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.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Gender Issues Interview
Note: for this essay, I was asked to interview someone I knew about their views on feminism and gender issues.
The purpose of this paper is to gain an outside perspective regarding gender communication with a focus on feminism by interviewing someone I know about topics related to gender communication and feminism. I have several friends who I know have an interest in feminism and gender, and going into this project I wanted to choose someone who I knew I disagreed with on at least one aspect of feminism. The respondent I settled on is an acquaintance of mine who is currently working in academia, and who I know leads an intellectually rich life. They are a well-read and articulate person, and although we disagree on a number of things, we are able to engage in fruitful discussions. I respect their opinion even when I think they’re completely wrong. With their permission, I recorded the interview in order that I might come back to it as needed, and so that I could accurately represent their views and correctly quote them.
Are men and women treated differently in U.S. society? Should they be treated differently? The respondent took care to differentiate differently from badly. They explained that being different isn’t synonymous with bad. They do believe that men and women are treated differently, and that they should be treated differently, but not because of their gender: how someone is treated ideally “would depend on the circumstances and the individual – not their gender.” They emphasized, throughout the interview, that they feel focus should be on equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome. They were clear to separate the aspiration of equal opportunity from the social reality we face, in which gender, race, and class are, regrettably, still thought to be acceptable forms of discrimination in selection processes (job hiring, college applications, etc.).
Does sexism still exist in modern American culture? Do you see instances of sexism in your everyday life? If so, give examples. My respondent certainly sees sexism in their daily life. The pointed out the sexism they see both on television and in academia. “Sexism is a natural extension of the academic environment, because the academic environment is based on the stated supposition that all students are equal, but is executed on the evidential reality that all students are not.” They pointed out the fact that there are measurable differences which exist between individuals (and individual circumstances), and that it seems verboten to discuss these differences in liberal circles (as liberals are often the most interested in pushing for equality for all, regardless of race, income, gender, or sexual orientation). If we’re to address the problems facing the disenfranchised, we must be able to freely talk about the differences which exist between people, and how that impacts their opportunities in life.
What do you think of when you hear the term “feminism?” What images come to mind? Has your view of feminism changed over time? Do you consider yourself a feminist? My respondent considers themself a feminist, but does not identify with the feminist movement: “I don’t often like associating with any ideology, even ones whose most basic tenets I share.” While they support what they believe to be the goals of feminism, they don’t believe that much progress towards those goals have been made in the last thirty to forty years. They see a lack of activism in modern life, and feel that feminists have been running to stay in the same place since Roe v. Wade. They do believe that there exist feminist organizations which have and continue to do great work for the cause of feminism (they cited NOW--the National Organization for Women), but think that there exists a subset of feminists who tend to undermine and subvert the goals of the movement.
What do you see as the biggest issue and/or problem with regards to discussing feminism or feminist topics with the general public? My respondent feels that there is a misconception regarding who is or isn’t a feminist; they claim that “everybody is a little bit feminist though the degree changes”. They believe that the feminist movement often lacks a moderate voice; that vocal feminists can often be polarizing when they discuss feminist and women’s issues with other people. The problem, in their opinion, is how feminists can be seen to condescend to their audience. In their words, “We really need to drop the concept of feminists explaining feminist topics to the general public … [it serves] to talk down to those allies that could most grown and adapt to changing social realities if they were simply included in the discourse.” This condescension can lead to the exclusion of potential, if imperfect, allies.
I came away from the interview with a lot to think about. There were certainly things which my respondent said that I had an initially negative reaction to. When the respondent affirmed they believed that men and women should be treated differently, I was a bit shocked. Upon reflection, though, I began to see the point they were making. In the context of an ideal merit based system, one in which individuals have equal access to opportunity, you would have to treat men and women differently, just as you would have to treat men and other men differently, or women and other women differently. The idea is that people are treated as individuals, with different specific needs, which can’t be boiled down into simplistic categories such as “man” or “woman.”
