#4

Having to prepare for the coming class discussions, I have read through the 4 readings assigned for this week. It strikes me how similar their content is, both within the 4 readings, as well as earlier assigned ones.

At its core, the issues raised are gender and miscommunication, and the possible solutions for the problem. These are issues that have been written about since 1990s, with Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". Yet, they are discussed again and again. Authors and writers do not seem sick of it, neither do readers. Even though the underlying reasons and solutions seem to be repeated over and over again, readers seem to be perfectly alright with reading them over and over again.

I wonder if this reflects a problem in our society today, that we like to read self-help books to make better sense of the situations we are in, the world around us. Yet, we have significant inertia as to doing something about it. What we know is not translated into actions; we do not make the effort to do so. We like to read about the problems, feel that someone is offering us empathy, feel that we are not entirely at fault such that we can forgive ourselves. We like to wallow in our problems. Even if we understand from earlier writers that these are inherent problems due to inherent differences between gender, we still like to read the same material over and over again.

I wonder why we never seem to get bored with the same content, merely rephrased and repackaged with new scenarios. I also wonder why all the advice seem so similar, yet readers still are receptive to it such that magazines still publish these articles.

#3

Oops, saved this as a draft accidentally..

We watched the film Tootsie for Tuesday's class, and it was quite interesting, with Michael Dorsey (Justin Hoffman) cross-dressing to audition for a female part in a soap, and becoming a star in the process of it all. There are many issues and observations I could raise, but in the context of our writing module, I shall only include those related to gender & communication.

Two scenes that stood out, to me, were that of Michael quarreling with his agent George when he found out (when Sandy failed her audition) that he did not get his part successfully, as opposed to the scene where Michael (as Dorothy) stood up to Ron Carlisle, the director of the soap opera, objecting to him calling the female cast by nicknames such as "Tootsie". Although both Michael and Dorothy are effectively the same person, and in both scenes Justin Hoffman is arguing with the other party, the reactions of George and Ron are vastly different. George almost immediately tries to appease Michael, later on losing his temper as well. They are both aggressive and unreceptive to each other's perspectives. However, Ron does not say anything in his defense, and is instead extremely shocked by Dorothy's outburst.

It appears that when women voice their opposition, in this film at least, the men seem shocked by this abnormal behaviour. When men argue with each other, they however seem to be more defensive and do not allow each other to say their piece, cutting each other off or arguing simultaneously. This seems to hint that women are typically expected to be more subservient, and when they act otherwise, men are surprised. To a certain degree, this almost works in women's favour as the men do not retaliate verbally at all. It also seems to create more of an impact, such that the men actually think about what is said, or at least they seem to do so.

Alternatively, Ron may be this shocked, not due to the fact that Dorothy, a woman, opposed him, but due to the issue of nicknames raised. To Ron (or, men in general), perhaps the issue of calling women by nicknames instead of their real names is something innocuous and may not even be something they are even aware of doing. Yet, to Dorothy, it is an affront to her status as a woman, belittling the significance of women in men's lives. To Dorothy, these nicknames seem to belie an attitude whereby men do not think women significant enough to be called by their own names, that women are not significant enough to have their own individual identity. Personally, I might react like Ron, as I do not attach particular significance to nicknames (although "Tootsie" sounds admittedly strange, especially in the context of today). After watching Dorothy's outburst, however, it has made me ponder if nicknames really do signify this attitude by men where they do not acknowledge women's proper place in society. We, as women, may want to take note of these small things that possibly perpetuate unequal gender treatment in society.

Another interesting point to note about gender is how Michael suddenly became more conscious of his appearance when he 'became' Dorothy. He was more conscious of his clothing choice, taking pains at choosing outfits that looked 'pretty', that did not make him look unflatteringly fat. Are women automatically expected to look good? As a man, Michael expected Dorothy to dress well. The sudden emphasis on Dorothy's dressing suggests how men treat women differently, having certain social expectations on females. This brings us back to the issue of power differentials between gender that Lakoff raised. Men have the power to impose expectations on women, and women conform to these.

Tootsie also made me rethink the whole idea of gender and miscommunication. As Dorothy, Michael had no problems establishing rapport with Julie Nichols, becoming best friends of sorts, having 'girl heart-to-heart talks', with barely any miscommunication (or at least up till the point where Julie did not think that Dorothy was lesbian). Michael was still Michael, yet he seemed to have no problems understanding Julie, or communicating with her. He seemed to be doing everything right. Does this mean that men and women only miscommunicate because of the gender roles and expectations imposed upon us? When these are removed, do we actually have the innate capabilities to communicate with each other successfully? Does this mean that miscommunication with each other is actually external but we are intrinsically capable of communication? This movie seems to imply this. Yet, if the solution were for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the other gender, would we seem to be appearing strangely to the other party? For example, if I were to try to react as how a guy would, when talking to a male friend, would my friend think I am acting strangely because he expects me to react like a girl?

