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.
