A response

The following is a rant made in real time while I was reading Sam Harris' "I'm Not The Sexist Pig You're Looking For". I was originally going to post it as a Facebook comment, but then decided that it would be impolite to post such a long comment. So I made it a blog post, because why the hell not.

It isn't particularly coherent or cohesive, but it's certainly passionate. If I cared to, I could probably cobble it into a decent rebuttal, but I'm disinclined to do so. I'll let my "work" stand on its own, because I have already spent more than enough time on this piece of crap that Harris unleashed on the internet.

All punctuation and lack of decent structure are a testament to my not bothering to edit it, so just pretend that the capitals and periods are there, people.

Oh, he's talking about *active* atheists. *rolls eyes*

So, atheist activism is "intrinsically" more male, because Harris sees more men at the conferences he attends, therefore women must not be that into activism. Sorry, suffragettes, you ladies just weren't that into activism.

"more 'nurturing'" Jesus. H. Christ. STOP IT WITH THIS GENDER STEREOTYPING BULLSHIT YOU IGNORANT FOOL. Does he really not get that *this* bullshit is what makes him sexist? *Assuming* that women don't like the angry, in-your-face atheism? HAS HE MET ANY WOMEN? LIKE, EVER?

"if you think testosterone has no psychological effects on human minds in general" This is actually a common misconception, testosterone actually isn't that strongly linked with aggression, and if it is, women are more sensitive to its effects. I googled it recently, because I finally got tired of people trotting out the "but men are aggressive bc testosterone"/biological essentialism bullshit. This is a pretty good, if slightly old, summation of the problems with the "testosterone make men aggressive" hypothesis: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520 (Google "testosterone aggression" for more fun reading; you'll get quite a few articles that do put forward the claim that testosterone is the only reason men are aggressive, but you'll also discover that it's actually kind of way more complicated than that.)

"I was raised by a single mother." Oh god, not this bullshit.

"I respect women more than men, therefore I am immune to the cultural biases present in everyday life, and because I know I'm not sexist, I don't have to worry about when people point out problematic things I say!!!!" Good rationalization, bro.

"Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be entirely a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply." What. Like, actually, what. There are academics who spend their whole lives researching this, talking about this, and thinking about this. But because Harris doesn't think that sexism is the leading cause of women being kept out of business, it isn't. Never mind that he accepts that there is a majority Christian population in the US, and he likely also recognizes (unless he's completely bonkers) that Christianity is a *fundamentally* patriarchal religion. Like. This is easier than two and two. Most people are Christian + Christianity is a patriarchal (eg, inherently sexist against women) religion = SEXISM IS WHY WOMEN CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS. IT ISN'T THAT HARD, SAM.

"Most of these differences can be explained by general disparities in size, strength, and aggressiveness between the sexes." No. The can be explained in general attitudes towards women as things to possess + a "might makes right" attitude (a seeming staple of American culture, at least).

"slavishly follow the liberal line on gun control" fuck you. Did you know that women in an abusive relationship are way more likely to die at the hands of their partner than the other way around? Do you think having a gun in the house is going to be particularly reassuring to a woman who doesn't know when her husband/boyfriend is going to have a rage-fit? If you'd bothered to know what the fuck you were talking about, Harris, you'd know that women who need protection from their abusive partners don't actually benefit from having a thing in the house that will easily kill them should they happen to be in the area when their partner decides to go off on them for something.

"women are slightly better at this than men." We are constantly on guard, and don't have the privilege of being unaware of our surroundings. I, personally, as a 5'8" large woman don't tend to be bothered by things like walking alone down a street at night; I have a sort of "privilege by association," because I'm rather masculine in appearance, and at first glance might seem to be a guy. So I don't have to worry as much. So I'm not constantly on guard. It's not an inherent woman thing, Sam, it's a "women have been trained since birth" sort of thing.

"My criticism of Islam ... largely inspired by my concern for women" Wow. That's rather patronizing. And sexist. WHAT ABOUT THE MEN WHO ARE AFFECTED BY ISLAM, HUH? DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THEM?

Ugh, that last paragraph just drips awful.

Peer Sexual Harassment

Peer sexual harassment is sexual harassment which occurs happens between people who know each other. Sexual harassment is any non-consensual touching or comment that is of a sexual nature. This may seem to be a subjective definition, but for the inclusion of the word “non-consensual”. Consent is a very important idea when you’re talking about any sexual matter--from actual sex, to flirting and playful banter. When you’re attempting to engage someone, whether it’s a conversation or a hug, you should get that person’s consent before continuing. That doesn’t mean you need to explicitly ask everyone every time you want to talk to them; consent includes watching for non-verbal indicators that the other party is okay with your engaging them. As an example, I’ve had numerous people engage me in both harmless and sexual conversation on public transportation--the most memorable, to me, was the one guy who kept trying to talk to me even though I kept going back to my book and answering him (if I did) monosyllabically. It’s easy to say “You should have just told the guy to go away”--I wonder myself what kept me from doing so. Social situations are a two-party system, though, and to any reasonable viewer, I was not consenting to that guy’s attempt to engage me.

I would consider any form of unwanted touching to be sexual harassment. If someone doesn’t want it, they aren’t consenting to it. It is, of course, difficult to know what other people are thinking, but that’s why you have to be proactive in determining whether or not someone is okay with your actions. Don’t assume that if they aren’t speaking up, that they’re okay with it. Don’t be an accidental harasser--even good, well intentioned people can accidentally overstep boundaries. People are human, they make mistakes. That’s not the problem. The problem is when you don’t care enough to establish personal boundaries with other people. It’s hard; I know how hard it is, as someone who’s had to speak up countless times to establish my own boundaries, which seem to be more restricted than is common (I’m not a hugger, for instance, and am uncomfortable with hugging people I’m not in an established friendship with, but this seems to be uncommon in my peers, and I’ve had to have the “please ask before hugging me” conversation a lot). But it’s important to know what other people are comfortable with, especially if you’re trying to improve your communication with them. Having a five minute conversation about what the other person is comfortable with (“Hey, I know I’m a real touchy kind of person, are you okay with that? y/n”) can greatly improve a relationship--it tells the other person that you care about them; and if you respect their boundaries, it shows them that they can trust you.

Gender Communication in the Workplace

This post is in response to this video.

The first issue that jumped out at me was the way in which the project manager, Terry, seemed to demand things from her employees. Regardless of the cultural and gender differences between her and her employees, it’s a generally bad idea to be demanding of the people you’re working with. It’s good to expect things from your employees, but to expect that the people you’re working with are responsible for everything that goes wrong is going to breed in your co-workers an inability to trust you. They won’t want to come to you for help because they’ll expect that you’re going to just blame them for the problems, instead of supporting and empowering them to find the solution themselves.

Terry also seemed uninterested in the actual reasons there were problems. She asked what the problems were, but didn’t allow her employees room to explain the issues. Had Carlos been allowed to explain the system of compadres that were in place, the problem with the equipment would have been avoided. Instead, Terry ignored the advice that Carlos gave--clearly not caring about his opinion or experience. There is nothing so demoralizing as thinking that the person you’re working for doesn’t respect your opinions--they don’t have to agree with you, but they should at least be interested and explore what issues come up.

In a gender communications context, women and men are often socialized to communicate differently; when Miguel spoke about how his culture uses a lot of body language and other nonverbal communication, I was reminded of the section in our text which went over how men and women often utilize different communication styles. Obviously, if two people are “speaking two different languages” (communicating differently), there will be roadblocks to effective communication. If one party is unable or unwilling to adapt to the communication style of the person they’re engaging in communication with, communication will break down, and problems like what we saw in the video will occur.

__________________

I'm including my response to a student's response to the video here because it's so short:
I agree that the video focuses primarily on cultural differences, but I think if you think of men and women as coming from different cultures, this video becomes applicable to gender communications. Of course, the analogy isn't airtight, as men and women from the same culture tend to share more in common with each other than they do with men and women from other cultures. However, as we've read about in our textbook, men and women often approach problems in communication as though they have been raised in separate cultures--much like cross-cultural communication, cross-gender is possible. I would argue that cross-gender communication is easier than cross-cultural communication; as I said, men and women from the same culture tend to have shared experiences that they can build on. When we speak to someone else, we are very much aware of their gender (gender is one of the first things we notice about someone, in fact), and as such we adapt our communication style to match what we think they expect and what we expect they will best respond to. How you communicate with people changes depending on context, and context includes things like what gender you perceive the other party to be. Men and women from the same culture will know, if only intuitively, how to communicate in a gendered context. Problems arise when these communication patterns are based on stereotypes, rather than being responsive to the individual you're communicating with--much as we saw in the cross-cultural video.

Ways to Hurt in a Close Relationship

I really can’t generalize from my own experiences to speak to both genders in this regard, but going on what I have observed in my own relationships, and the relationships in those around me, it seems as though men are more likely to use physical violence to hurt their partners. Women are more likely to use emotional violence, or psychological violence, against their partners. Female-on-male physical violence is probably less rare than people tend to think, and it’s usually shrugged off because women tend to be the less physically strong partner. Physical violence, though, often comes packaged with psychological violence, because the receiver of the violence will often feel self-doubt as a result of their partner’s attack--they’ll question what they did to provoke the attack, they’ll convince themselves that it wasn’t that big of a deal. If it’s woman-on-man violence, I can imagine that most men would feel too ashamed to speak up about the violence, given the ridicule the idea of a woman battering a man often garners; men aren’t supposed to be physically inferior to women, so getting “bested” in a physical fight with your female partner is bound to create all kind of self-shame and feel emasculating. Men’s identities are often tied up in how physically strong they are, so having that questioned is going to cause them distress. Domestic violence is often framed as something that only women have to deal with, as well, and that creates a sort of vacuum in which men don’t feel they can speak up in.

