Deborah Tannen points out some very interesting linguistic phenomenons in this chapter. I guess I have been aware of some of the gender-specific communication differences that she discusses, but I've never really thought of them like she does. I also liked that she didn't really blame either sex for the current asymmetrical communication situation. She did not blame it on men being overly oppressive or women being too submissive, she instead gave rational reasons behind the phenomenon and gave solutions designed to improve understanding, not completely change social communicative structures.
As I read "Listening and Learning," I thought of specific conversations that I have had with friends, acquaintances, and strangers, and how these have fit in to the specific ideas that she presents. I know that I can think of conversations that I have had with females in which they did just what Tannen describes - they added plenty of "yeahs" and "uh-huhs" as I spoke, even though they may not have been in agreement with me, but rather they may have just been acknowledging that they followed what I was saying. I suppose I never really thought about this phenomenon and how males usually only say "yeah" and "uh-huh" when they are in agreement with you. I have also had experiences where I was kind of giving a "lecture" to a girl, without even really intending to. I have also been the recipient of such lecture from someone older or in a higher position than me. I never really connected all this with the more competitive nature of males versus the more non-confrontational nature of females, but this chapter is very good at pointing that out.
I agree with the points she makes for the most part. I feel as though it is incredibly common to hear guys saying "I just don't understand women," and it is just as common for women to say "I just don't understand men." I must agree with this; I know that there have been multiple ocassions when I have misinterpreted a girl's intention or main point, even though I was convinced that I had her message completely figured out. This is where the final section of Tannen's chapter comes into play - she points out that we should take into consideration how each sex communicates, and try to understand their communications through this. If I understand that a girl is not going to be competing with me like another guy would be, I can better understand her. Women may also understand that it is okay to interject in a conversation and add to or alter it, and men are fine with this. This was a very educational reading, and I think it will help me, at least somewhat, in my future communications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree mostly with your article. However, I find that men may have a natural ambition to compete in debates and arguements. They are most likely not "oppressing" the woman in conversation just because she is a woman. I really don't think on the male part it's a gender based conversation style. Men compete and want to be superior in the outcome of the conversation/arguement/debate no matter who they are talking too. That's why when other males get into arguements with each other, it's never really resolved unless the whole topic is dropped. Sometimes their arguments could escalade into physical fights or grudges against each other.
ReplyDelete