not survive - and their word should only be taken at face value. It is also rather disappointing that men and women are still being stereotyped frequently throughout the book and their research subjects are still largely restricted to easily accessible populations (few of those countries visited are Third World/matriarchal in nature and this repeated "mistakes" made by earlier researchers on this topic as well) and interviewees they sought are largely well educated, with knowledge of English (and thus exposed to and influenced by Western culture). Therefore, it only reinforced what they believed in and what their predecessors mentioned, since the interviewed groups were largely the same and results obtained would closely match the data that is already available.
Excerpt: http://www.enotalone.com/article/20260.html
P.S. Do also check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1044805.stm on science's explanation of "Why Men Don't Listen".
Monday, 11 October 2010
Monday, 27 September 2010
Blogging Assignment #2
The article “He Said She Said” from Men’s Health magazine would be examined in this blog post, as well as the close association of this article with the excerpt from John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.
The article provided scenarios where clueless men were constantly thrown into a befuddling conundrum by women who say one thing but mean another in a “No-Means-Yes” and “Yes-Means-No” sort of situation. Hapless and helpless men could now take faith and be reassured by this article, which sought to explain such bewildering comments and responses from unfathomable females. Explanations given for erratic behaviour and moods from the women species ranged the gamut from certain natural biological periods of the month, a bad day at work, an argument with her best friend, an inclination to pick a fight with a man no matter what he does and also when the woman feels that she should be right for the day. Men are told to treat whatever the woman say then as irrelevant and trivial, something that could be swept under the rug and fully dismissed till she starts to act sensibly again, as whatever the triggering factor that caused such a response would sort itself out and the matter would blow over after some time. Men are also advised to placate and accommodate to her requests in the meantime and never to react in ways that might add fuel to the fire. The best way of communication as proposed by this article is to listen emphatically without solving a woman’s problems rather than to speak knowledgeably and propose solutions, and to provide a listening ear whenever the woman is in one of her moods. However, as much as this article tried to be helpful, this actually not only played into the stereotypical portrayal of a hysterical female, but might also erroneously make the man ignore the real needs of a woman when she was really crying out for help and support. Men are also assumed, in the same breath, to offer solutions to every problem that they hear of or come across, and this “need-to-fix mentality” is extrapolated to their relationships with women, thus listening is described a skill which they need to develop, instead of something men are inherently born with.
The advice suggested from these various scenarios should be taken lightly, as this is but a men’s magazine and the perspectives of the author(s) are in no way credible or substantial. The scope of the article is rather limited as it is scenario-based and merely five scenarios were given to explain away tantrums from women. It is unlikely that these scenarios could cover every aspect of interpersonal relationships in grounded reality. This article shares similarities with Gray, assuming that men and women have different conversational rules and that men constantly have to “decode [a woman’s] words and body language”. Constant practice of suggestions from the article are deemed to be useful (a requirement, actually) in the long run and would allow for communication success with the opposite sex. The article went on to make several blatant assumptions, such as an assumption that men are really in the dark when it came to actual meaning and phrasing of words, even in certain situations where the intention was in plain sight, and that women are largely to be blamed for making the lives of men difficult with the use of indirect speech which men are unfamiliar with, which in turn resulted in conflict, miscommunication, misunderstanding and mishandling of the events. This article indirectly seemed to portray women as the source of all troubles men would ever face in his lifetime – cleaning up a laundry room filled with soap suds is seemingly more bearable and less stressful than having a woman complain about the purchase of the incorrect detergent. The last section on “Her Top 5 Communication Don’ts were indeed derogatory in nature to women, with use of strong terms like “Women freak out often for no discernible reason” and portrayed guys as unknowing victims who say things that they thought were pretty innocent, but had really annoyed or enraged the women folk, along with the assumption that all women would react in a similar negative fashion upon hearing the comment.
Therefore, though the article seemed to differ from Gray’s opinions since it depicted women as being confrontational rather than being meek and submissive that sought to avoid hurtful comments made to men, it actually re-hashed the typical stereotypes of the sexes that plagued Gray’s excerpt. The advice provided in the article is based on intuition of the author rather than factual realities, and is in no terms a comprehensive and useful guide, thus it should be regarded lightly and should not be taken as the absolute truth when it comes to dealing with women.