I see the greatest difference in our views in how we each approach feminism. They approach it primarily from a woman’s rights angle, which is a historically accurate view of feminism. My own feminism embraces a more intersectional approach, in that I don’t view women’s issues as necessarily separate from other human rights issues, such as LGBTQ rights or racism. I can understand the preference for not wanting to mix traditional feminism (which is specifically interested in women’s rights) with these other social justice issues, and I know my respondent does not believe these other social justice issues to be lesser in their importance. Where I believe my feminism differs from my respondent’s feminism is my inability to view women’s rights as separable from other civil rights issues; in the Venn diagram of social issues, more often than not, women’s rights overlap with class, race, ability, and sexual orientation. There are a thousand (or more) types of feminism which exist, and I’m interested in learning about and promoting all of them. I don’t feel that I can fully appreciate the full spectrum of feminism without including an understanding of these other issues. I don’t think my respondent and I are all that opposed in our ideas about what’s important to women, just in how we choose to define our feminism.
While in conversation with my respondent post-interview, I was able to pinpoint more clearly why, despite our different approaches and ideas regarding what feminism is and what it should be, I’m able to have disagreements with this person without getting upset or angry (an experience I’m familiar with when discussing feminist topics with other people I know). It relates back to the idea of talking down to the person you’re in conversation with: I have never once, over the course of our communications, felt as though my respondent were condescending to me, or treating me as anything other than an intellectual equal. I think most people are familiar with talking to someone who shares their opinion as though it were the last and final word on the topic, when it isn’t so clear that they’ve actually put much effort into forming their opinion, and they don’t seem to think that anyone can disagree with their opinion. While my respondent is firm in their opinions, they are always willing and able to articulate their arguments, making it clear that they’ve put effort into forming their opinion and they think highly enough of you that they pre-emptively lay out the basic argument in order for you to find the flaws which may or may not exist in their opinion. They don’t treat their opinions as self-evident, and respect the other party regardless of how deeply the disagreement runs.
Looking back over my interview, I feel confident that I chose the (near) perfect respondent for this assignment. Not only because of their ability to communicate in an articulate and respectful manner, but because of their views regarding feminism. I certainly enjoy a challenge to my own ideologies, especially from someone whom I consider an ally. I hope to continue the discussion about feminism with my respondent beyond this class and this assignment, because communication isn’t about being right or wrong, it’s about learning from other people.
The purpose of this paper is to gain an outside perspective regarding gender communication with a focus on feminism by interviewing someone I know about topics related to gender communication and feminism. I have several friends who I know have an interest in feminism and gender, and going into this project I wanted to choose someone who I knew I disagreed with on at least one aspect of feminism. The respondent I settled on is an acquaintance of mine who is currently working in academia, and who I know leads an intellectually rich life. They are a well-read and articulate person, and although we disagree on a number of things, we are able to engage in fruitful discussions. I respect their opinion even when I think they’re completely wrong. With their permission, I recorded the interview in order that I might come back to it as needed, and so that I could accurately represent their views and correctly quote them.
Are men and women treated differently in U.S. society? Should they be treated differently? The respondent took care to differentiate differently from badly. They explained that being different isn’t synonymous with bad. They do believe that men and women are treated differently, and that they should be treated differently, but not because of their gender: how someone is treated ideally “would depend on the circumstances and the individual – not their gender.” They emphasized, throughout the interview, that they feel focus should be on equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome. They were clear to separate the aspiration of equal opportunity from the social reality we face, in which gender, race, and class are, regrettably, still thought to be acceptable forms of discrimination in selection processes (job hiring, college applications, etc.).
Does sexism still exist in modern American culture? Do you see instances of sexism in your everyday life? If so, give examples. My respondent certainly sees sexism in their daily life. The pointed out the sexism they see both on television and in academia. “Sexism is a natural extension of the academic environment, because the academic environment is based on the stated supposition that all students are equal, but is executed on the evidential reality that all students are not.” They pointed out the fact that there are measurable differences which exist between individuals (and individual circumstances), and that it seems verboten to discuss these differences in liberal circles (as liberals are often the most interested in pushing for equality for all, regardless of race, income, gender, or sexual orientation). If we’re to address the problems facing the disenfranchised, we must be able to freely talk about the differences which exist between people, and how that impacts their opportunities in life.