I also think that emotional abuse is brushed off as some sort of unserious problem. I’ve had friends who have been in manipulative and emotionally difficult relationships, where their partner made them feel as though my friends were at fault for whatever problems were happening. I’ve seen what that sort of abuse can do to someone, and don’t feel like it gets talked about often enough. It usually involves making the victim feel as though they can’t trust their own feelings, that the victim is just ‘over-reacting’ to something, or just ‘crazy’ and making up stuff. While over-reactions and misinterpretations happen (humans are flawed beings, and mistakes get made), often abusers will deflect any responsibility for the problems that come up. I noticed that in the text, in the sections regarding the two ways abuse affects the abused, and why they stay (Ivy 295-297)--the Blaming Oneself and Blaming External Factors sections didn’t explicitly say it, but what happens in these situations is that the victim isn’t able to attach responsibility to the abuser; from what I’ve seen and experienced, the abuser is complicit in this thinking, refusing to accept that their actions have actually caused harm or refusing to engage their partner in discussion about how they’re harming their partner. It’s easy to point to a bruise and tell someone, “You’ve really hurt me,” but it’s another thing to point to a feeling and tell someone, “You’re why I’m feeling this [sadness, guilt, anger].”

Conflict and Gender Communication in Romantic Relationships

Conflict, in my experience, arises as a combination of conflicting needs, desires, or wants and poor communication between partners. Even if the partners aren’t experiencing a conflict of needs, if they aren’t communicating with their partner, this will lead to conflict. Poorly communicating to your partner can be just as bad, too--if you aren’t speaking up for yourself, if you aren’t being honest with your partner, or if you aren’t willing to listen to your partner, all of these can lead to conflict within a relationship.

The demand-withdraw pattern seems to me to arise from one or both partners being unwilling or unable to view their relationship as a sum of the parts, rather as being as they want it to be. A relationship isn’t just what one partner wants it to be, it’s got to be a mutual thing, where both partners are defining the parameters of the relationship. In a demand-withdraw pattern, it seems more like one partner is imposing their own desires on the relationship, and doesn’t seem to care about the other partner; this might be for a variety of reasons--maybe their partner has a history of ignoring their desires, maybe their partner doesn’t assert any desires and so they feel the need to fill a vacuum, or maybe they demand things because they haven’t matured to the point where they feel comfortable accommodating the other person. The partner who tends to withdraw might do so for a variety of reasons, as well--perhaps they feel hounded, perhaps they don’t know how to express their own desires, perhaps they aren’t willing to risk the relationship over what they view as a single instance of disagreement.

I think the best way to avoid the demand-withdraw pattern in a relationship is to not avoid conflict, as hard as that can be, and to confront differences in wants, needs, and desires directly. Being honest with your partner about how comfortable you are with certain activities, having boundaries regarding “couple time” and “me time”, and genuinely wanting to be in a relationship with the other person--not to view them as a necessity, or a chore, but genuinely want to build a life with that person (maybe for the rest of your life, or maybe just for six months)--seem like the best ways to avoid demand-withdraw.

________________________________

My response to another student (it's short so I'm not going to put it in a separate post):
I think you're spot on when you say "Neither of the parties really have to take any responsibility for issues they share [in the demand-withdraw pattern]." The demander gets to put the onus of responsibility for a problem on the other party, and the withdrawer gets to shirk all responsibility by avoiding dealing with the conflict. The problem, meanwhile, is still present in the relationship; ignoring or making someone else deal with the problem isn't going to make it go away. It's also easy, after a while, for the withdrawer to frame their partner as a 'nag' or simply over-sensitive, rather than admit that they have a part to play in maintain the relationship. The demander can frame their partner as indifferent or insensitive to their needs, which will likely only fuel their flaw-finding.

I agree that conflict is often synonymous with fighting, while there are definitely differences between them. I think it's reasonable to expect conflict in a relationship, and I think it's natural to fear fighting with someone you care about. Having an argument with someone you care about is difficult. You don't want to be angry with someone you have deep feelings for. I don't think it's as easy as "not fearing" conflict, but being able to push through the fear, if that makes any sense.

"How to Win an Argument", Pt 2

Note: For this post, I'm posting the content of the person I'm responding to, as it is important context to have when reading my response. As per usual, all names have been redacted.

Student:

In my opinion, the best tactic is the first one because once a man acknowledges his girlfriend, she will be calm down and tend to not say anything. The more you complain, the more girlfriend complains. Actually, girls complain more than boys, so that men should give up as soon as possible. And also, men should say "I understand you and love you". I think that strategy is the best for keeping relationship. For me, I do not like having a problem and continuing conflict because I am lazy. I will forget conflicts after I walk three steps. However, some girls continue conflicts for long time. That is why I give up conflicts as soon as possible. For the strategy #2, I do not think it is good idea because the talking will be long time. Because I am lazy, I do not listen for long time. I like #3 too because once I acknowledge I am wrong, girls can notice the boyfriend could understand. This strategy relates to #1. To avoid continuing the conflicts, boys should give up as soon as possible. I think only #1 and #3 is the best tactic to win because to compromise first is winning. If men complain a lot, it is not cool and they are childish. Men should be quiet and compromise as soon as possible. So, I think using two tactics, we can build good relationship and friendship. For the other tactics, you probably make girls angry, so I do not think they work.

Your opinion is certainly interesting, [Student]. I definitely don’t agree that one partner should ever “give up” when trying to communicate with the other partner. I also find your use of the word “complain” curious, given that we were exploring conflict and arguing with members of other sexes. I think if you view your partner as just “complaining” about something, you’re building a barrier in your communication with them. The word “complain”, to me at least, implies that you don’t consider your partner’s experience as important as they seem to. Complaints, outside of the realm of customer service, are typically treated with less respect than just plain opinions. If someone is a “complainer”, they’re viewed as someone who’s never happy, who isn’t easy to please, someone who’s opinions can be discounted because all they’re doing is “just complaining.”

I think giving up on conflicts, instead of trying to understand why you and the other person have the conflict, is a bad strategy if you’re interested in building strong relationships. The biggest part of any relationship, be it friendship or romance or being coworkers, is empathy--empathy requires that you make the attempt to understand the other person in the relationship. Without empathy, a friendship is hollow, and a romance is doomed. Relationships are complicated, even when they’re just two people. Conflicts don’t have to be negative--I’ve had near-shouting matches with one of my closest friends, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have. Refusing to engage in an argument with someone you’re in a relationship with isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about ignoring the perspective of the person you’re in the relationship with.

"How to Win an Argument", Pt 1

Note: This is in response to 'How to Finally Win an Argument with Your Woman' by Laura Snyder. The link I have for this is a deadlink, but I will include the text of the "article" at the end. It's worth reading, if only for the realization that people actually think like that. Like, seriously.

I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine, and she showed me this really compelling video regarding “winning arguments”, and how most people think of arguments as tiny wars to be fought. The argument that the speaker was making was best summed up, I think, as “arguments are more productive if you think of them as learning opportunities.” I definitely find this to be a much more healthy attitude than “trying to win” arguments. When arguments are a battle, there is a winner and a loser, and you can’t gain anything if you’ve lost an argument. Communication should be about the exchange of ideas, and if there’s a loser (who hasn’t gained any knowledge by virtue of having lost the ‘battle’), then the communication is skewed and, in my opinion, failed. I also think that if you’re viewing your relationship as a war, rather than as a partnership to build a life with someone, you might reconsider your approach. Are there conflicts in relationships? Absolutely--two (or more) people who each have their own individual wants, needs, and desires will inevitably find that they have conflicting wants, needs, or desires. That doesn’t mean that one party should “win” at the expensive of the other.

As for the article, I find the tone and outlook rather sexist. “Women love arguments”? Really? And men “hate conflict”? These are statements founded on extremely frustrating and sexist gender stereotypes. They also aren’t consistent with what little I do know about men and women--if men “hate conflict” so much, then why do they play any type of sport? If men are wary of conflict with their significant other (assumed, of course, to be a female partner), is it because they don’t like conflict, or maybe because they’ve been conditioned to handle conflict in a certain manner (through violent means) and have also been conditioned to treat women a certain way (besides the whole “don’t hit girls” mandate, there’s the idea that men need to treat women with kid gloves, because they’re so fragile)? Additionally, the “tactics” to “win” an argument seem like pandering and not about actually communicating with the person you’re attempting to have a life with. Instead of “winning” an argument, maybe you could, I don’t know, try to understand why your partner is upset? I’m not directing this exclusively at men in a heterosexual relationship--I mean that everyone who is in a relationship (romantic or otherwise) should avoid trying to “win” arguments, and instead focus on understanding what their partner is saying, and why they’re saying it. Actually communicate with your partner, don’t try to just score points off of them.

_____________________________________________________

Text of "How to Win an Argument with Your Woman"

Women love arguments. It gives us a chance to talk (or yell) about our feelings, understand each other better, explain to you how you can be a better boyfriend. We're the ones that tell you that conflicts are good for relationships. Men, on the other hand, hate arguments. Maybe because you hate conflict. Or because you just don't want to get into it before the fourth quarter starts. Or maybe it's because we almost always find a way to spank you in a spat, even if your position is seemingly invincible.

If you're going to do battle, boys, you might as well be armed. Here's how to beat her at her own game.

