Understanding the Root of the Gender War - Case Study Example

Understanding the Root of the Gender War Much of the conflicts arising from interpersonal relationships is rooted in communication problems. Unresolved issues are mostly caused by miscommunication not cleared up. It is pathetic when people go through life without making the effort to fill in the gaps by understanding the reasons behind the issues. This results in hurt feelings and even broken relationships. Men and women are known to be wired differently in terms of communication. Such gender differences are solidified in their lifetime as they are treated differently from birth. From the time they are born, baby girls are considered fragile and they are exposed to delicate language and handled very gently. Boys, on the other hand, are exposed to strong tones and power-filled language and are handled less gently as they are tossed in the air and held upright from a younger age to demonstrate their power and strength (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005) Maltz and Borker (1982) proposed the Sociolinguistic Subculture Approach. They explain that boys and girls grow up in essentially different talk subcultures resulting from the differing expectations parents and peers direct toward them about acceptable ways to talk. As early as two years of age, children classify themselves and other people as belonging to one of two genders. By age three, girls develop skills at talking earlier than boys and these talking skills are utilized to explore relationships with others. They are more likely than boys to deploy language strategies that demonstrate attentiveness, responsiveness, and support (Leaper, 1991). They develop intimate relationships by selecting a “best friend” and use language to find common ground with that friend. Boys at the same age are not as verbal. They use more strategies that demand attention, give orders, and establish dominance (Leaper, 1991). They engage in group activities with other boys and test out their ‘high’ and ‘low’ status roles: “I’m the leader”, “you follow me”, etc. They establish positions among the group and they are apparently louder, more physical and less verbal than girls (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005). By the age of 7, children have acquired gender constancy (Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) and knowledge of gender-role stereotypes (Huston, 1983; Martin, 1989). As they transition to middle childhood, interaction strategies become more gender-differentiated. Whereas girls become more competent in collaborative strategies, boys stick to their reliance on domineering influence strategies. Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics, theorized that as adults, men and women reproduce such behavior patterns. Men engage in one up strategies to position themselves in groups and women use talk to build harmonious relationships with each other (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005). Men focus on facts instead of feelings while women are the opposite. They expect their feelings to be acknowledged and supported. “Women speak and listen for a language of connection and intimacy. Men speak and listen for a language of status and independence” (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005, p.10). The literature indicates that womens communication characteristically includes more intensifiers, implied imperatives, tag questions, politeness, wordiness, allowance of interruptions, disclaimers, qualifiers, and hesitations than mens language (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Hewitt & Stokes, 1975; Pearson, 1985). Linguistics research confirms that women are more fluid with language and that women pay more attention to listening - for facts AND feelings. On the other hand, mens language has been characterized as more assertive/aggressive, precise, and instrumental than womens language (Fitzpatrick & Bochner, 1981; Liska, Mechling, & Strathas, 1981). They oppose, they joke, they use banter to undermine the speaker. Research on communication has identified specific use of language to determine speaker’s confidence, assertiveness and efficiency in negotiations. Lakoffs (1978) has operationalized a tag question as “midway between an outright statement and yes-no question.. .the tag question seeks confirmation and thereby communicates an attitude of uncertainty (p. 54)." Examples are the additional “don’t you think so?” or “wasn’t it?” after stating an opinion. Disclaimers are defined as “introductory expressions that excuse, explain, or request understanding or forebearance” (Eakins and Eakins, 1977, p. 45). Examples are “You may not agree, but..” or “I’m no expert, but…”. Tag questions and disclaimers are usually used to “soften the blow” of an otherwise strong statement or opinion. Sometimes, the effect of using such is lessening the credibility of the point being made by the speaker. Closely related to disclaimers are qualifiers (also referred to as hedges), which are adverbs (e.g., "maybe," "perhaps," "sort of ) that tend to weaken the strength of the statement presented. Most often, disclaimers and qualifiers are considered to be less directive speech evoked by those with less power in a situation (Lakoff 1990). Interruptions may be classified as plain interruptions and unsuccessful interruptions. Pearson (1985) indicates that interruptions occur when a person "begins to speak before the last word that could suggest the end of the speakers statement, question, or comment (p. 197). Unsuccessful interruptions are those which no one responded to and the interrupted speaker continues to talk and keep the attention of the others. Interruptions are usually symptoms of assertive behavior in that the speaker attempts to be heard. Overlaps are simultaneous speech occurring very close to each other, like possible transition from one speaker to another. Zimmerman and West (1975) found that men overlap women more than women overlap men and concluded that overlaps are similar to interruptions as a means of asserting dominance. Back channels are minimal responses that signal the listeners encouragement and support, such as "yeah," "mm-hmm," and "right" (Kollock et al. 1985, p.39). Research suggests that back channels are mostly used by those with less authority to show