For these reasons, Tootsie engaged me intellectually and made me re-examine certain issues previously brought up in class discussion and our readings.

#2

Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc2FJzL6uRA&feature=related

I chose this clip because it very much is a video form of self-help books written on the issue of gender and miscommunication. Content-wise and tone-wise, it mirrors how 'popular' authors write to engage the general public, something we have discussed in our classes so far.

In terms of the video's content, like many self-help authors, Dr. Cheryl finds it clearly self-evident that women and men have miscommunication problems, such that she does not need to prove this to viewers. Without setting out to establish this premise, she just raises a single example which viewers can presumably identify with. Moving on to her advice after this, she assumes that viewers will accept her authority on the topic due to the (perceived) validity of the example, and perhaps due to her occupation and credentials (Dr.). A good proportion of written articles adopt this approach as well, like Deborah Tannen's "Can't We Talk", which we already examined in class. The anecdotes raised aim to establish rapport with the audience and persuade them to accept the writers' propositions. The validity of the article lies not so much in the research and evidence, but this and the writers' credentials.

The main thrust of the video is that women and men talk for different reasons and purposes: emotional support and practical solutions respectively. (This is actually a sub-section of Tannen's "Can't We Talk".) People of different genders therefore look for different responses, but themselves respond differently, resulting in disappointment and frustration on both sides.

How Dr. Cheryl approaches this is to state the problem, state its cause (without giving evidence for it), and move on to how the problem can be alleviated. However, at times she slips into a somewhat flippant tone, for example when she laughs when saying that men and women are actually trying to have a conversation with each other. I do not see anything particularly amusing here, and moments like these detract some credibility from her. Some texts, I find, tend to lapse into a similar style and tone, though less obvious given its written medium. Unnecessary attempts at being light-hearted and cracking jokes are how some writers aim to reach out to the audience, but to me this merely diminishes their professionalism and authority on the issue.

I wonder if Dr. Cheryl's prescribed 'formula' to engendering good communication between couples is ideal at all. The formulaic responses, particularly the males who are only required to say "mm, that must be tough on you", seem insincere. Will women really be satisfied by these replies? Is this true communication at the end of the day, where ideas are to be exchanged between both parties? Due to gender stereotypes ingrained in us, will women be perceived to be unfavourably bossy while men perceived to be uncomfortably like the 'gay best friend'?

And, just a funny clip!



Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJv1pLDHmak&feature=related

#1

So, we're supposed to introduce ourselves to our classmates, here goes?

Boring stuff first, I'm in Year 1 Accountancy so I'm from the Business School. Hmm I guess why I chose to do the U Town Writing Programme instead of the pre-allocated Business Communications is because I really like small class sizes? You get a better chance at engaging in meaningful conversations and discussions. And I'd like to do some writing again; GP back in junior college was a little iffy because you had to write in a certain way and dump in certain facts just to get the A. So I guess I was kind of hoping that I'd be able to develop my writing skills in a less formulaic fashion. Besides, I think the whole Gender and Language and Miscommunication topic is pretty intriguing and relevant in everyday life? Like, how I miscommunicate with my dad sometimes.

But personally I'm a stickler for gender stereotypes, in the sense that I do think there's a place for them. I think it helps us function as a society and community, or family. That said, I do find equal respect very important as well. Women shouldn't be forced to conform to gender stereotypes if they have issues with that personally. If they don't see why they should be stay-home mothers, I think they should have that prerogative to live life that way. Women should also not be viewed as 'lesser' than men, or lacking in any way. To me, both genders simply have different strengths and weaknesses generally (gender stereotypes) and they actually complement each other. Acting in our stereotypical capacities are a way of tapping on our complementary functions, but if either party is uncomfortable with that and have alternative beliefs, I also believe that there are other ways of co-existing perfectly well.

So I do think the class will be exciting, particularly the readings, it'll help me to make a more informed stand on this matter and be aware of our different communication patterns.

More personal (random) stuff - I like music I play the piano and electone when I'm bored or for cathartic purposes; I have a horrible sense of direction which many of my friends will attest to; I like desserts (like, really almost any desserts) and all those chocolates.

Peace out!