Battle Tactic #1: Evasive Maneuvers
The fastest way to win a fight is to avoid it completely. And there's an almost foolproof way of doing that... it's called "acknowledging her feelings." In most cases, that's all she wants when she picks a fight anyway. Just restate her complaint so she sees you're listening and then hit her sympathy. (Key words: I, understand, you, that, must, feel)

Battle Tactic #2: Actually Listen
Might not sound all that devious, but one of the reasons she consistently kicks your butt in battle is because while you're talking, she's cataloging all the inconsistencies in your story. Listen to what you're saying first, and pay careful attention to what she's saying and when you reply, address her points. At the very least, she'll take you more seriously.

Battle Tactic #3: Admit You're Wrong.
One of guys' biggest mistake is overvaluing being right. Any woman can tell you that being right doesn't matter in an argument; admitting you're wrong and winning an argument are not the same thing (Consider the difference between "I was wrong to buy a motorcycle without consulting you" and "I will return the motorcycle.") In fact, by admitting you were wrong up front, you rob her of ammunition and there's nothing left to fight about.

Battle Tactic #4: Don't Be Distracted
Resist the temptation to pounce on her false premises, unsound deductions and blatant falsehoods of her reasoning. Again, this isn't about being right... and she's just firing those shots to find your weaknesses. Other sneaky woman tricks to ignore: false apologies, wildly unreasonable ultimatums, tears and withholding sex. Oh, and don't try to use any of them yourself. You'll never pull it off.

Battle Tactic #5: Know When It's Over
Ideally, you'll end your fight with a sense of closure, usually with a statement along the lines of "I need you to do X" or "I see Minor Problem A as being a symptom of Much Bigger Problem B." >From that point, it should be fairly easy to come to a mutually agreeable compromise. Watch her melt when you say "Can we work on this together?".

Battle Tactic #6: Know When It's Really Over
Before you get ready for the make-up sex, though, make sure it's really over. Watch her body language. Is she nodding her head in agreement, or sitting there wearing a scowl with her arms crossed? If she looks angry, it ain't over, even if she says it is. Proceed to sexual overtures with extreme caution.

Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Pt 2

I think [Student] makes an excellent point with regards to how men can be insecure about their body image; however, it is interesting to me to note that women are far and away more likely to be diagnosed with an eating disorder than men. I do think that American culture places an unhealthy emphasis on looks, and do think that men and women face their own separate issues when it comes to body image. It seems to me, however, that men are more likely to be forgiven for bucking the trend when it comes to how they look. That is to say, if a man chooses not to put hours into the gym, chooses not to diet in order to keep a trim figure, and chooses not to always wear stylish clothes, he isn’t judged as harshly as a woman who does the same. Having never experienced being male, I can’t speak authoritatively on this, but I do have experience living as a woman who doesn’t conform to American beauty standards. I have felt immense pressure to conform to these beauty standards, both internal and external.

As I mentioned in my first response, I do think that marketers have caught on to the idea that they’ve been neglecting approximately half the population. Magazines, beauty products, and clothing manufacturers seem to be more and more emphasizing a certain male beauty standard, which I find wholly unfortunate and frustrating. The trend is towards an equality between the sexes, but it is an equality that leads to mental health issues, physical health issues, and encouraging all the wrong things. Men falling prey to the same body image problems that have plagued women for quite a long time now is far from the feminist ideal of equality.

Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Pt 1

Watching the Dove Real Beauty Sketches video, I was struck by how critical the women shown were of themselves. I’ve struggled with the same kind of thing, always being more critical of myself than others. It’s startling to me that even conventionally attractive women (which most of the women featured were) can be so pessimistic of their looks. I think it shows how easily and how thoroughly we internalize messages of beauty in our culture. We’re bombarded with Photoshopped images of flawless creations that bear a passing resemblance to what humans look like in the wild, and we begin to think that’s how women should look, instead of realizing that women don’t look like that at all. I know that men as well as women have to put up with idealized beauty standards in the media, but the male friends I’ve discussed this with don’t seem to have the same level of problem regarding not meeting the ideal as my female friends. Body image problems seem to be something that women primarily deal with, which makes me think that women especially feel the pressure to conform to beauty standards. The way to deal with this double standard isn’t to make men feel more poorly about their bodies, of course, but to have more realistic models in the media. I feel like I’ve read something in the recent past about how with the rise of heavily Photoshopped male models, there has been a corresponding drop in positive body image among young men, but I can’t recall where I read it.

The second video, which was an obvious parody of the Real Beauty Sketches, was pretty funny. I think, though, having an inflated sense of your own self isn’t something that most men have. Are men more confident in their looks on average when compared to women? Without having done any actual research, I would say that men don’t think about their own beauty in the same way that women do. Most beauty products are targeted at women, whereas most male hygienic products are simply soap or deodorant. I have noticed that there seem to be more body care products aimed at men that aren’t just soap or deodorant, though, and I find that pretty troubling. The message with most beauty products seems to be, “You aren’t perfect, and that’s wrong, so here’s this thing that will help make you perfect.” Body care products seem less about actually caring for your body and more about creating in real life what we see in Photoshopped magazines. I understand grooming, and wanting to look your best, but there seems to be something more sinister underlying beauty care products that I can’t like.

Informational Communication & Relational Communication, Pt 2

[Student] helped me understand something that I think I find problematic with the difference between “informational” and “relational” communications--what, exactly, is the difference between your male friends reaching out to you to share things they’re excited about, and your female friends reaching out to you in order to catch up? It seems to me that the only difference is content of the conversation, not reason for the conversation. The reason for the conversation seems to be the same regardless of the gender of the friend who is conversing with you--they are reaching out to you, in order to maintain a relationship with you. It seems that your friends have differing strategies for achieving that goal--your male friends tend towards sharing common interests, while your female friends tend towards asking about your life (which, in a certain light, could be considered a common interest--assuming you’re interested in your own life, of course).

One thing I think is key from the text is the clarification that “every message carries content and relational meanings” (169). I think I missed that in my first reading of the passage, which led to my confusion. I still think focusing on how different men and women communicate buries the lede--that is to say, I think we have much more in common with regards to how we communicate and what we communicate about than we give ourselves credit for. And especially if we let gender stereotypes guide our interactions with other people, we will tend towards having problems when we’re communicating with other people. Your example of approaching your friend after his loss highlights this, and is similar to my own experience with grief and my friends’ support--I tend towards not wanting to discuss emotional experiences. When I lost an aunt I was close with, I didn’t want to talk about how I felt, but hanging out with my best friend and getting on with normal life was very helpful in dealing with my grief. Had my friend pushed me to focus on how I felt, I don’t think it would have been as helpful.

Sources:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak (5th Edition).

Informational Communication & Relational Communication, Pt 1

I don’t think that I communicate like women are supposed to; at the very least, I don’t feel like I primarily engage in conversation in order to maintain relationships. I’m pretty notoriously bad at communicating for the primary goal of maintaining relationships (just ask my mom). I tend to consider conversations as a means to exchange information between people--information can be anything from what the weather is like to finding out how the other person is feeling. I think you have to do things in order to have something to talk about, and the media image of women who sit around and gossip and talk about their feelings doesn’t appeal to me. I do think the media image of how women communicate is an exaggeration, however, and wouldn’t like to base my ideas of how women communicate on that image.

In my experience with communicating with men and women, there is a blending of these two conversational styles. I think some men and some women tend towards the extremes regarding communication styles, but I strongly disagree with the idea that differences between how the sexes communicate is a fundamental sex difference. I think how men and women communicate is dictated largely by social factors. This means that communicating for information or in order to maintain relationships isn’t inherent in being a man or a woman; all genders exhibit these qualities to some degree, and all genders are capable of learning how to communicate either for informational purposes or in order to maintain relationships. I find the idea that “women are inherently better at interpersonal conversation” deeply sexist, in that it implies the converse: that women are inherently bad at informational communication.

Confusing Attitudes, Pt 2

I often have the same problem as [Student]--I don’t find speaking with new people very easy, and am often very conscious of my body when speaking to strangers. In a work setting, where I know the expectations of the customers and my co-workers, I’m more comfortable speaking with people. I don’t find that I have any more or less difficulty speaking with men or women, perhaps because I don’t have any romantic expectations from the people I’m speaking to. I do get a bit tongue-tied speaking with a woman I find attractive, but I suspect this is a universal trait between genders. Talking to someone you find attractive is stressful--you don’t want to appear to be a gibbering idiot in front of them, and your brain is furiously working to figure out things to say to them to impress them. It’s all very tiring.

I think communication hiccups between genders are more likely when both or either party are relying too heavily on gender stereotypes in how they’re communicating. For instance, if while in a conversation with a woman, a man tries to be the stereotypical assertive, dominating male in the conversation, he’s likely to communicate poorly with the person he’s trying to talk to. Or if he considers the woman he’s talking to to be a stereotypical woman (that is, soft-spoken, indirect, and emotional), he’s likely to communicate poorly and make some sort of faux pas. I don’t think someone has to be aware that they’re applying stereotypes to another person for this to happen, either; we’re all of us plagued by unconscious biases that guide our decision-making.

Confusing Attitudes, Pt 1

Note: For this question, I ended up with two answers to the question, because I initially misread the question. I present both to you here.

In many of the studies concerning how the media affects our perception of gender cited in the book, I keep wondering how strong the causal link between media and our attitudes about gender are. There seems to be significant correlation between attitudes about sex and gender in the media we consume, but just because the correlation exists doesn’t mean that the media is responsible for these societal attitudes. Or, to put it another way, which came first: the societal stereotypes regarding gender roles and sexual behavior, or the media depiction of these stereotypes?