deference to people with higher authority. The subculture approach argues that back channels may be a reflection of womens greater learned expressiveness, sociability, and showing of interest (Maltz and Borker 1982; Carli 1990). In relation to this, Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz’s (1985) study of couples in intimate relationships suggests that the more powerful partner was defined as the one who had more influence in decision-making relative to the other. Results indicated that, the more powerful partner demonstrated a higher rate of interrupting than the less powerful partner, regardless of gender. Also, the less powerful partner, had a higher rate of "back channels" than the more powerful partner In a corporate setting, Smeltzer and Watson (1986) did a study to investigate gender differences in communication during negotiations. They found out that women use significantly more disclaimers, interruptions, and attempted interruptions than men during collective bargaining sessions. However, no significant differences were found between men and womens use of tag questions. Professionals are traditionally considered to exhibit masculine communication behavior such as rationality, power, decisiveness, and objectivity rather than so called feminine communication behavior (Bradley, 1981). Professional women are seen as less powerful in terms of communication. When they exhibit assertive language in the workplace, their image is transformed to one who is more aggressive or “out-of-role” and if this may jeopardize their effectiveness especially when they manifest their assertiveness above accepted levels (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Apparently, the use of language may be specific to the situation at hand. Women generally use non-assertive communication, as they were raised to be that way. It is no wonder that they tend to use more tag questions and disclaimers. However, when they feel more self-confident, they use more assertive communication (Stake & Stake, 1979). Also, although early research findings suggest that men interrupt more often in conversations (Thorne & Henley, 1975; Zimmerman & West, 1975), more recent research, such as the one by Smeltzer and Watson (1986) suggest that highly educated women surpassed men in the number of interruptions they made. However, interruptions are not necessarily indications of dominant communication styles (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Women in the workplace need to be aware of their use of tag questions, disclaimers, interruptions and the like, and should learn to use more assertive communication skills to overcome gender discrimination and make themselves heard and acknowledged in male-dominated situations. In personal relationships, communication plays a bigger role in maintaining harmony and peace. Research on marriage and close relationships points to varying communication patterns shared by couples. “One salient pattern of communication in the marital interaction literature is the demand–withdraw pattern, in which one member (the demander) criticizes, nags, and makes demands of the other, while the partner (the withdrawer) avoids confrontation, withdraws, and becomes silent.” (Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins & Christensen, 2007, p.218) The demand-withdraw pattern is usually associated with relationship dissatisfaction, power differences, differences in desire for closeness and independence, femininity–masculinity, gender roles, and division of labor (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). Although both genders may play both roles of demander and withdrawer, research on this topic consistently demonstrates that women are more often in the demanding role and men more often in the withdrawing role. This may be explained by the finding that the person who wants to initiate changes in the relationship mostly imposes the demands and usually, it is the woman who is more open to change (Kluwer, Heesink, & Van de Vliert, 2000; Margolin, Talovic, & Weinstein, 1983). Hence, she must rely on her partner’s compliance to induce change, must engage in behaviors to elicit change from the partner, and therefore may complain, demand, and pressure. Conversely, the man who has the burden of making change may find the woman’s demanding behavior as aversive and may resort to withdrawal and avoidance to reduce conflict and avoid change. The more change is desired, and the greater is the difference between partners in desiring change, the higher is the likelihood of demand–withdraw. In more distressed marriages, the desire for change is naturally higher, raising the probability of demanding and thus withdrawing behavior. There are also gender differences in non-verbal communication. Johnson (1994) studied males and females in various groupings and found out that men in same-sex groups have significantly lower rates of both smiling and laughing than women in same-sex groups. In terms of leader-subordinate conversations, female managers and subordinates have the highest rates of laughing in same and mixed sex groups. This supports the subcultural approach that women communicate in ways to preserve harmonious relationships. However, male managers and subordinates have higher rates of smiling and laughing in mixed than same-sex groups. And female subordinates have lower rates of smiling with male than female managers, while male subordinates with female managers have the highest rate of smiling. Obviously, the gender composition of a group clearly has an effect on nonverbal behaviors. One thing is confirmed, though. Women discriminate less between men and women in their expressions of smiling and laughing than men. It is inevitable to associate flirtatious behavior in inter-gender interactions. Abrahams (1994) defined flirtatious communications as “messages and behaviors perceived by a recipient as purposefully attempting to gain his or her attention and stimulate his or her interest in the sender, while simultaneously being perceived as intentionally revealing an affiliative desire” (p. 283). If the issue of flirtation in communication patterns were considered, Koeppel, Montagne-Miller, O’Hair and Cody (1993) found that men and women differed in their perceptions of flirtatiousness. Men’s perception of flirtatious and seductive behavior