The article provided scenarios where clueless men were constantly thrown into a befuddling conundrum by women who say one thing but mean another in a “No-Means-Yes” and “Yes-Means-No” sort of situation. Hapless and helpless men could now take faith and be reassured by this article, which sought to explain such bewildering comments and responses from unfathomable females. Explanations given for erratic behaviour and moods from the women species ranged the gamut from certain natural biological periods of the month, a bad day at work, an argument with her best friend, an inclination to pick a fight with a man no matter what he does and also when the woman feels that she should be right for the day. Men are told to treat whatever the woman say then as irrelevant and trivial, something that could be swept under the rug and fully dismissed till she starts to act sensibly again, as whatever the triggering factor that caused such a response would sort itself out and the matter would blow over after some time. Men are also advised to placate and accommodate to her requests in the meantime and never to react in ways that might add fuel to the fire. The best way of communication as proposed by this article is to listen emphatically without solving a woman’s problems rather than to speak knowledgeably and propose solutions, and to provide a listening ear whenever the woman is in one of her moods. However, as much as this article tried to be helpful, this actually not only played into the stereotypical portrayal of a hysterical female, but might also erroneously make the man ignore the real needs of a woman when she was really crying out for help and support. Men are also assumed, in the same breath, to offer solutions to every problem that they hear of or come across, and this “need-to-fix mentality” is extrapolated to their relationships with women, thus listening is described a skill which they need to develop, instead of something men are inherently born with.
The advice suggested from these various scenarios should be taken lightly, as this is but a men’s magazine and the perspectives of the author(s) are in no way credible or substantial. The scope of the article is rather limited as it is scenario-based and merely five scenarios were given to explain away tantrums from women. It is unlikely that these scenarios could cover every aspect of interpersonal relationships in grounded reality. This article shares similarities with Gray, assuming that men and women have different conversational rules and that men constantly have to “decode [a woman’s] words and body language”. Constant practice of suggestions from the article are deemed to be useful (a requirement, actually) in the long run and would allow for communication success with the opposite sex. The article went on to make several blatant assumptions, such as an assumption that men are really in the dark when it came to actual meaning and phrasing of words, even in certain situations where the intention was in plain sight, and that women are largely to be blamed for making the lives of men difficult with the use of indirect speech which men are unfamiliar with, which in turn resulted in conflict, miscommunication, misunderstanding and mishandling of the events. This article indirectly seemed to portray women as the source of all troubles men would ever face in his lifetime – cleaning up a laundry room filled with soap suds is seemingly more bearable and less stressful than having a woman complain about the purchase of the incorrect detergent. The last section on “Her Top 5 Communication Don’ts were indeed derogatory in nature to women, with use of strong terms like “Women freak out often for no discernible reason” and portrayed guys as unknowing victims who say things that they thought were pretty innocent, but had really annoyed or enraged the women folk, along with the assumption that all women would react in a similar negative fashion upon hearing the comment.
Therefore, though the article seemed to differ from Gray’s opinions since it depicted women as being confrontational rather than being meek and submissive that sought to avoid hurtful comments made to men, it actually re-hashed the typical stereotypes of the sexes that plagued Gray’s excerpt. The advice provided in the article is based on intuition of the author rather than factual realities, and is in no terms a comprehensive and useful guide, thus it should be regarded lightly and should not be taken as the absolute truth when it comes to dealing with women.
Monday, 6 September 2010
Tootsie
The film “Tootsie” revolved around a central theme of feminism, especially with regard to the manner women were being treated by men. In the later stages, the film then showed women (who were influenced by the main actor/”actress”) converting from an initial meek and submissive state constrained by the hierarchical relations present in society to the strong and independent woman which Dorothy Michaels exemplified.
