Gefen & Ridings - (extra blog) Blog #18

The thing that stood out to me in this article the most was the fact that the gender-differences in communication generally have a negative effect on the conversation, due to cross-gender miscommunication. As the authors state, the gender differences in oral discourse are the result of socialized differences, and therefore should occur within informal written communication. As I have said before, this hasn't always been my experience in online courses, but I do see this idea often throughout everyday communication in the classroom setting. Furthermore, I agree with the way the authors state the way women communicate. For me, I know that I generally state my opinions or thoughts strongly, even in online discussions in courses. But, the authors explain that women usually communicate to create rapport or affinity, so their conversation is generally less forceful. I agree with the idea that women often communicate in such a way as to make it a point to include the whole group, and men do not attempt to accomplish the same thing. Looking back on my participation in class discussion boards or in-class discussions throughout college, I do see the tendency toward "softening" my speech/communication so to not offend anyone and to include more people.

"Participation in Electronic Discourse in a 'Feminist' Field" By Herring, Johnson, & DiBenedetto Blog #17

I still am amazed by the findings in this article--that men talk more than women in public settings. It may be that I'm from a large family of primarily girls (5 girls, 3 boys), so it seems to me that women talk far more than men and generally control the conversation more. I'm understanding more now that this is not always the case in academic discussion or classes, especially cyber discussions. What I found most interesting in this article was the fact that, even though men contributed about 80% of the posts and the points, they still reported that women controlled the discussion or that they dominated. This is so outrageous to me, and is evidence of the bias against women in general. It seems that women have to work twice as hard as men to be academically competitive, to be taken seriously, and to have their thoughts valued. Also, it seems that, in this study, the men felt that they were "shut out" rather easily. It's amazing to me that the women in this particular study put up with a lot, but at the first sign of resistance, the men complained.

" ‘I totally agree with you’: gender interactions in educational online discussion groups" J. Guiller & A. Durndell Blog #16

I was somewhat shocked by the findings presented in this article. I have been in several online classes with discussion based-curriculum and I have never felt that men are more aggressive or confrontational. I do agree with the idea that women often put in more of their own feelings, thoughts, or experiences compared to men, but that seems to be pretty true of women in general. Even if this sounds rude or unkind, in my experience with online courses, men seem to try to get by with as little discussion as possible. I continue to be shocked by results of studies finding that men are more verbose or more firm in their opinions. This has been the opposite of my experience. In every online course I've ever taken, and just about any class I've taken overall, women always seem to be the ones who want to speak up more or voice their thoughts.

"Gendered Voices in Children's Television Advertising"--Fern L. Johnson and Karren Young Blog #16

This article brought a lot of things to my attention. I knew that advertising companies blatanly markets countless products to children--something I that I believe is completely ludicrous in and of itself. However, I hadn't thought about the effect of those advertisements outside of the material. I never thought about the fact that children take many of their social cues from television, and now more than ever, advertisements and the media have the power to shape children. It's no wonder that gender biases and female oppression has continued to be such a virus. Children are spoon-fed all of this nearly before they can even talk. It's very sad to think that advertising agencies have so much control over what children believe and how they learn to behave. The article mentions that advertising to children trains them for consumer culture, and that they are a daily part of life for children. It's baffling to think about how many cues children take from what they see in advertisements and on television, and what impact it has on the adults they will become.

"Gender Issues in Advertising"--Jeanne Munger Artz and Warren Pundy Blog #15

After reading this article, I realized that I haven't noticed gender bias in advertising so much when it comes to language. I haven't considered the bias that exists most likely because I am so used to hearing things that way. The article did mention the issue of "objectification"--this is something that I have noticed and that continues to bother me. To say it plainly, I really can't stand the fact that women are used purely as sexual objects and are devalued for advertising purposes. Reading this article reminded me of a specific television commercial. A few years ago, Carl's Jr. released two separate ads for some product. One had Hugh Hefner and the other had Paris Hilton with almost no clothes on. Both commercials completely objectified women in very different ways. Those ads completely soured my opinion of that company as a whole, and my father actually wrote a complaint and has altogether boycotted the restaurant chain because of them (which I am very proud of). It is a shame that, while there has been so much advocacy to change language, advertising companies and the media continue to treat women purely as objects.