is strongly related to who initiated the interaction, while for women attribute flirtation to nonverbal displays. The phrase popularized by John Gray’s (1992) book, “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus” aptly describes how the two genders are often off-tangent in understanding each other’s communication patterns. Although they share the same human characteristics, society, history and even biology, may be responsible in wiring them differently due to the varied roles expected of them. As men are expected to be the dominant gender, they are wired to communicate in ways that show that they are in control, devoid of emotional hang ups, and goes direct to the point. Women, on the other hand, expected to be nurturers, buffer their language with long-winded, emotionally stimulating phraseology to land a soft impact on their listeners. It is heartening to know from reviewing the literature that there is an effort to reach out and understand each other. The hard work of researchers on effective communication will only bear fruit if men and women follow their advise and learn ways to compromise on gender differences. It is in understanding where each other is coming from and acknowledging the fact that they are inherently different that true harmony will set in. Men and women may come from opposite poles, but when they come together and agree to be on the same side, even for just certain situations, then there is hope that the gender war will eventually subside. References Abrahams, M.F. (1994) “Perceiving Flirtatious Communication: An Exploration of the Perceptual Dimensions Underlying Judgments of Flirtatiousness”, The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 31, No. 4, 283-292 Bradley, P.H. (1981). “The folk-linguistics of womens speech: An empirical Examination”, Communication Monographs, 48, 73-90. Carli, L. L. (1990). "Gender, Language, and Influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:941-51 Eakins, B. and Eakins, G. (1976) "Verbal Turn-Taking and Exchanges in Faculty Dialogue." Pp. 53-62 in The Sociology of the Languages of American Women, edited by B. L. Dubois and I. Crouch. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press. Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). “Demand–withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. “In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 289–322). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Eldridge, K.A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D.C. & Christensen, A. (2007) “Demand– Withdraw Communication In Severely Distressed, Moderately Distressed, And Nondistressed Couples: Rigidity And Polarity During Relationship And Personal Problem Discussions”, Journal of Family Psychology 2007, Vol. 21, No. 2, 218– 226 Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Bochner, A. (1981). “Perspectives on self and others: Male-female differences in perceptions of communication behavior”. Sex Roles, 7, 523-534. Gray, J. (1992). Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: Harper Collins Hewitt, John P., and Randall Stokes. 1975. "Disclaimers." American Sociological Review 40: 1-11. Huston, A. G. (1983) “Sex-typing”, In E. M. Hetberington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (pp. 387-467). New York: Wiley. Johnson, C. (1994) “Gender, Legitimate Authority, And Leader-Subordinate Conversations”, American Sociological Review, 1994, Vol. 59, 122-135 Kennedy, C.W., & Camden, C.T. (1983) “Interruptions and Nonverbal Gender Differences”, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 91-108. Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). “The division of labor in close relationships: An asymmetrical conflict issue.” Personal Relationships, 7, 263– 282. Koblberg, L., & Zigler, E. (1967). “Tbe impact of cognitive maturity on tbe development of sex-role attitudes in the years 4 to 8.” Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 89-165. Koeppel, L.B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M.J. (1993) “Friendly? Flirting? Wrong?” In P.J. Kalbfieisch (ed.) Interpersonal Communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13-32) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kollock, P., Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. (1985) "Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties." American Sociological Review. 50: 34-46 Lakoff, R. (1978). Language and womans place. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Lakoff, R. (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books. Leaper, C. (1991) “Influence and Involvement in Childrens Discourse: Age, Gender, and Partner Effects”, Child Development, 1991, 62, 797-811 Liska, J., Mechling, E.W., & Strathas, S. (1981) “Differences in subjects perceptions of gender and believability between users of deferential and non-deferential language.”, Communication Quarterly, 29, 40-48. Maltz, Daniel N, and Ruth A. Borker. (1982) "A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication."Pp. 196-216 in Language and Social Identity, edited by J. J. Gumperz. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University. Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). “Areas of Change Questionnaire: A practical approach to marital assessment”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 920–931. Martin, G. L. (1989). “Childrens use of gender-related information in making social judgments”, Developmental Psychology, 25, 80—88. Pearson, J. C. (1985) Gender and Communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Rasquinha, D. & Mouly, S. (2005) “When Women Talk: What Do Leaders Sound Like?”, Organisational Culture, June 2005. Smeltzer, L.R. & Watson, K.W. (1986) “Gender Differences In Verbal Communication During Negotiations”, Volume 3,1986/Communication Research Reports Stake, J.E., & Stake, M.N. (1979). “Performance--Self-esteem and dominance in mixed sex dyads”, Journal of Personality, 47, 23-84. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books Thome, B. and, Henley, N. (1975) "Difference and Dominance: An Overview of Language, Gender, and Society." Pp. 5-42 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Zimmerman, D H. and West, C. (1975), "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation." Pp. 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Read More