Right from the beginning, when Sandy was attempting for an interview, the director, Ron, was shown to be submissive of women and based his judgements solely on how a woman looked instead of how good an actress she was. Later, when Dorothy Michaels tried for the same audition, she was also rejected outright before she even read from the script. In the middle of the movie, females were once again shown to be accorded secondary status, such as when Ron takes advantage of Julie when helping her into a taxi, Dorothy Michaels and other females are called “Tootsie”/”Honey”/"Sweetie" on set instead of being called by name like the rest of the male cast/crew, Dorothy had two humorous incidents involving taxis with the only reason being she was a woman, females dared not complain about John Von Horne (the “Tongue”) for fear of losing their jobs, females were typically given rather weak roles in the television series, Julie was unhappy in her relationship but afraid to let Ron go for fear of losing perceived benefits etc. The movie then showed Dorothy Michaels influencing women around her to fight for their rights, such as her lengthy tirade against Ron when she failed to even make the reading and thereby “awakening” the rest of the female crew on the set to the fact that women have rights too and should not be trampled over by men (which resulted in Rita running after Dorothy Michaels to persuade her to try out for the role again without bias - which Dorothy managed to clinch easily) as well her greatest influence that was impressed on Julie, who finally had the guts to break off an exploitative relationship that was going nowhere.
Naturally, it is rather ironic that a movie that centred around power plays and feminism required a man dressed up as a woman to teach women how to fight for equal statuses with men, but the movie managed to pull this sensitive issue off successfully with rather humorous but poignant moments interspersed throughout. The ending was a bit of a stretch though, with a rather forced joyous outcome that was too quick to be played out. Nonetheless, it was still a movie that was worthwhile of catching, and Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of Michael Dorsey as an ignorant and insensitive cad (towards Sandy) and as a feisty Dorothy Michaels was really pat-down and showed his true versatility as an actor, though there was an unavoidable slight exaggeration of the particular mannerisms of a woman’s characteristics (deciding whether a dress is flattering or not to Dorothy's figure) as well as a rather straightforward portrayal of a stereotypical man who is ignorant of relationships with women.
___________________________________________________________________________
Memorable moments from the movie:
1) The Stand Up Tomato:
Michael Dorsey: Are you saying that nobody in New York will work with me?
George Fields: No, no, that's too limited... Nobody in Hollywood wants to work with you either. I can't even set you up for a commercial. You played a “tomato” for 30 seconds, yet they went half a day over-schedule because you wouldn't sit down.
Michael Dorsey: Of course. It was illogical.
George Fields: You were a TOMATO. A tomato doesn't have logic. A tomato can't move.
Michael Dorsey: That's what I said. So if he can't move, how's he gonna sit down, George?
2) Taxi Saga Part (I):
Dorothy Michaels (in the matured-lady voice): Tax-i!
Taxi proceeds on without stopping.
Dorothy Michaels (in Michael Dorsey’s original voice): TAXI!
Taxi brakes to a halt.
3) Taxi Saga Part (II):
Feisty matured lady (Dorothy Michaels) clobbering a cad who stole her taxi
4) Well, he tried his best (this could refer to both parties):
A feisty Dorothy Michaels smacked Van Horne with a stack of folders to prevent the kiss in the scene.
For all his/her trouble, s/he got kissed by the “Tongue” after the take for a successful improvisation.
5) Jeff-in-the-know:
Jeff the roommate (waking up to see Michael Dorsey in full Dorothy Michaels “regalia”): Mom?
6) Dorothy Michaels’ first on-tape try-out:
Rita: I'd like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?
Unnamed cameraman: How do you feel about Cleveland?
7) Sandy confronting Michael Dorsey over the fat woman (Dorothy Michaels) who entered his apartment:
Michael Dorsey: Sandy, I'm not having an affair with the woman who went into my apartment earlier, alright? It's impossible.
And later…
Michael Dorsey: Did you really think she looked fat?
8) The Hunter and The Hunted:
Les gazing fondly at Dorothy Michaels, who is looking lovingly at Julie (too bad Julie wasn’t shown looking at her baby Amy motherly in turn or it would have been a lot funnier)
9) And Finally… The Largely Peculiar Complicate
Michael Dorsey: You should have seen the look on her (Julie’s) face when she thought I was a lesbian.
George Fields: "Lesbian"? You just said gay.
Michael Dorsey: No, no, no. Sandy thinks I'm gay, Julie thinks I'm a lesbian.