Another concern I have regarding the studies mentioned are whether the effects which were reported were short-term or long-term. That is to say, if you watch a movie depicting traditional gender and sex roles, how long will those depictions stay with you? Additionally, are these studies showing that media can outright change how we perceive gender, and how we communicate with people of different genders, or do they perhaps show how the media can reinforce the biases we already hold regarding ideas about gender and sex? My initial opinion is that media reinforces biases which already exist in people and in our society; to relate it to the pornography exploration in GenderSpeak (pg 113-120), simply cleansing media of pornographic images won’t change or eradicate the sexist or degrading treatment of women. Sexist attitudes exist independent of pornography, but can be reinforced by their portrayal in media. And to quote a cliche, the answer to bad free speech is more free speech, not less (a rather simplistic view on the issue, but I could probably write a couple of pages on the use and misuse of the idea of free speech, and that’s slightly off-topic).

A third concern I have about studies regarding gender communication are how heteronormative they seem to be. When discussing how the genders communicate, it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that the communication that is happening between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. The author of GenderSpeak, at least, seems to be somewhat aware of this heteronormative bias, but when the text relates a study, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient critique of the heteronormative biases that might have crept into the formation of the study or in how the results were interpreted. I don’t know whether this bias would actually change the studies or their results, but it seems to me that there should be more value placed in seeking out LGBT perspectives regarding gender communication. How a gay man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight) may differ from how a straight, cisgendered man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight), and that would be valuable information regarding communication overall. I feel I might be more interested in the hetero bias regarding the gender communication studies we’ve been reading about than some of my hetero peers, and that I might pick up on them more than my hetero peers.

_________

I feel that I hold a less traditional view of gender roles than many of my peers. I find stereotypical depictions of men and women in the media as grating and abrasive, and can’t easily watch or consume any media which relies heavily on gender stereotypes. This means that I genuinely don’t watch reality TV, and have to leave the room when my roommates decide to watch it. My peers are often surprised when I mention my disinclination to have children--as a woman, it seems to be the assumption that my uterus will eventually override my disinterest in having children and I’ll be as baby-crazy as the next woman. I’ve actually had conversations where the phrase “that will change once you’ve had children” was used (by my mom, who does not push me on the issue of children or relationships).

I’ve noticed a preoccupation in my peers with finding a romantic partner--it’s certainly something that I’m interested in, but many of my peers seem to think of their relationships with other people in primarily romantic ways. What I mean is that I’ve noticed a shortage, in the media and in my own life, of men and women who aim to create meaningful relationships with the other sex outside of romantic framing. Of course, I do know men and women who are friends, but with the proliferation of dating sites (such as OKCupid), there seems to be a lot of pressure to find someone dateable rather than someone friendable. I’ve seen the term “friend-zoning” often thrown at women, meaning that when a man’s romantic interests (which are deemed more important in these contexts) in a woman aren’t reciprocated, the woman has “friend-zoned” the man. As far as I can determine, being “friend-zoned” is supposed to be a form of emasculation, because men apparently aren’t supposed to have meaningful relationships with women without sex. Using the term “friend-zoning” elevates one party’s feelings in a situation over another party’s--a man who accuses a woman of “friend-zoning” him is telling her that her feelings (or lack of certain feelings, such as attraction) aren’t as important as his attraction to her.

Very recently, I’ve been seeing the term “girlfriend-zoned” as a response to the idea of “friend-zoned”; the idea is that women feel undue pressure from some of the men in their life to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with these men, and that there is an unfair expectation by some men that all women should be interested in dating men who show an interest in these women. I think this exposes how absurd it is for men to seek primarily sexual or romantic relationships with women; the idea that being “merely” friends with a member of the opposite sex seems like a dangerous and harmful attitude. Men and women should strive to be friends more often, and men shouldn’t be afraid of being friend-zoned.

Sexist Language & Communication, Pt 2

In his response to the quote from our text, [Student] puts forward the idea that the use of sexist or sexually objectifying language is down to immaturity and lack of guidance as a young person. I agree that immaturity and lack of appropriate role models is a contributing factor to some of this sexism, but I don’t think they’re the only or even the most common factors. Laying the blame for these types of behaviors on immaturity implies that a person will eventually grow out of these behaviors. Unfortunately, sexually objectifying and sexist comments come out of the mouths of more mature people as easily as they come out of immature people.

In my mind, the problem with sexually objectifying language isn’t so much that the person who is being sexually objectified is doing anything wrong (whether they’re fully-clothed or bare naked), but that the person who is directly the sexually objectifying language at them is attempting to force their morality on another person. Calling a woman a “bitch” or “slut” is a way to police her actions; being insulted is a negative experience, and one that you don’t want to happen to you again. I think instead of just telling young people that you shouldn’t call women or men these terms, you get them to think about why they’re passing judgement on others, and why they’re trying to police the actions of others.

I also think there’s too much emphasis in conversations about how men talk about women on how sexual men are. Being a sexual being doesn’t mean that you lose all respect for the target of your attraction. Additionally, I think if we hold to the idea that young men are somehow unable to control or learn to deal with their sexual urges, we’re doing a huge disservice to young men twofold--one, young men are expected to be supersexual beings, and those who don’t feel they meet these expectations are surely going to suffer psychologically; and two, it can become an apologetic for sexual assault: not just for young men assaulting women, but also young men being assaulted. If men are these hypersexual people, they’re expected to say yes to every opportunity that crosses their path; young men may feel pressured to engage in sexual activities they otherwise wouldn’t care to participate in. Young men need to be able to say no to sex just as much as women, and constantly bringing up that young men are supposedly hypersexed puts pressure on young men to say yes when they don’t want to.

Sexist Language & Communication, Pt 1

Note: My instructor's question:

“Anthropologist Michael Moffat (1989) studied university dormitory residents’ use of language and found that 1/3 of the young men in the study, in conversations with other men, consistently referred to women as “chicks, broads, and sluts,” reflecting what Moffat termed a “locker-room style” of communication about women. More recently, Hopper (2003) analyzed the speech patterns of dozens of men as they commented on women; he concluded that the degree of “objectification” and references to body parts was absolutely startling.

Now, we know that BOTH men and women are capable of using sexually demeaning terminology.

In fact, Hopper determined that WOMEN call or refer to other WOMEN in sexually “objectifying” terms, but primarily use terms that imply sexual promiscuity (e.g., slut, ho, easy). However, Hopper in his research noted that both sexes RARELY talked about men in sexually degrading terms.” (Course Text: GenderSpeak, p. 161)

• Share your thoughts on whether you agree or disagree explaining that conceiving of and communicating about a person in ONLY sexual terms is demeaning and sexist language and communication.
• What are your thoughts observations, and insights regarding sexist language and communication?
• What are possible ways of eliminating demeaning and degrading sexist language in our gender communication?
• The Constitution of the United States essentially declares (meaning and interpretation for the early 21st century) that men and women are created equal and endowed (“by their Creator”) with certain inalienable rights? (based on the Declaration of Independence, July 4,1776). How does the concept of gender equality impact gender communication?

No, I don't know why they included the bit about the Declaration of Independence. Not sure I want to know.

I do think that using sexualized insults is sexist and demeaning. My own observations of how people use sexualized and gendered language match with the research mentioned in the text. More often than not, people use insults which refer to female genitalia, or are words that are feminine or refer to women; when you use such language to insult someone, you’re implying that being a woman is to be lesser. Telling someone that they “throw like a girl” implies that women are less capable as human beings. It also implies that being feminine is something to be ashamed of. There’s a similar implication in heterosexist insults--insults which tend to call into question the gender or sexual orientation of a person, typically used against men and boys who aren’t “being manly enough”. The worst thing a male person can be is feminine, because there is an association in most people’s minds between being feminine and being weak.

There is a similar trend in using masculine insults against women, though it doesn’t seem as common as using feminine insults. When a woman steps outside of feminine stereotypes, she runs the risk of being shamed for being overly masculine--”butch” and “dyke” are two heterosexist insults that are used against women who don’t conform to feminine stereotypes. The implication seems to be that any woman who is assertive or not feminine enough is wrong in some way; a woman who isn’t “womanly” enough is accused of being homosexual in the same way that a man who isn’t “manly” enough is accused of being female or gay. This type of language--both sexist and heterosexist--seems to me to be an attempt to police the actions and behaviors of people who deviate from the “norm.” Using gendered insults often seems like an attempt to uphold gender stereotypes. Using gendered insults is a way to shame the person you’re insulting into conforming to the ideas of “proper” gender behavior that you have. Calling a woman a “bitch” means that that woman has stepped out of line with “appropriate” feminine behavior. Calling a man a “fag” means that that man has deviated wildly from what is “correct” masculine behavior. Stereotypes, by definition, strip the individuality from people, and dehumanize them. Attempting to shame people into more closely following gender stereotypes seems counter to any kind of communication, let alone communication between the genders.

"How Machiavelli Saved My Family" Pt 2

Note: This is a response to another student's response to the "How Machiavelli Saved My Family." I've redacted that student's name from this text, but left everything else alone.