"Beyond the He/Man Approach"--Wendy Martyna Blog #14

One of the things I found interesting in Martyna's article was the discussion about our ability to identify with a pronoun grouping. She explains that men have an easier time identifying with statements that use a neutral "he" pronoun, and that they are naturally identifying with the specific form of the pronoun. Conversely, women have to think quite differently to be able to identify with "he", and they are more likely to use alternatives, like "person". It's amazing to me that there is such a distinction between using "he" and "person". In my opinion, "person" is far more all-encompassing and respectful of either gender. It's not nearly as cumbersome and doesn't sound as strange as trying to include "his or her". I don't understand why using "person" or "oneself" isn't more widely accepted and used.

I'm beginning to see just how difficult introducing changes in the language would be. Furthermore, just because a formal change is made or gender-neutral terms are introduced doesn't mean that people will start using them. I imagine that many people are so conditioned to use the terms they use that a big change would be just about impossible. As an argument in the article pointed out, people use pronouns in the generic and specific form so many times throughout the day. It would be extremely difficult to be conscious enough of one's usage to make a lasting change.

"The Epicene Pronoun: The Word the Failed"--Dennis E. Baron Blog #13

In this article, it's interesting to note that several other languages have a gender-neutral pronoun for "his or her". Baron explains that in French, there are two different phrases for "his or her" and "him and her". In my opinion, "everyone", "everybody" and even "they" all imply gender neutrality, and I've never felt personally affronted by the use of one of these terms. They are less cumbersome and sound far more natural then constantly trying to say "him or her" and "he or she". One thing the article pointed out is the use of "one" as a pronoun, as in "oneself". I agree that this hasn't been the most widely used pronoun outside of formal environments or the highly educated.

Even in formal academic essays, many college students opt for the incorrect second-person pronoun "your", rather than using "one's" or "oneself". It's interesting to me that this hasn't really caught on as a gender neutral pronoun in our language as much as using "they" or "everyone".

The thing that is most sad to think about is how these gender biases came to be in our language. I really have never felt bad or offended through the use of the masculine bias in language, however, it's sad when I consider the fact that at one point, women were not considered to be any different from property. The bias came to be over the years because of the fact women were devalued and treated as less than men. So, while it may not bother people enough to be changed, the reasons behind the bias should be enough of an issue to spark change in our language.

"Making Changes: The Debate on Sexist Language" by Deborah Cameron Blog #12

I agree with many of the arguments presented in Cameron's article. I'm not surprised that there are more insults readily available for women as opposed to men. In my opinion, it's a lot more common for women to be ostracized in general. Another thing that stands out to me is the "terms of endearment" often used by men to address women. I'm sure that many men do not mean disrespect when they refer to a woman as "Dear" or something like that. I worked through college at a coffee shop, and many men, especially seniors, would call me dear or hunny. Generally, I found it to be friendly, because I worked in more of a friendly environment, serving people. However, there were instances that I've experienced these types of terms where they have not been in friendliness. When a man is referred to as "sir" but then a woman is referred to as "sweetie", it does communicate disrespect. That person is communicating an entirely different level of respect toward the man, and is placing him on a "higher level" than the woman. It's interesting to see that woman are often infantilized and devalued by our language.

"This New Species that Seeks a Language: On Sexism in Language and Language Change" by Nancy M. Henley Blog #11

After reading this article, I can honestly say that my mind was changed a little. I used to think that most of the idea that sexism exists in language was just "left-wing" notion. The evidence in this article has convinced me that it does exist in our language, and the bias in language only prolongs the sexism against women in our culture. One of the things that stood out to me was the fact that, while men are usually referred to according to their occupational status, women are reffered to by their relational status. This never really occured to me, even though it's obvious because a woman's "title" shifts between Mrs., Miss, and Ms., while a man is always Mr., despite his marital status. This emphasizes the fact that woman continue to be defined by their relational and marital status. I also found it interesting that "neutral" occupations are still modified with gender, like "lady judge". It shows that our language is truly biased toward men, because occupations without a specific gender attached are immediately registered as male in most people's minds.

"The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance" by Deborah Tannen Blog #10

Tannen's article was incredibly interesting, and I have never thought of conversation being used to establish solidarity or dominance. The information in the article actually helps me understand how a lot of miscommunication happens in conversation. I though the example of the woman asking a man she works with, "Where's your coat?" and he replies, "Thanks, Mom." was an excellent example of how intent is miscommunicated. She was attempting to show solidarity, or caring for him as a peer, and he felt like she was being condescending. It's interesting to think that people in general need to work harder to make their intent clear, and less ambiguous.