George Fields: I thought Dorothy was supposed to be straight?
Michael Dorsey: Dorothy is straight... Tonight, Les, the sweetest, nicest man in the world, asked me to marry him.
George Fields: A guy named Les wants you to marry him?
Michael Dorsey: No, no, no - he wants to marry Dorothy.
George Fields: Does he know she's a lesbian?
Michael Dorsey: Dorothy's not a lesbian.
George Fields: I know that, does he know that?
Michael Dorsey: Know WHAT?
George Fields: That… Er… I don't know
*Men get lost in multi-tracked conversations*
Right from the beginning, when Sandy was attempting for an interview, the director, Ron, was shown to be submissive of women and based his judgements solely on how a woman looked instead of how good an actress she was. Later, when Dorothy Michaels tried for the same audition, she was also rejected outright before she even read from the script. In the middle of the movie, females were once again shown to be accorded secondary status, such as when Ron takes advantage of Julie when helping her into a taxi, Dorothy Michaels and other females are called “Tootsie”/”Honey”/"Sweetie" on set instead of being called by name like the rest of the male cast/crew, Dorothy had two humorous incidents involving taxis with the only reason being she was a woman, females dared not complain about John Von Horne (the “Tongue”) for fear of losing their jobs, females were typically given rather weak roles in the television series, Julie was unhappy in her relationship but afraid to let Ron go for fear of losing perceived benefits etc. The movie then showed Dorothy Michaels influencing women around her to fight for their rights, such as her lengthy tirade against Ron when she failed to even make the reading and thereby “awakening” the rest of the female crew on the set to the fact that women have rights too and should not be trampled over by men (which resulted in Rita running after Dorothy Michaels to persuade her to try out for the role again without bias - which Dorothy managed to clinch easily) as well her greatest influence that was impressed on Julie, who finally had the guts to break off an exploitative relationship that was going nowhere.
Naturally, it is rather ironic that a movie that centred around power plays and feminism required a man dressed up as a woman to teach women how to fight for equal statuses with men, but the movie managed to pull this sensitive issue off successfully with rather humorous but poignant moments interspersed throughout. The ending was a bit of a stretch though, with a rather forced joyous outcome that was too quick to be played out. Nonetheless, it was still a movie that was worthwhile of catching, and Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of Michael Dorsey as an ignorant and insensitive cad (towards Sandy) and as a feisty Dorothy Michaels was really pat-down and showed his true versatility as an actor, though there was an unavoidable slight exaggeration of the particular mannerisms of a woman’s characteristics (deciding whether a dress is flattering or not to Dorothy's figure) as well as a rather straightforward portrayal of a stereotypical man who is ignorant of relationships with women.
___________________________________________________________________________
Memorable moments from the movie:
1) The Stand Up Tomato:
Michael Dorsey: Are you saying that nobody in New York will work with me?
George Fields: No, no, that's too limited... Nobody in Hollywood wants to work with you either. I can't even set you up for a commercial. You played a “tomato” for 30 seconds, yet they went half a day over-schedule because you wouldn't sit down.
Michael Dorsey: Of course. It was illogical.
George Fields: You were a TOMATO. A tomato doesn't have logic. A tomato can't move.
Michael Dorsey: That's what I said. So if he can't move, how's he gonna sit down, George?
2) Taxi Saga Part (I):
Dorothy Michaels (in the matured-lady voice): Tax-i!
Taxi proceeds on without stopping.
Dorothy Michaels (in Michael Dorsey’s original voice): TAXI!
Taxi brakes to a halt.
3) Taxi Saga Part (II):
Feisty matured lady (Dorothy Michaels) clobbering a cad who stole her taxi
4) Well, he tried his best (this could refer to both parties):
A feisty Dorothy Michaels smacked Van Horne with a stack of folders to prevent the kiss in the scene.
For all his/her trouble, s/he got kissed by the “Tongue” after the take for a successful improvisation.
5) Jeff-in-the-know:
Jeff the roommate (waking up to see Michael Dorsey in full Dorothy Michaels “regalia”): Mom?