[Student] brings up an excellent point with regards to Evans’ methods in her quest to make her household what she wanted it to be. [Student] mentions that Evans “was manipulative”, and that is absolutely correct. I think, too, that’s what bothers me about her story. I understand that she’s at her wit’s end, trying to manage a household seemingly on her home (as [Student]also points out, where’s the husband in all of this?), and that her children don’t seem to be interested in her ideas regarding of how they should be raised. What bothers me, I think, is the idea that what matters most are the results (in this case, children ‘not running wild’, or rather that the children conform to Evans’ ideal of how children should be successfully raised). Her emphasis is clearly on the end game, and so she doesn’t seem to be concerned with whether the methods she uses are ethically ambiguous.

There are certainly pervasive stereotypes about how manipulative women are in order to gain what they want, and this story feeds right into those stereotypes. “Can’t get what you want?” it seems to say. “Well, don’t worry, you can manipulate your loved ones in order to get the life that you want.” To me, this is distasteful. I can’t abide the idea that I would ever put my own desires above those of the people I love to the point where I would coerce them into doing what I want them to do. Do I want things from people that I can’t get just by asking? Of course--my desires often conflict with the desires of others. It’s a side effect of being a social animal in social situations. Sometimes you need to reevaluate your desires, and realize you’re just not going to get what you want.

I can’t speak to what Evans desires, but the feeling I got from her article was that she had a specific vision of what a successful family was, and her family wasn’t meeting that expectation. Instead of reevaluating her desires, she decided that she would keep aiming for her goal, and would achieve her desires (seemingly) regardless of the methods used. Now, it is fair to point out that her methods don’t seem overly harmful in the physical sense. She wasn’t beating her children, and the “hand them the only money they’re allowed to spend” bit does strike me as genius (more because it gave her children a concrete idea of what money is, rather than keeping it this abstract thing that their parents used to buy stuff). The two out-right manipulations she used--pitting the brother and sister against each other, and coercing her husband into getting a vasectomy--left a bad taste in my mouth. She doesn’t seem overly concerned with why her son might have been doing poorly in school, only that he was doing poorly in school. Her focus on the results, rather than on how she gets them, strikes me as morally ambiguous at best.

“How Machiavelli Saved My Family” Pt 1

Note: This is in response to an article from the Wall Street Journal with the same title. Again, not linking, I am merciful. A Google search should pull up the article fairly quickly, though.

The traditional view of mothers have them as the gentler, more nurturing parent. The idea of motherhood involves bonding, caring, and nurturing. That the author of this piece turned to Machiavelli for parenting advice seems to subvert that. Mothers aren’t often viewed as the dominant parent, even though they are expected to take on domestic roles. At the heart of it, managing people is all about politics, so it makes sense that the most infamous political work would help a mom successfully run her household. Additionally, the stereotypical woman doesn’t scheme or plot, though certain sub-stereotypes of women do manipulate. Manipulation seems to be favored in men, but seen as a huge negative quality in a woman.

If Suzanne Evans’ home follows the nuclear family model, the wife would be the caretaker and the husband would be the provider. What roles are assumed or shared by each parent isn’t explicitly stated, but it seemed like Evans took on most of the caretaking roles herself; how her husband helped her, or which caretaking roles he assumed, aren’t mentioned in the article, which I find to be a glaring omission. In addition, how he wanted another child (as mentioned at the end of the article) makes me wonder if he had fully experienced or understood the frustration and difficulties his wife describes in attempting to raise the four children they already had. This strikes me as a concern that Evans handles well enough, at least so far as she described it (being such a personal matter, I wouldn’t expect transcripts of the conversations she likely had with her husband regarding the vasectomy).

I thought it was particularly interesting that she played her children off of each other--maneuvered them into competing with each other. It bothered me slightly when she wrote, “On the other front, Daniel, whose report card wasn't so stellar, got nothing, other than the shame of losing the competition—to his younger sister no less, as I reminded him.” There’s a connotation of “haha, you’re a boy who lost to a girl” in how this is written, and I’m not totally comfortable with the idea of shaming a boy who’s lost to a girl; I don’t think that was the author’s intent, but I think framing the competition as “boys v. girls” heads in a dangerous direction. I don’t think there’s anything particularly shameful about losing, and don’t believe that shame is a useful tool for correcting behavior. Gendering the competition between siblings doesn’t seem particularly helpful, either.

Overall, I do think Evans’ had the right idea in turning to a political strategy book in order to manage her home. Often, I think parents (mothers especially) are expected to magically come into knowledge about how to successfully raise children as soon as the child is born. There are certainly a great many self-help books devoted to helping parents raise their children, but Evans certainly gets credit in my mind for turning to a slightly more unconventional source for parenting inspiration.

Do women procrastinate more than men OR do men procrastinate more than women?

Note: This was a response to a video we were required to watch for my gender communications class. I will not link to the video, because I am merciful.

I think that the author of Eat That Frog might come to the conclusion that women procrastinate more than men simply because there aren’t more women who focus exclusively on their careers. He seems to think that if one isn’t focused on one’s career, one is failing at life; and not succeeding in your career (success being defined in a very specific way) means that one has been procrastinating. He completely disregards how outside factors have an impact on a person’s life, and I think that this is a huge failing of his advice. Yes, planning is important to completion of goals, but one can’t plan for everything. Your plans needs to be flexible, because you can’t control everything. If your plans aren’t flexible enough, you will fail regardless of how much planning you’ve done. The biggest sticking point for me regarding the author’s viewpoint that one’s career should have greater priority than personal interests (as implied in the section on “ABCDE planning”) is that there is actual research showing that having a balance between your working life and your personal life is a much healthier goal than focusing exclusively on either aspect of your life. This is true for everyone, regardless of gender.

There seems to be an unstated premise throughout the entire audio of “Eat That Frog” that discipline is something which comes as naturally to everyone as breathing; and that the same level of discipline in two different individuals will lead to the same results. This puts, in my opinion, too much blame for failure’ on the individual who is attempting to achieve a goal. One should obviously take responsibility for one’s actions and goals, but one should also be aware of the things which are out of your control. It comes down to knowing your limits, and accepting that sometimes you aren’t going succeed--not because you didn’t plan well enough, not because you didn’t prioritize correctly, not because you’re a failure, but because somethings bad things happen. The idea that the only factors which matter to a person’s success are whether or not that person is capable of “long term thinking” is, in my opinion, a frankly privileged opinion which ignores the realities of living in a world where there are very real and measurable biases against people who are perceived as “other” or “inferior”. The author is implying that we live in a society in which everyone is granted equal opportunity, that the playing field is level, and that’s verifiably untrue.

The general idea of having goals and working towards those goals is certainly a sound idea, and really rather common sense. If the author had focused on exploring techniques to improving your goal setting, and had spent some time exploring research on how to best work towards your goals, I think his insights would have carried more weight. As it stands, I’m expected to take the advice of someone who’s only credentials are “This is what worked for me.” While I’m sure these methods did work for him, and would work for others who are like him, one-size-fits-all tips don’t sit well with me. The world is messy and complicated, and alliterative mnemonics and “7 Simple Steps” don’t address or acknowledge how messy and complicated life can be.

Gender Stereotypes in Children's Literature

The purpose of this essay is to examine how media directed at children, such as fairytales, television, and books impacted my gender identity and how I communicate with my own gender and other genders. The influence the media has on a developing child can be hard to tease out, but it is my hope to better understand how I formed my identity by examining the media that I was exposed to at a young age, and noting the gender stereotypes I was exposed to via that media.

My favorite movie growing up was Disney’s The Little Mermaid. I’ve known for a while how problematic that movie is from a gender perspective. There’s the overarching message that it’s perfectly acceptable to abandon everything and everyone you know for someone you haven’t even met properly--a theme that isn’t unique to The Little Mermaid, unfortunately. I feel like this theme reflects a tendency in our society to over-emphasize the importance of finding The One. That isn’t to say that I think that having a partner isn’t important, but that they narrative of finding your one, true soulmate is a common trope that many teenagers have to navigate when they first begin dating. I started dating later in life, but I still find myself falling into the trap of looking for someone who is “perfect” for me, as though complete compatibility is something that you can discovery within moments of meeting a person. I think it’s disingenuous to sell the idea that a 16 year old is capable of knowing that the person she’s interested in right that moment is going to be the person that she’s interested in when she’s 36.

The Little Mermaid also contains the message that love is something that just kind of happens to you, that it isn’t something that you build through interaction with someone you’re interested in--again, not unique to The Little Mermaid, and probably one of the most damaging messages I know of in media for both children and adults. Having grown up exposed to multiple instances of “love at first sight is the most true love”, I can’t know fully how many opportunities I’ve missed in having a fulfilling relationship with someone just because I didn’t experience that initial attraction. It certainly seems to make navigating personal relationships more difficult, because if you rely too heavily on the expectation that your initial impression of someone (whether or not you feel that first “spark”), you overlook the just as important attraction which develops over time. There seem to be a dearth of media for young people about what to do when you find yourself attracted to someone you’ve been friends with for years, that doesn’t end with the friendship turning into a romantic relationship. If you were to base your expectations of how pursuing a relationship with a close friend solely on movies based on this theme, you would expect nearly one-hundred percent success. This is entirely unrealistic, but it’s certainly something that I had to unlearn.

The Little Mermaid also features the princess who can’t get out of trouble without a prince to come and rescue her. Another problematic idea is how Ariel gives up is her voice--a symbolic gesture of Ariel’s general willingness to give up everything that is dear to her in order to find “true love”. The idea that Eric falls for a woman who can’t speak at all (though she does communicate admirably with gestures and facial expressions) is troubling to me, because it seems like the idea is that a woman who doesn’t have opinions (who is literally without a voice) is the perfect woman. I’m not sure that this was the intended message of the movie, and given how wrong Ariel’s plan goes initially the case can be made that these themes aren’t that problematic.

