#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!