6) Dorothy Michaels’ first on-tape try-out:
Rita: I'd like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?
Unnamed cameraman: How do you feel about Cleveland?
7) Sandy confronting Michael Dorsey over the fat woman (Dorothy Michaels) who entered his apartment:
Michael Dorsey: Sandy, I'm not having an affair with the woman who went into my apartment earlier, alright? It's impossible.
And later…
Michael Dorsey: Did you really think she looked fat?
8) The Hunter and The Hunted:
Les gazing fondly at Dorothy Michaels, who is looking lovingly at Julie (too bad Julie wasn’t shown looking at her baby Amy motherly in turn or it would have been a lot funnier)
9) And Finally… The Largely Peculiar Complicate
Michael Dorsey: You should have seen the look on her (Julie’s) face when she thought I was a lesbian.
George Fields: "Lesbian"? You just said gay.
Michael Dorsey: No, no, no. Sandy thinks I'm gay, Julie thinks I'm a lesbian.
George Fields: I thought Dorothy was supposed to be straight?
Michael Dorsey: Dorothy is straight... Tonight, Les, the sweetest, nicest man in the world, asked me to marry him.
George Fields: A guy named Les wants you to marry him?
Michael Dorsey: No, no, no - he wants to marry Dorothy.
George Fields: Does he know she's a lesbian?
Michael Dorsey: Dorothy's not a lesbian.
George Fields: I know that, does he know that?
Michael Dorsey: Know WHAT?
George Fields: That… Er… I don't know
*Men get lost in multi-tracked conversations*
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Response to "Teacher's Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently" by Deborah Tannen
In this article, Deborah Tannen touched on the difference in the use of language between men and women, and how this would affect classroom dynamics and performance in the real world in future. She stated that the current classroom setting that prevalently uses debate-like formats as a learning tool makes it "more hospitable" for men and she proposed in her article a method she devised as a solution to counter this existing problem to better benefit women in class. She referred to an experiment which she had conducted with the use of this new method, and it is shown to work better than the traditional format employed. In her conclusion, she acknowledged that "complete equal opportunity in class" is not attainable, but she hoped her article would motivate others to come up with "more-diverse methods to serve diverse students".
In my opinion, doubts about the objectivity of this article are present, as Tannen had already written a book on this topic before writing to the Chronicle of Higher Education, thus she would already have a pre-conceived notion of what she believed were typical of male and female communication (that there exists a difference due to difference in gender). She might have formulated her arguments to suit what she believed as evidently true. Tannen's statement on "women who go to single-sex schools do better in life" is also difficult to quantify, as everybody would have their own opinion and definition of what exactly being "successful" is. She also made generalizations such as "Boys like to challenge one another in a hierarchy" and she made a convenient link to "this also takes the form of verbal sparring", without allowing for the fact that though thoughts, speech and actions are not independent of one another, there might not exist such a direct connection between all of them in every situation. With regard to classroom discussions and participation, she was also too quick to declare her experiments as successes without fully accounting for any other possible hidden variables or factors that could have a bearing on the final outcome.
Tannen's use of specific research was also tailored to shore up her arguments in a bid to reinforce her initial stand, that men and women possess differences. She failed to address of account for possible counterexamples or glossed over other possible contributors that might have merited greater consideration and attention. Her article was peppered with numerous anecdotes, but they were rather singular in nature and should not be generalized to the entire population. For instance, her example on the young man who was disappointed nobody argued with his opinions and who found the other members unworthy of attention is but a personal perception and would differ amongst people, but Tannen assumed all males would think in a similiar fashion.
Therefore, I would be hesitant to agree that her article could be interpreted as a success due to the lack of substantial and empirical data and the liberal use of anecdotes do cast some doubts on the veracity of her arguments. She was too quick to reach conclusions that agreed with her pre-conceived mindset and views she harboured, while neglecting most of other possible valid reason, as well as perceiving silence in class as being detrimental to learning and education. She did manage to engage the reader and strike a chord with them, since they are also either educators or people who have been through this sort of formal education, and her writing from a teacher's point of view (rather than an aloof researcher) made it more personal in nature and less critical of her target audience (her fellow colleagues). Her effectiveness lie in connecting with her audience to bring forth and generate new ideas in how changes could be done to the current pedagogy, and also brought attention to combating differences among students for perceived effective and better learning. However, it cannot be declared that her method is a better one, or that it should replace the current system, as her writing is incapable of fully convincing me that her method is really more beneficial, and that it really works.