While it might be easy to overlook the impact of literature and movies aimed at children, I think the above themes tend to reinforce messages that young women get throughout their life; I certainly was exposed to unrealistic ideas about love and romance from the movies, books, and television that I watched as a child. The persistence of heteronormative romantic themes in children’s literature and media was particularly problematic to my development, given that I’m gay. I wasn’t exposed to any narrative but “boy meets girl” growing up, and so felt that I had to conform to this narrative in order to be “normal”. I don’t think that compulsory heterosexuality is the caused by the media, but it is reinforced by the media. Given the number of romance-centric movies which exist and are catering specifically to children, I can’t ignore the idea that these narratives were probably a large part of why I was in the closet for so long. Being exposed to so many stories where the female protagonist wants to marry the male protagonist informed my ideas about what “normal” relationships looked like, and they looked like monogamous, heterosexual relationships.

Aside from all of the bad romantic advice I absorbed as a child, there is the tendency for women to be the passive subject in fairytale-style stories. Sticking with Disney movies for the moment, the majority of Disney princesses, especially the ones from the earliest Disney movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), aren’t really active participants in their own lives. Things happen to them, they don’t act in their own interest. I’m sure that these ideas have influenced the choices that I’ve made with regard to important life choices. The idea that good things will happen to you if you just wait for them and let them happen is a seductive one; Sleeping Beauty didn’t have to find the solution to her curse, someone else was able to do all of the dirty work for her, and she was able to wake up to a castle full of people waiting to cater to her needs.

While I’m not entirely convinced that there is a direct causal connection between the media that is consumed by children and the persistence of harmful gender stereotypes and bad patterns of communication in society, these narratives certainly reflect and serve to reinforce the status quo. When a child finds a book, movie, or television show that they like, they become immersed in that piece of media; if that work contains troubling messages about “appropriate” gender roles (such as the passivity of women, or the stoicism of men) or reinforces harmful ideas about how men and women should communicate (women shouldn’t be concerned about talking to men they’re interested in, and men shouldn’t care about what the women they’re interested in have to say), a child is likely to incorporate those views into how they think about the world. The realm of imagination is often very real to children, and if their favorite characters are acting in a certain way, they’ll want to emulate these actions. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to scrub all troubling media from the world, there at least needs to be conversations with children about the media they’re consuming.

Overall, I would say that my experiences with fairytales and children’s media was a net negative. I still have fond memories of many of my favorite books and movies from my childhood, but wish they had included better role models and contained better representations of diversity. At the very least, I wish they relied less heavily on gender stereotypes, though that feels like setting the bar too low. I don’t fault the media I was exposed to for any issues I’ve had communicating with various genders, though it certainly could have done a better job of preparing me for what to expect.

Feminine and Masculine Communication and Management Styles

There many ways people communicate in the workplace. How one co-worker communicates with another co-worker depends on different factors, such as age, level of education, gender, and position in the company. In this essay, the focus will be on how gender influences communication--how one gender communicates with another gender, as well as how gender influences choice of communication style. Gender influences not only how one communicates, but also how others choose to communicate with you. Because of this, it is important to understand how communicated can be gendered. This essay will look at management styles as well as feminine and masculine communication styles.

There are three primary management styles used in the American workplace: the more traditional masculine style, the newer feminine style, and the blended androgynous style (Ivy 318-320). The masculine style of management features “attributes [such] as aggression, competitiveness, control, and individualism” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more direct in their communication, and tend to be less diplomatic. There is less emphasis on ‘playing well with others,’ and more emphasis on being the ‘leader of the pack.’ A manager who manages in this fashion will be more likely to reward the perceived best employee over the other employees under them.

The feminine style of management features “attributes [such] as flexibility, supportiveness, connectedness, and collaborative problem solving” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more diplomatic in their approach to their employees, being more interested in creating a positive work environment to creating a competitive environment. Feminine-styled managers encourage co-workers to work as a team, rather than in competition with each other. It isn’t that the individual is completely overlooked by a manager who prefers the feminine style of management, but rather the individual is judged more on their ability to work with others, not solely on their individual achievements.

The final style of management, androgynous, is a blended style of masculine and feminine. It “involves blending linear, systematic problem solving with intuitive approaches, balancing competition and collaboration, and dealing with power as well as emotion” (Ivy 320). The androgynous style of management utilizes the strengths of the masculine and feminine styles. The style doesn’t restrict managers in how they respond to different contexts in the workplace. A more masculine style of management is sometimes more effective than a feminine style, whereas a feminine style might work better in other situations. A manager who utilizes a more androgynous style of management will be more adroit at adapting to changes in the workplace, as they will have the tools to respond to a larger number of scenarios than either a primarily-masculine or primarily-feminine manager.

Masculine and feminine communication styles parallel their respective management styles in many ways. Masculine communicators tend to be more direct in their speech, more aggressive, and less emotion-focused; while feminine communicators tend towards facilitation, diplomacy, and are more focused on addressing emotions. In the workplace, this translates to occasional conflict between masculine communicators (who tend to be men) and feminine communicators (who tend to be women). When a masculine communicator addresses someone who is either more accustomed to feminine communication styles or who is expecting a feminine communication style, the conflict is a conflict of expectations--the communicator isn’t meeting the expectations of the receiver. An example of this sort of conflict would be if a masculine communicator in a managerial position gave critical feedback to an employee; in a situation like this, it’s possible for that the employee comes away feeling underappreciated, or frustrated with the manager’s communication style. If this pattern continued, the employee would likely experience a lag in work performance. On the other hand, if a manager overly favors a feminine style of communication, they may be missing opportunities to motivate the individuals which make up their team; people like to be recognized for their individual accomplishments, and focusing exclusively on a team may antagonize some employees. A balanced approach--based on context and experience--would seem like the best way to approach gendered communications.

In my own personal experience with gendered communication at work, I tend to prefer an androgynous style of communication--both for myself and for my employer. There are some scenarios which require a more direct approach, and there are scenarios which require a more empathetic approach. I have experience in primarily mixed-gendered environments, so I don’t know that I’ve had exposure to a singular masculine or feminine managerial style. I currently have a manager who is simultaneously direct and frank in his communications, but who is also quite empathetic and encourages teamwork as much as individual achievement. My immediate coworkers tend towards masculine communication styles (I work on a team which is composed primarily of men), and while there are sometimes issues regarding our ability to function as a team, our manager is able to keep our team on track. He’s able to balance the needs of the individual team members with the needs of the team and the department.

Works Cited:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender Communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Matt & Leah: A Case Study

Note: This essay was written in response to a case study presented in our textbook (GenderSpeak). The post contains discussion of physical abuse and domestic violence.

The case study we read for this project was challenging in that it’s such an emotional topic. As someone who has limited experience with domestic violence survivors, I know that it’s important to understand why and how abusive relationships develop, and the psychology underpinning the actions of both the abuser and the survivor. My first thought about why Leah stayed in the abusive relationship was that she stayed for so long because of financial or economic dependence upon her abuser. Financial dependence is a barrier to many survivors when they are trying to extricate themselves from an abusive relationship. Especially if the survivor can’t rely on family--in Leah’s case, the closest family were her in-laws, who were not a reliable source for Leah to turn to in her need--extricating themselves from the situation is complicated by the fact that they face homelessness and the shame that goes with being poor.

In addition to the more practical reasons that a survivor might stay so long with their abuser, emotional dependence is often a factor. There is a pattern in abusive relationships of the abuser isolating the victim from any kind of social support outside of the abusive relationship, so that often the only social contact a victim of abuse has is their abusive partner. The abuser seeks to control the life of their partner, through emotional manipulation and isolation from social circles that might help a victim in an abusive relationship. In Leah’s case, there aren’t mention of any friends she could have turned to for advice or help in getting herself (and her child) out of the situation; it isn’t unreasonable to think that her husband had, by that point in the relationship, isolated her from any friends she might have had before the marriage.

The role that Matt’s parents played in the continuation of the abuse against Leah, I feel, is an important factor to explain why Leah stayed with Matt so long. In a relationship in which you’ve been isolated from most other human beings except the person who is abusing you, it is terrifyingly easy for the victim to doubt their own reasoning. This is because of the emotional manipulation and abuse performed by the abuser. A physically abusive relationship often will involve emotional manipulation, with the abuser making the situation about themselves rather than what they’ve inflicted upon their partner. They might seek forgiveness from their victims--it’s more important than their emotions are validated than for them to recognize that they’ve hurt their partner. They might blame the victim--they would be a better partner, wouldn’t inflict physical abuse, if their partner were more considerate of them. In a situation like this, it’s very easy to see how a victim of abuse, who doesn’t necessarily have friends or acquaintances to talk to about their relationship. Without an external perspective to view the relationship from, a survivor isn’t necessarily going to recognize how they’re being manipulated.

What a person who is in an abusive relationship needs most of all is validation of their emotions--if they are concerned that there is something wrong or off in their relationship, they need someone from outside of the relationship to empathize with their feelings. The validation of someone’s emotions doesn’t necessarily mean that you think the person is correct in their emotions--it just means that you recognize that the emotions themselves are legitimate, and that the person has every right to question their relationship if they feel insecure or unsafe in any way. Chances are, if someone feels insecure or unsafe in a relationship, there is an underlying problem they need to address--either by initiating a conversation with their partner, or by extricating themselves completely from the situation. To tie this back to the reaction of Matt’s parent’s to Leah’s concerns regarding how her husband was abusing her: Matt’s parents were absolutely enabling the abusive relationship, by invalidating Leah’s emotions and concerns regarding the relationship and Matt’s behavior. By disregarding Leah’s concerns completely, they allowed Leah to stay in a dangerous situation. Even if they couldn’t believe that their son was really a wife-beater, they absolutely had a moral obligation to ensure that Leah felt safe. Even if Leah had been reaching out to a friend, rather than family, there would exist a moral obligation on the part of the friend to ensure that Leah felt safe.

