The following academic paper highlights the up-to-date issues and questions of Genderlect Theory Examples. This sample provides just some ideas on how this topic can be analyzed and discussed.
Deborah Tannen once quote “saying that men talk about baseball in order to avoid talking about their feelings is the same way women talk about their feelings in order to avoid talking about baseball”. From here, it shows that men and women have their own culture of communication and its different from each other.
She mentioned it as ‘cross-cultural communication’ between this two gender. Its not about words which comes out from their mouth, its about their manners presented in their conversations, although their speaking in the same language but it also can lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation between both sexes.
This is because both gender have their own criteria in presenting or having conversations, in other words each gender have their own style in having conversation to each other. Basically, Genderlect styles theory which are developed by Deborah Tannen in the book of ‘You just don’t understand’ distinguishing between how women and men speak in different language and styles(genderlect styles).
From my point of view, this theory seems to be relevance to communication study where by we can study more emphasize how male and female have their conversations, what topic would male and female more interested and what they mean to when a contradicting actions, words or hint that they made? This will allow us to understand the speciality of different gender of homo sapiens and will help us in avoiding such arguments created from misinterpretation and misunderstanding to happen.
On the other hand, we will produced a satisfaction either to male or female when we understand the way they communicate and finally we will be aware in creating topics to communicate in order to produce a nice and better conversation. According to Tannen, as i mentioned earlier usually we are not aware of this differences between this two gender. Where women are more into serious conversation which will deeply affected human relationship.
They tend not to use harsh language and this is because they have feminine sex roles such as soft spoken and eager to soothe feelings. While men style of talking, they couldn’t stick to one serious topic of conversations. Men usually have ego in them whereby they tend to defense their own beliefs and willing to take a stand for it. They also prioritize their status in term of power and influences. From this differences, the word cross-cultural communication happen between them. I would agree in this, but in the point where we view it in public conversation.
Men tend to hide personal things while women mostly share their personal view and thoughts as a conversation topic. This premises rarely apply when we view in a more personal and privacy conversations, men will start to change their style and this is because less exposure to other people but women are less in controlling the label of feminine sex in this situation. Tannen also mentioned that “for most women; the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport, it is a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships.
On the other hand, Tannen refers to conversation for most men as a “primary means to preserve independence, and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order”. This statement can be related back to Tannen’s reference to status and connection as the primary goal driving men and women’s conversation styles. My second critique is that men tend to talk about logical and rational topic to have in conversation while women prefer talking related to feelings and their heart.
When this kind of talk overlap each other, it will provide a heat argument where both sexes will maintain their interest. In the case of telling story referring to Tennan’s theory, men tell more stories than women. This is because to grab attention such as jokes or playing as a ‘hero’ or main character in the conversation contrast to women where they likely to downplay their self. This also mean that men always tried to show that they are independence in going through obstacles different from women who needs support. But it seems to me in reality, women most likely to talk a lot more compare to men.
I would agree on where men always to show that their are independence, this is because to remain in the position of having a masculine sex and protective characteristics while for me, women nowadays tend to show that they can stand at their own feet who need less support to be in the same level as men. From Tannen point of view, she view that men usually not being a good listener, to replace that position men tend to speak out suggestion and conclusions to problems that being told to them where by women do not seek for the answer and only need a way or place to let out the places.
This seems to be misunderstand and wrong expectation by women and men most of the time. Men think that by providing conclusions, it will lessened the problem being face by women; intentionally helpful for them but then its vice versa from the women points of view. I agree that Tanne’s right that we have to understand this cross-cultural communication to avoid this issues. In order to balance up, this also have an advantage if men doing the process of giving conclusions, at least not solving the problem but will inform the speaker(women) that they(men) understand what they are trying to say.
From that, like always mentioned indirectly they are being a ‘giant ears’. Here comes a contrast from the way men and women style of listening. For Tannen, women usually support their sigh of agreement or sign that they are listening with head nods or reaction such as yeah,uh-huh and etc. When they did this, it shows that they are concentrating on the confession of the speaker but in men’s view, they prefer to remain silent while the speaker talk as showing sign of concentration because for them sign perform by women are an interruption to the conversations.
When this happen, a regular misunderstanding will be produce. Thus will lead to arguments between men and women. In order to avoid this, men and women have to understand each other of way of listening and balance the reaction done according to how the situation are. Other than that, Tannen also involve the way men and women use the purpose of asking question in different ways. She mentioned that men most likely not to ask question because they view it as a threat to their status and image.
When they asked question, it shows that they are not superior enough to be a men in front of the public while women use it as means of equalizing and creating connections. She said that women always tag their opinions with a question at the end to avoid for the potential disagreement which might drive people apart to occur. For example “would you like to stop by and have a drink? ”, original intention of women when they ask this is that they wanted to stop by but when men directly said that “no, i don’t”, it will reate a non satisfaction conversation.
For me, this is because men are too direct when their being asked while women always look foward for a good response to receive. Its not that they care about their status and image, most of the time men will give a simple answer for a simple question while women are expecting a comfortable answer from a simple question. She also touch regarding conflict. For her, men are more comfortable with conflicts where they took it as a competition or contest to gain victory where women aim to avoid conflict between them.
I would not agree with this, it doesn’t sounds plausible to me, i found that most of the conflict occur are created from women. This is because they are more sensitive than men which consider little things as an affective tools to be argue while men will ignore simple things which will lead to arguments and prioritize more important matter to argue at. The purpose of this theory is for we to understand the characteristics in men and women to avoid worse argument and huge disagreements created from the differences.
It also make us realized that the fault occur in both sexes- male and female whereby it happen in both gender. By understanding this differences and consequences that might happen, although we will not create a Utopia but at least we will have a better understanding towards each other as homo sapiens who use communication to develop ideas, form a suggestion and expressing confession. In addition to my critique above, Tannes theory are more concentrating on the differences between those two gender but she did not concern about why and how this differences occur.
Is it men and women naturally determine to be that way? or maybe social influences structured them? This is more important where by, we will know the reason of this differences to occur and we will suggest a better suggestion on how to deal with the differences. The points that i disagree where Tennan seems to be more bias to women. This was shown where women provide a good and acceptable characteristic suits with their feminine sex while men seems to have more crucial characteristics and sounds unacceptable which need to change. It shows from her statement here men prioritize status rather than their relation.
For me, it depends on the individual itself where this theory should not be generalized to all men and women. Although this theory is easy to apply since she provide with simple explanation, but women or men will start to stereotypical each other from the way they communicate. To sum up this critiques, I think Tennan’s theories does help us in solving in defining the difference between male-female communication styles but for me it is not valid when comes to conflict in relationships it takes more than that.
By understanding this, it will decreases the chances for having an argument on such matters. After learning this theory, i also realized that it is very helpful in the study of communication because it consist of most relations that we will encounter in our life which are heterosexual. This theory are very useful in our everyday life especially to understand personal relationship although its not more applicable to public speaking. It do increases our awareness in treating our partner with our understanding towards their interest and their behavior.