In my opinion, doubts about the objectivity of this article are present, as Tannen had already written a book on this topic before writing to the Chronicle of Higher Education, thus she would already have a pre-conceived notion of what she believed were typical of male and female communication (that there exists a difference due to difference in gender). She might have formulated her arguments to suit what she believed as evidently true. Tannen's statement on "women who go to single-sex schools do better in life" is also difficult to quantify, as everybody would have their own opinion and definition of what exactly being "successful" is. She also made generalizations such as "Boys like to challenge one another in a hierarchy" and she made a convenient link to "this also takes the form of verbal sparring", without allowing for the fact that though thoughts, speech and actions are not independent of one another, there might not exist such a direct connection between all of them in every situation. With regard to classroom discussions and participation, she was also too quick to declare her experiments as successes without fully accounting for any other possible hidden variables or factors that could have a bearing on the final outcome.
Tannen's use of specific research was also tailored to shore up her arguments in a bid to reinforce her initial stand, that men and women possess differences. She failed to address of account for possible counterexamples or glossed over other possible contributors that might have merited greater consideration and attention. Her article was peppered with numerous anecdotes, but they were rather singular in nature and should not be generalized to the entire population. For instance, her example on the young man who was disappointed nobody argued with his opinions and who found the other members unworthy of attention is but a personal perception and would differ amongst people, but Tannen assumed all males would think in a similiar fashion.
Therefore, I would be hesitant to agree that her article could be interpreted as a success due to the lack of substantial and empirical data and the liberal use of anecdotes do cast some doubts on the veracity of her arguments. She was too quick to reach conclusions that agreed with her pre-conceived mindset and views she harboured, while neglecting most of other possible valid reason, as well as perceiving silence in class as being detrimental to learning and education. She did manage to engage the reader and strike a chord with them, since they are also either educators or people who have been through this sort of formal education, and her writing from a teacher's point of view (rather than an aloof researcher) made it more personal in nature and less critical of her target audience (her fellow colleagues). Her effectiveness lie in connecting with her audience to bring forth and generate new ideas in how changes could be done to the current pedagogy, and also brought attention to combating differences among students for perceived effective and better learning. However, it cannot be declared that her method is a better one, or that it should replace the current system, as her writing is incapable of fully convincing me that her method is really more beneficial, and that it really works.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Response to "Can't We Talk?" by Deborah Tannen
Deborah Tannen attempts to decode the male and female communication style in her article. Using various examples and anecdotes, she portrayed differences between how men and women interpret the same exchange in conflicting ways, thereby causing annoyance, anger and frustration for both. Her main aim of the article is to bring to the fore how seemingly senseless misunderstanding that arise in a relationship can be explained by the different conversational rules in which men and women adhere to. In all, she is pitching the article to a general audience using simple terms and expressions, and the numerous anecdotes would resound with the reader as those situations are indeed commonplace when males and females communicate.
I found the article rather interesting and persuasive in nature. Anecdotes were believably illustrated and explanations were given with regard to how men and women regard the exact same situation in their respective manners. However, Tannen failed to further elaborate on the various causes of differences. She did not provide reasons for the differences in perception between men and women, but merely described what she believes is typical of male and female response. There is no proper justification of whether the various behaviours were learnt, absorbed through enculturation, or actually innate in nature with respect to how males and females are different biologically. Those might indeed not be the main focus of her argument, but she should have factored in other causes and left it for the reader to make his/her own judgement on how important those other contributions might be. As a result, Tannen resorted to a couple of generalizations in the process and the use of anecdotes helped in persuading the reader to agree with her views and on her points raised, regardless of whether they were appropriately linked or not.