If I were a hypothetical friend who Leah reached out to, even if I was absolutely sure that Matt wouldn’t actually physically hurt Leah, I would listen to Leah’s concerns; make sure that she knew that if she needed to physically remove herself (and her child) from the situation, I would help her find a safe space; I would encourage her to speak with a trained domestic violence counselor (there are a number of excellent non-profits which provide free, over-the-phone counseling for people who are in abusive relationships). If someone feels unsafe in a situation, I feel that it is my obligation to help them find a safe space in order that they can make the best decision regarding what to do about their situation. It isn’t a matter of me determining whether or not they’re right or wrong about the situation; if they express to me that they aren’t comfortable or don’t feel safe in the situation they’re in, it’s vital that they know that I believe them when they say they aren’t safe. While I would certainly encourage them to get out of a situation they feel uncomfortable in, it’s also important that they make the decision for themselves. I can’t make that decision for them, because it parallels what an abuser does--takes choice and decision-making out of the hands of their victim--and someone who is in an abusive relationship doesn’t need yet another person telling them what to do.

Non-judgment of the survivor is also key--this means not second-guessing or indicating to the victim in any way that they might not be right in their perceptions of the situation. Non-judgement isn’t about whether or not the survivor is right or wrong for any actions they do or don’t take; it’s about empowering the survivor to make changes in their life which are best for them. Sometimes, the decisions a person in an abusive relationship make aren’t decisions you think are correct, but your judgment of their decisions is irrelevant.

Not to ignore the other party involved in the abusive relationship, but if Matt were to indicate that he was concerned about his behavior in the relationship to me in any way, I would recommend therapy or counseling of some kind. As with giving advice to the survivor, the abuser has to make the decision to get themselves out of the situation. While I would certainly find it incredibly hard to fully empathize with someone who’s been the abuser in the abusive relationship equation, if the person were to genuinely seem remorseful (though that might be hard to determine) I would want them to get the help they need. There is often much righteous anger directed at abusers, and while it is understandable to feel anger towards someone who has hurt another person (possibly someone we care about), it has to be understood that abusers often exist in structures and systems which might not allow them to communicate except through violence. Men, specifically, are socialized to internalize and repress much of their emotional life, because to be masculine is to be stoic, emotionless, and able to handle all of the stress thrown at them. This isn’t healthy, and all too often men find themselves in a situation where they “snap” and lash out at someone they care about. That isn’t to say that all abusers are emotionally repressed by hyper-masculine enculturation, but the first response to someone who is indicating that they regret their actions should be empathy, even if the first emotion we feel towards that person is anger. The key idea, to be absolutely clear, is that the abuser has expressed regret or remorse or any other indication that they know that they’ve done wrong. An abuser who doesn’t own their actions isn’t an abuser who will respond to empathy, and will be unlikely to respond to suggestions of therapy or counseling.

Sources: Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender Communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Gender Communication and Friendship

This essay explores how friendships change over time, from college to near midlife, as well as what differences and similarities exist in the formation of friendships between women and men. I was able to ask two of my older friends (a male friend and a female friend) about their experiences with forming friendships over the years, how their experiences with forming friendships pre-technology compared to their experiences now, given the ubiquity of technology. In addition, I asked them about their own friendships, whether they had formed primarily same-sex friendships or whether their friendships were more mixed-gender. I was also interested in how they go about forming friendships, such as whether they intentionally seek out people to include in their social circle or whether they tend to find themselves in friendships with the people they’re familiar with through work and other social activities they’re interested in (such as church).

As expected, there were some shared experiences between my female and male friend--for instance, both have kept in touch with friends from high school and college, though not necessarily kept in close contact. My female friend considers technology to have helped in this regard, and keeps in touch with friends who are physically far away through social media sites such as Facebook. My male friend noted that some of the close friends he had back in his college and high school days aren’t necessarily as close as they once were, while some friends he wasn’t as close with back in those days have become closer friends. Both have friends who they befriended at work, though my female friend seemed to consider the friendships as more intimate than my male friend--my female friend seemed more willing to have contact with them outside of a workplace setting, whereas my male friend explicitly said that he doesn’t consider the friendships to be close, and that he doesn’t really socialize with them outside of the workplace.

The biggest difference I found between my female and male friend was their friendship gender ratio. My female friend has consistently had a mixed-gender group of friends, though she does admit that she is more likely to socialize with her female friends outside of work; my male friend say that his close friendships since college have been primarily with women. The two of them seemed to view technology-assisted friendships differently, as well, with my female friend being more open to having online friendships, and my male friend considering technology a hinderance to forming friendships. My male friend seemed to place more importance on seeing someone face-to-face, and doing activities with them, than simply interacting with people via online social media. He was of the opinion that technology hinders the formation of friendships for teenagers today; my female friend acknowledged that she considers technology to be a general boon to her social life, and that she believes that technology (specifically, social media sites such as Facebook) make it more convenient for teenagers (and younger college students) to keep in touch.

It was interesting to note, when reviewing the interviews, how readily my male and female friend fit the patterns described in GenderSpeak regarding communication and language use between men and women (Ivy 168-174). Specifically, my male friend finds it easier to be close friends with women, and thinks that doing activities with other people is how you help to form a friendship; while my female friend views social media sites (which are less about doing something than they are about talking to other people) more acceptable in the formation and reinforcement of friendships, and is more likely to have a mixed-gender group of friends than my male friend.

I was also interested to note their views on how technology affects the relationships of younger generations, as both of them work at a college (not the same one--one works for a larger university, the other for a community college) and so might have a better insight into how technology affects younger college students’ friendships. That they have such different views of how technology affects the younger generations’ friendships and relationships is startling.

As part of a generation which is more used to online-mediated friendships (when friends move away, you still want to keep in touch with them, and the internet gives you near-instant communication after all), I’m used to the benefits of online-mediated friendships, and some of the challenges. My male friend seemed to regard technology as a negative in the forming and maintaining friendships--he categorized technology as being a negative in regards to forming and maintaining friendships, in fact--and how positively, or at least neutrally, my female friend regarded the use of technology to assist in forming and maintaining friendships. I don’t think I realize just how positively I, personally, view my online friendships until I found myself disagreeing so strongly with my male friend’s perspective of technology and friendship. Primarily due to the fact that most of my time is spent either at work or in school (both online classrooms and physical classrooms), it’s both gratifying and sanity-protecting to be able to check Facebook when I have a free minute, and have that connection with my friends. I know that once my life has calmed down a bit, I’ll want that face-to-face, in-the-same-room friendship, but without social media I know that I would have missed out on some great friendships while I was trying to get my life going.

Works Cited:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender Communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Communication & Managing Conflict in Gender Relationships

This essay aims to critically analyze an argument I was recently involved in with a member of the male gender, to better understand why arguments happen and whether or not arguing with someone can be healthy in building relationships with others. It’s important to reflect on all aspects of communication, but it’s especially important to reflect on arguments that you have with others, as arguments often come about as the result of a breakdown in communication. These breakdowns can occur for myriad reasons, not the least being that sometimes you and another person hold fundamentally incompatible views.

I recently got into an argument with a friend regarding the casting decision announcement in the forthcoming Fantastic Four movie. I’d read some comments online regarding fans of the Marvel comics crying foul about the decision to cast an African-American man to play the traditionally white Johnny Storm. These comments struck me as vaguely racist--the only issue seemed to be that the actor cast to play the part (Michael B. Jordan) was too dark to be related to the white woman who was cast to play the character’s sister, Sue Storm. Nevermind that, it being a fantasy movie, the race of any of the characters is irrelevant, or that Michael B. Jordan is respected for his work in other films and television shows. My friend agreed that the complaints were silly, but that he didn’t see how they were racist. He dismissed the online complaining as ‘typical fanboy complaining.’ The disagreement, fundamentally, is over whether or not these comments are truly racist, or whether the motivations of the complainers are racist.

I think the cause of the disagreement stems from the difference between my friend’s view of racism, and my own view of racism. My friend typically expects that racism is explicit and motivated by antagonism towards the individual on the receiving end of the racism. For instance, they would recognize that using a racial slur against an ethnic minority is racist, and they would be outraged. My views regarding racism, on the other hand, allow that sometimes racism is implicit and expresses itself in innocuous ways--such as, although no one questions that a Latina actress can play a blond-haired, blue-eyed character (Jessica Alba, an actress of Hispanic descent, played Sue Storm in a previous movie version of The Fantastic Four--while Alba doesn’t seem to identify as Latina, she certainly isn’t a natural blond), some people question that an African-American actor can play a “white” character.

I think, too, my friend doesn’t see the utility in being aware of implicit racisms like questioning whether or not an African-American actor is qualified to play a “white” character. I think, generally, they’re wary of any sort of analysis of pop culture, in that they don’t really see what the big deal is. I, on the other hand, think that implicit racism, because of it’s ability to fly under decent people’s radar, is as much of a problem as explicit racism. I also think it’s important to critically analyze pop culture, as pop culture is (at the very least) a reflection of the mores and most prevalent ideas of a society. If our society thinks it’s okay to wonder whether or not a white woman can be related to a black man, I find that rather troubling.