It's interesting that there is such ambiguity between establishing power over another, as opposed to building rapport. It was also a fascinating example of the person who's friend is always insisting on paying for dinner. The friend is either being generous and "showing solidarity" or establishing power by showing they have more money, and it's nearly impossible to tell. Most people feel that they must reciprocate every nice thing that someone does for them. For example, if someone has their friends over for dinner, most of the time the friends want to reciprocate. In a way, it is showing that most people do not want to be in a subordinate position. It's funny that our language even reflects our attitude that we don't want to "owe" somebody something.

"Complimenting--A Positive Politeness Strategy" by Janet Holmes Blog #9

I agree with the author's findings in this article wholeheartedly. I find that compliments often put people at ease, and it's not unusual for a compliment to spark up an entire conversation. I thought her ideas on compliments not always being considered so polite was very interesting. Holmes' example of the Pakeha woman giving a necklace to the Samoan friend was a great example, and it reminded me of something that happened to me not too long ago. I complimented a woman at church on her necklace, and she took it right off and gave it to me. I felt very awkward, mainly because my intention was truly just to compliment the necklace. I wasn't saying it because I wanted it, and I undestand why that can be off-putting.

I also agree with her notion of compliments between intimates not being received well among other people. I have five sisters, and there are things we "compliment" each other on that I wouldn't say to another person. If my sister told me, "Wow, your skin is looking really clear!", I would just thank her. But, if someone I didn't know so well said the same thing, I would probably be a little offended because of the implication that, at one point, they thought otherwise.

"I'm Sorry, I'm Not Apologizing"--Tannen, Blog #6

This article was almost humorous to me because I realized how often myself and those I interact with use apologizing incorrectly. "I'm sorry" truly has become a conversation smoother, rather than an actual apology. I noticed I tend to do this a lot, and I have in the past ended up taking blame for things I wasn't responsible for. More importantly, I have used this in conversation and it hindered my ability to fully communicate my thoughts.

I was reminded of an experience where I apologized to someone that was actually apologizing to me. They had done something very hurtful, and when I realized that they were remorseful and trying to apologize, instead of acknowledging the fact that I was, in fact, upset, I apologized for their remorse. I remember being frustrated after because I had been hurt, and I wasn't entirely "over it" yet, and I felt like I didn't get to communciate exactly how upset I was. I should've been comfortable for their remorse for something wrong they did.

I think "I'm sorry" and "I apologize" really have become space fillers, like "you know", "um", and sighs, etc. We must be careful not to "over apologize", because it seems to communicate a sense of low self-esteem and low worth. Self-deprecation, as Tannen states, can even be seen as apologizing when "I'm sorry" is never uttered. It's interesting to me that self-deprecation and negative comments about oneself can be taken as an apology. That fact shows that apologizing can be associated with weakness and low self-value, which is why "over-apologizing" should be avoided.

"Interaction: The Work Women Do"--Fishman Blog #5

I never considered the idea of adding suffixes to positions (i.e. stewardess, actress) as evidence of a male-dominated society and language. However, it is extremely interesting and it is becoming more and more obvious to me that English is truly bent toward males. I also thought it was interesting that men are referred to more by their last name and women are referred to more by their first, even though they may hold the same rank. It's strange how many hidden and underlying signals there are in the English language and in society that show the power given to the male gender.

I also think Fishman does a good job at explaining why questions are so common in language. I found it interesting that we often form our comments into questions because questions generally ellicit a response. If we didn't "ask questions", the conversation would generally fail. The notion of "attention beginnings" was an eye-opener for me, and I found that I do this very often in conversations. Furthermore, the explanation of "minimal responses" was interesting, and from my point-of-view, extremely accurate. Men often use them and a lack of interest is displayed, whereas women may use them to show they are listening or to "support" the conversation. I thought it was funny that this is so common in my conversations with my husband. I tend to get irritated or frustrated when I'm telling a story or explaining something and he doesn't encourage me to elaborate or go on. On the other hand, I feel it necessary to "support" his end of the conversation and continue to show my interest.

"A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication" by Daniel N. Matlz and Ruth A. Borker

This article was also pretty accurate according to my own experiences. I thought it was interesing how they explained that women are far more likely to ask questions and carry the responsibility of keeping a conversation going. I have found myself doing this multiple times, especially when I'm meeting new people. This article also expressed the same notion as Tannen's article, that women are more likely to use pronouns such as "we" and "us" whereas a man is less likely. The thing that struck a chord deeply with me from this article was the concept of "delayed minimal responses". This has been a source of frustration and sometimes humor throughout my two years of marriage. If my husband and I are discussing something or if one of us is upset, he has a tendency to not respond or say anything at all. Sometimes I go on talking or "expressing my feelings", and when he decides to speak, he'll resond to something I said fifteen minutes before. While at times it is extremely frustrating, it's extremely humorous after the fact because men and women communicate SO differently! It's amazing that men an women found a way to communicate at all. It really does take an honest effort to learn the in's and out's of female-male communication.