One such generalization was evident in “Status and Support”, where she stated “I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus”. The first point of contention is that Tannen “see” her husband as exhibiting behaviour “many men do”. She admitted herself that men and women view things differently, thus it is rather contradictory that she could suddenly “see” from an angle of a male (if one exists) on what the response meant, since she is a woman herself. It is not very possible for her to become enlightened in an instance and suddenly comprehend an issue from a male’s perspective merely from what her husband told her. Using her own limited views to theorize how other members of the women population interpret issues is also too much of a generalization. In addition, she stereotyped males as aggressors who try to outdo others and place high emphasis on status. Her views on females were also stereotypical as she described women as the fairer sex that seek support and consensus. It could be that her husband reacted the way he did because he wanted to reassure himself thorough rationality, that being in an atypical sort of relationship is in no way detrimental in quality or “inferior” to a “normal” relationship. “Inferior” here does not refer to the status he holds in society, but rather the nature of the relationship, as well as the bond between him and Tanner. This, to me, is more of seeking consensus and reassurance, if those were indeed the thoughts that went through his mind then. Thus, Tanner might have made a hasty conclusion to what she perceived (wrongly) as her husband exhibiting male behaviour, which she most probably did not know much about to start off with.
It could also be argued that in the liberalized societies of today, women work equally hard to compete with men on many fronts in the workplace and most would not hesitate to challenge males head on in traditionally male-dominated strongholds like in the political and legal arenas. It is therefore not exactly accurate to state that women are support-seeking and docile – rank and status most probably do appeal to women too, along with the prestige and other benefits that such statuses provide.
Another debatable issue arises in “Independence vs. Intimacy”. Tannen viewed Linda being upset as a woman’s reaction, where women are made to feel good to show that their lives are “intertwined” with their spouse when decisions are jointly made. However, it is possible that the root of why Linda felt upset was because Josh’s decision that was made without her consent was of the negative kind – something that brought inconvenience to her. Had Josh gave her a pleasant surprise or a gift instead without consulting her before taking the initiative to do so, it would be difficult to see how she would have felt upset when Josh made a decision without her initial agreement or approval. Therefore, the crux lies in the nature of the decision made, not in prior knowledge or understanding of the decision to be made.
Therefore, though Tannen’s article was an interesting read, there were a few issues which I believed were misdirected in a bid to reinforce her stand. Superficially, the anecdotes might seem to consolidate her views, but there were definitely many other reasons or perspectives that Tannen failed to consider. There was also no presence of scientific or empirical data to back up her claims, nor were there any citations or references. Tannen’s article is therefore mainly a personal comment and it is up to the reader to formulate his/her own views with regard to this issue.
I found the article rather interesting and persuasive in nature. Anecdotes were believably illustrated and explanations were given with regard to how men and women regard the exact same situation in their respective manners. However, Tannen failed to further elaborate on the various causes of differences. She did not provide reasons for the differences in perception between men and women, but merely described what she believes is typical of male and female response. There is no proper justification of whether the various behaviours were learnt, absorbed through enculturation, or actually innate in nature with respect to how males and females are different biologically. Those might indeed not be the main focus of her argument, but she should have factored in other causes and left it for the reader to make his/her own judgement on how important those other contributions might be. As a result, Tannen resorted to a couple of generalizations in the process and the use of anecdotes helped in persuading the reader to agree with her views and on her points raised, regardless of whether they were appropriately linked or not.
One such generalization was evident in “Status and Support”, where she stated “I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus”. The first point of contention is that Tannen “see” her husband as exhibiting behaviour “many men do”. She admitted herself that men and women view things differently, thus it is rather contradictory that she could suddenly “see” from an angle of a male (if one exists) on what the response meant, since she is a woman herself. It is not very possible for her to become enlightened in an instance and suddenly comprehend an issue from a male’s perspective merely from what her husband told her. Using her own limited views to theorize how other members of the women population interpret issues is also too much of a generalization. In addition, she stereotyped males as aggressors who try to outdo others and place high emphasis on status. Her views on females were also stereotypical as she described women as the fairer sex that seek support and consensus. It could be that her husband reacted the way he did because he wanted to reassure himself thorough rationality, that being in an atypical sort of relationship is in no way detrimental in quality or “inferior” to a “normal” relationship. “Inferior” here does not refer to the status he holds in society, but rather the nature of the relationship, as well as the bond between him and Tanner. This, to me, is more of seeking consensus and reassurance, if those were indeed the thoughts that went through his mind then. Thus, Tanner might have made a hasty conclusion to what she perceived (wrongly) as her husband exhibiting male behaviour, which she most probably did not know much about to start off with.
