#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