"Talk in the Intimate Relationship: His and Hers" by Deborah Tannen

I found this article to be strikingly similar to my own life experiences. I have found that the author was absolutely right about a woman's tendency to pick up on "metamessages" rather than what is concretely said in a conversation. I got to speak to my husband about this article, and he agreed as well. It's interesting that couples are constantly arguing and discussing how they argue and discuss, rather than the actual issue at hand. I can't count the times I've said to my husband, "It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it."

I also think it's interesting that the author partly attributes this to the way we were conditioned as we grew up. She says that girls play mostly with other girls and vice versa with boys. I grew up the oldest girl with four younger sisters, and two brothers. We considered our house a "girl" house, and all of our "communicating" and open emotions probably did cause me to become more attuned to hidden meaning in conversation. I am constantly telling my husband that tone of voice, inflection, facial expression, and body language mean everything in a conversation. Whereas, more practically speaking, he'd rather me listen to what he was actually saying instead of the way he is saying it.

The other thing I thought was interesting was the difference between what men and women consider "listening". Head nods, "mmm-hmms" and "yeah's" mean "Yes, I'm listening" to a women but they may mean "I agree with you" to a man. This has truly opened my eyes! It makes so much sense why a man may seem more unresponsive while a woman is explaining something. He is listening, just not necessarily whole-heartedly agreeing yet. It is good for men to understand also that women are expressing that they are listening, not necessarily that they agree.

Men Speak One Way, Women Speak Another

While reading Yanyuwa: Men speak one way, women speak another by John Bradley, I found myself getting a little frustrated. It seems very strange that there would be a different dialect for men and women. However, the thing that frustrated me was the idea that male children consistently grow up and learn with the female dialect because women are raising them and taking care of them, but then all of the sudden are expected to speak the male dialect. I understand that culturally, it is an acceptable idea and it is forced, but it sounds so complicated to me to actually do. It made me sad that speaking the incorrect dialect would bring shame on them. Despite my frustration with this idea, the fact that there are different dialects does shed some light on the notion that men and women really do speak differently. It is interesting to me that the Yanyuwa people can't necessarily explain why there are two different dialects, it is simply the way it has always been. It makes me pause to think about how many things we do in my life, family, and culture just because "that's the way it's always been".

Due to the time period and generation I have grown up in, it's strange to consider the inequality that has existed, and does still exist, between men and women. The two different dialects among the Yanyuwa certainly do accent the gender differences and the chasm that exists in positions of prominence, power and influence. Most of what our society does currently is try to diminish those differences and strive for equality. It's strange to think that something so prevalent and imperative as language could, in and of itself, highlight the differences between male and female. I wonder if the Yanyuwa are happy this way, or if women feel subordinate to men. I guess if it "has always been that way", one possibly wouldn't notice.

What's Gender Got to Do With Grammar?

As I began reading through the material for Linguistics, I have to admit that I have never considered the gender implications that exist. In the article What's Gender Got to Do With Grammar by Suzanne Romaine, she describes her observations about the gender biases within several different languages. I thought it was very interesting when she discussed the gender biases in the French language in regards to positions that used to be predominately held by men. It is mind-boggling to think that there is no possible way to refer to a female professor in French without being grammatically incorrect. It is far more difficult to deny that gender has much to do with grammar when one considers this example. In order to explain, one would be obligated to rectify the inconsistency in their grammar. It would be impossible not to notice.

It was even more saddening to me that in German, a "maiden" is actually a gender-neutral term. It seems that, at one point, females were considered on the same level as property or material goods.

The other thing I was interested in was the idea that weather patterns are generally described in female or feminine terms. This has always bothered me, so I am glad that I have finally heard someone bring it up. I detest the generalization that all women are likened to violent hurricanes or something of that sort. This is most likely because as a child, my extended family found it humorous to call me "the hurricane", but it is very obvious that nature and weather patterns are often described with stereotypes of female behavior.

I also thought the idea that the gender biases that exist in regards to land and territory possibly have much to do with the fact that women were once viewed as something to be conquered or broken.

First Blog Post for LING 130

My name is Rachael Watson, and this is my blog for Linguistics 130.