It could also be argued that in the liberalized societies of today, women work equally hard to compete with men on many fronts in the workplace and most would not hesitate to challenge males head on in traditionally male-dominated strongholds like in the political and legal arenas. It is therefore not exactly accurate to state that women are support-seeking and docile – rank and status most probably do appeal to women too, along with the prestige and other benefits that such statuses provide.
Another debatable issue arises in “Independence vs. Intimacy”. Tannen viewed Linda being upset as a woman’s reaction, where women are made to feel good to show that their lives are “intertwined” with their spouse when decisions are jointly made. However, it is possible that the root of why Linda felt upset was because Josh’s decision that was made without her consent was of the negative kind – something that brought inconvenience to her. Had Josh gave her a pleasant surprise or a gift instead without consulting her before taking the initiative to do so, it would be difficult to see how she would have felt upset when Josh made a decision without her initial agreement or approval. Therefore, the crux lies in the nature of the decision made, not in prior knowledge or understanding of the decision to be made.
Therefore, though Tannen’s article was an interesting read, there were a few issues which I believed were misdirected in a bid to reinforce her stand. Superficially, the anecdotes might seem to consolidate her views, but there were definitely many other reasons or perspectives that Tannen failed to consider. There was also no presence of scientific or empirical data to back up her claims, nor were there any citations or references. Tannen’s article is therefore mainly a personal comment and it is up to the reader to formulate his/her own views with regard to this issue.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Blog Post #1
A short summary of the clip:
The clip is a humorous take on the differences between female-to-female conversation and male-to-male conversation with regard to the exact same personal event. Rachel had just shared a kiss from Ross, and the girls got worked up and excited, making it out to be a major event and pressing Rachel on every single "juicy" detail on what occurred, to the humorous extent of "get(ting) the wine and unplug(ging) the phone". Rachel immediately became the centre of attention within the group and described what happened in a detailed blow-by-blow account. Ross, on the other hand, merely mentioned it in passing when the guys were having a take-out pizza and the guys displayed neither much interest nor enthusiasm upon hearing it and the conversation quickly switched to something else. The clip portrays that a kiss is an emotive and affectionate gesture of much importance and significance to the women and all in the group were fully engaged and listening attentively to tease out the full scoop, but to the guys, a kiss is merely a kiss and they weren't particularly interested in what transpired before or after that and were only minimally interested in what happened during that.
__________________________________________________________________
This clip shows a stereotypical account of how males and females behave, as well as how they communicate with one another in a group setting of people of the same gender. Women are portrayed to be more in-tuned with emotions and like to share details of intimacy to build bonding and rapport between them. The men, on the other hand, are seen to be more pragmatic and only wanted to know a couple of specific details that they believe are important to show "success" and "initiative" in a relationship (French kissing was a gauge of such triumph here). Men are also shown to be uncommunicative with regard to emotions and feelings and none of the guys asked Ross how he felt before, during and after the kiss or how Rachel reacted to it, unlike the women who bombarded Rachel with burning questions of the event.
The take is rather humorous and is easily accepted by the general audience. Communication differences between the sexes is something they could relate to without much difficulty due to its perceived prevalence in most societies. In my opinion and observations, there are some truths as depicted in this clip as most sorts of male conversations are indeed of this nature, where things discussed are spoken, seen and determined as an entire package and the bottom line is sought immediately. Results are the important objects of speech and emotions are seldom discussed, if at all. For women, every single detail is broken down and analyzed, especially with regard to their personal emotions. They show interest in how others felt during an event and seemingly can "physically feel" what is being described to empathize with the person, or to be as happy and excited as she is. Conversations and discussions between them are peppered with other sensory perception like touch (how Ross touched Rachel when they kissed) and emotion (what Ross' kiss felt like - whether it was hesitant and shy or full of desire).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)