The topic was discussed at some length, each of us presenting our views on the matter in a civil way. As arguments go, I suppose it’s rather tame. However, we both thought that we were right, so there was conflict in our conversation. It wasn’t an antagonistic conflict, just a gentle disagreement between two people. No voices were raised in the having of this disagreement, even though it was still a heated conversation--I’m not shy about sharing my opinions, and my friends tend to share this characteristic. There hasn’t yet been an outcome, as it’s an ongoing conversation; for my part, I’m less interested in ‘winning’ the argument than I am in engaging in discussions like this. So long as my friends are willing to discussion things like racism, sexism, and heterosexim, I’m happy to not persuade them about a particular instance of what I perceive to be an -ism. I’m more interested in sharing ideas than I am in completely winning someone over in the course of one conversation. I certainly would like to be able to persuade someone to see my point of view in one conversation, but that isn’t something I ever expect to happen.

I suppose I would categorize this argument as an “agree to disagree” type argument, even though neither of us verbalized that we would agree to disagree about this topic. I’m very certain that the topic of racism will come up again in relation to pop culture, and I’ll definitely have an opinion about it when it comes up, and my friends will certainly respond to my opinion as they see fit. I don’t begrudge my friend his opinion regarding whether or not the reaction to Jordan’s casting as Johnny Storm is racist; I find his attitude frustrating, and while I think he’s excusing the reaction too easily, I don’t think he’s a bad person for having this opinion. I’m sure he finds discussing topics like these equally frustrating with me, and I doubt he thinks I’m a bad person for bringing them up when I feel the need to.

Whenever I think back on arguments like this one, I try to notice when I’ve misheard or misrepresented the person I’ve argued with. When having a real-time conversation with someone, it’s very easy to mishear someone, and even easier to misunderstand someone. When I’m discussing sensitive or political issues, such as racism in the media, I try to phrase my arguments carefully, but when you’re having a conversation with someone, it isn’t easy to pause to collect your thoughts. Real-time conversation requires you to respond with immediacy, and there are topics which don’t lend themselves well to immediate responses. I think my biggest regret relating to the argument I had with my friend is not asking him enough questions regarding his views on racism; I could have avoided making assumptions about his positions that made having the conversation more difficult.

I think it’s important, when finding yourself in an argument, to remember that it isn’t about winning the argument at that very moment. If you’re interested in persuading someone to your own viewpoint, as I’m sure many people are, I think it’s better to take the long view. This might mean accepting that you didn’t argue your points as well as you could have, and that the person you were arguing with wasn’t convinced that you were right. It’s also important to remember that, especially during heated arguments, you can easily say something that a calmer you wouldn’t have thought to say. Less-than-careful speaking in the heat of the moment can lead to careless words and hurt feelings, which leads to damage to the relationship overall. If you’re attempting to maintain a relationship with the person you’re arguing with, sometimes it’s better to stop the argument and continue the discussion when the two of you have calmed down.

Additionally, I feel that it’s important to keep in mind that, although perhaps you and someone else disagree about one specific thing, you probably are in agreement on a majority of topics. If you get too bogged down in thinking about how much the two of you disagree about a particular topic, you’ll lose a greater context in which the argument is taking place--in this case, it would have been easy to lose context of the friendship that this argument was happening in, and what I knew of his general philosophy about the issue, regardless of this specific instance of the topic. While I was arguing with my friend about whether or not the issue at hand was due to racism, I did have to keep reminding myself that they aren’t dismissive of bigotry, they just weren’t seeing the matter in the same light as I was.

And finally, it’s okay to argue with friends. Arguing can be constructive, so long as all parties involved realize that the argument isn’t personal; if the argument you’re having gets personal, the argument is no longer constructive, and has become destructive. Engaging in destructive arguments with your friends is certainly not a best practice for building and maintaining relationships.

Gender Stereotypes in Rap Music

Not being familiar with the genre, I had to reach out to several friends in order to find suggestions for artists to listen to. I also searched around on the internet, internet radio (pandora.com), and YouTube for songs which would fulfill the requirements for this assignment(songs which reference gender and the sexes in some way). I then chose several songs which seemed to most explicitly portray gender stereotypes. Again, I’m not familiar with rap music, and so I hesitate to claim that the gender stereotypes present in the songs I was exposed to, and the ones I chose for this assignment, are widespread in the genre. However, I feel that the songs which I’ve chosen do represent the small sampling of rap that I’ve listened to this week.

The first observation I made about the genre was the ratio of male to female rappers. Male rappers seem to outnumber female rappers at least two to one; women are more likely to sing rather than use the spoken-word stylings that typify rap. When a woman does rap, she seems to emulate the aggressiveness of her male counterparts (there are exceptions to this, which I’ll touch on later). Rap, as a rule, is exceedingly aggressive; the aggression is often sexualized, violent, or a combination of the two. When the aggression is sexual in nature, it’s a heteronormative sexuality, often with the woman in the passive, or receiving, role in the relationship. Men tend to be the aggressors, though women seem to be just as aggressive if the relationship in the song is established. Men are expected to pursue sex, while women are expected to wait for a man to approach her.

The violent aggression in rap seemed confined to songs by male rappers. In “It’s All About the Benjamins”, by Puff Daddy & The Family (1997), sexual prowess and material wealth are extolled as masculine virtues. The rapper asks the listener “Wanna be ballers? Shot-callers?/Brawlers -- who be dippin in the Benz wit the spoilers.” To be a “real man,” according to this song, one must gain social status through money and violence. “It’s All About the Benjamins” reinforces the stereotype that men must be financial providers, and aggressively violent and sexual. The song also uses violent imagery with sexual overtones: “German Luger for your ass bitch, deep throated”. This quote reinforces the idea that men should use sex to dominate others, and that men should strive to be aggressively dominant in relation to the other men in their life.

In contrast to the violent sexuality in “It’s All About the Benjamins,” the song “The Jump Off” by Lil’ Kim (2002) reinforces the stereotype of women as sexual objects. The song features both a female and a male rapper in a back and forth style. The female rapper makes reference to oral sex, which reinforces the idea of women as passive receivers of sexual acts, even though she seems to also pursue sex, which does not fit gender stereotypes for women. The female rapper is also materialistic, though her materialism seems to be limited to interest in what others own. In other songs, however, a more explicit mention is made of women as consumers of fashion--such as the line in Trina’s “B R Right”: “My girls be shopping hard/These girls be shopping hard.” In this song, the rapper also makes reference to the expectation that men will be the breadwinners in a relationship, an unfortunate stereotype which places the burden of financial responsibility on the men in a relationship. Female rappers, like their male rapper counterparts, are explicitly heterosexist--the sexual and romantic references they make presume that heterosexuality is the only sexuality. It’s a specific heterosexuality, in that women are hyper-feminine and men are hyper-masculine.

As I mentioned previously, there are rap artists who shirk gender stereotypes in their music and their music videos. Although it wasn’t technically in the scope of this assignment, I chose to watch a few rap videos on YouTube. It was while watching these videos that it struck me how different an artist like Missy Elliot presented herself versus how an artist like Nicki Minaj presented herself. In several of Nicki Minaj’s videos, she’s hyper-sexualized, wearing tight, revealing clothing and affecting postures which imply sex acts--the most prevalent gender stereotype in how the artist performs in these videos is her feminized appearance. Like many female artists (rap and beyond), Nicki Minaj performs within a certain feminine ideal; she wears make-up to enhance her appearance, and she wears clothing which emphasizes her femaleness. In contrast to this feminine ideal, the artist Missy Elliot appears in her videos wearing various outfit types--most common seemed to be clothing which would typically be considered “masculine”: jeans and a sports team jersey, with a baseball cap more often than not. Missy Elliot does wear make-up in her videos, but the effect seems to be less about emphasizing her femaleness and more about looking good. Missy Elliot videos seemed far less likely to feature sexual objectification of women; in fact, in the “Work It” video, there is a scene in which Missy Elliot is hitting on a man sitting in a car, which is a reversal of the traditional “men pursue women” narrative so prevalent in the media.

When I asked a few of my friends to express their thoughts on how prevalent sexism and gender stereotypes are in rap music, there seemed to be a pretty clear consensus that rap music has a problem with both. There was a split consensus, though, on whether that problem was unique to rap, or was simply more easily marked in rap music because of the sub-culture status of the genre--although it has gained in popularity in the last couple of decades, rap still remains a niche genre, and hardly breaks into the pop music charts. It’s my feeling that the sexism and gender stereotyping is more noticeable in rap, not because there is more sexism or gender stereotyping in rap as compared to more mainstream pop music, but because of the aggressive nature of the music. Because of the aggressiveness of the genre, the sexism and gender stereotyping seem more overt, even though such stereotypes as “men as breadwinners” and “women as sexual objects” are present in most pop music. Rap does not seem exceptional in it’s treatment of men and women when compared to other music genres.

Works Cited:

Daddy, Puff & The Family. “It’s All About the Benjamins.” Sean Combs, et al. No Way Out. Bad Boy Records, 1997, Web.
Kim, Lil’. “The Jump Off.” Kimberley Jones and Timothy Mosley. La Bella Mafia. Atlantic/ Queen Bee Entertainment, 2003, Web.
Trina. “B R Right.” Katrina Taylor, et al. Diamond Princess. Slip-N-Slide, Atlantic, 2002, Web. Elliot, Missy. “Work It.” David Meyers. 2002. Web.