What do you think of when you hear the term “feminism?” What images come to mind? Has your view of feminism changed over time? Do you consider yourself a feminist? My respondent considers themself a feminist, but does not identify with the feminist movement: “I don’t often like associating with any ideology, even ones whose most basic tenets I share.” While they support what they believe to be the goals of feminism, they don’t believe that much progress towards those goals have been made in the last thirty to forty years. They see a lack of activism in modern life, and feel that feminists have been running to stay in the same place since Roe v. Wade. They do believe that there exist feminist organizations which have and continue to do great work for the cause of feminism (they cited NOW--the National Organization for Women), but think that there exists a subset of feminists who tend to undermine and subvert the goals of the movement.
What do you see as the biggest issue and/or problem with regards to discussing feminism or feminist topics with the general public? My respondent feels that there is a misconception regarding who is or isn’t a feminist; they claim that “everybody is a little bit feminist though the degree changes”. They believe that the feminist movement often lacks a moderate voice; that vocal feminists can often be polarizing when they discuss feminist and women’s issues with other people. The problem, in their opinion, is how feminists can be seen to condescend to their audience. In their words, “We really need to drop the concept of feminists explaining feminist topics to the general public … [it serves] to talk down to those allies that could most grown and adapt to changing social realities if they were simply included in the discourse.” This condescension can lead to the exclusion of potential, if imperfect, allies.
I came away from the interview with a lot to think about. There were certainly things which my respondent said that I had an initially negative reaction to. When the respondent affirmed they believed that men and women should be treated differently, I was a bit shocked. Upon reflection, though, I began to see the point they were making. In the context of an ideal merit based system, one in which individuals have equal access to opportunity, you would have to treat men and women differently, just as you would have to treat men and other men differently, or women and other women differently. The idea is that people are treated as individuals, with different specific needs, which can’t be boiled down into simplistic categories such as “man” or “woman.”
I see the greatest difference in our views in how we each approach feminism. They approach it primarily from a woman’s rights angle, which is a historically accurate view of feminism. My own feminism embraces a more intersectional approach, in that I don’t view women’s issues as necessarily separate from other human rights issues, such as LGBTQ rights or racism. I can understand the preference for not wanting to mix traditional feminism (which is specifically interested in women’s rights) with these other social justice issues, and I know my respondent does not believe these other social justice issues to be lesser in their importance. Where I believe my feminism differs from my respondent’s feminism is my inability to view women’s rights as separable from other civil rights issues; in the Venn diagram of social issues, more often than not, women’s rights overlap with class, race, ability, and sexual orientation. There are a thousand (or more) types of feminism which exist, and I’m interested in learning about and promoting all of them. I don’t feel that I can fully appreciate the full spectrum of feminism without including an understanding of these other issues. I don’t think my respondent and I are all that opposed in our ideas about what’s important to women, just in how we choose to define our feminism.
While in conversation with my respondent post-interview, I was able to pinpoint more clearly why, despite our different approaches and ideas regarding what feminism is and what it should be, I’m able to have disagreements with this person without getting upset or angry (an experience I’m familiar with when discussing feminist topics with other people I know). It relates back to the idea of talking down to the person you’re in conversation with: I have never once, over the course of our communications, felt as though my respondent were condescending to me, or treating me as anything other than an intellectual equal. I think most people are familiar with talking to someone who shares their opinion as though it were the last and final word on the topic, when it isn’t so clear that they’ve actually put much effort into forming their opinion, and they don’t seem to think that anyone can disagree with their opinion. While my respondent is firm in their opinions, they are always willing and able to articulate their arguments, making it clear that they’ve put effort into forming their opinion and they think highly enough of you that they pre-emptively lay out the basic argument in order for you to find the flaws which may or may not exist in their opinion. They don’t treat their opinions as self-evident, and respect the other party regardless of how deeply the disagreement runs.
Looking back over my interview, I feel confident that I chose the (near) perfect respondent for this assignment. Not only because of their ability to communicate in an articulate and respectful manner, but because of their views regarding feminism. I certainly enjoy a challenge to my own ideologies, especially from someone whom I consider an ally. I hope to continue the discussion about feminism with my respondent beyond this class and this assignment, because communication isn’t about being right or wrong, it’s about learning from other people.
Gender Communication and Roles in Brokeback Mountain
The movie Brokeback Mountain is an exploration of masculinity and male sexual desire in a
culture of compulsory heterosexuality. The movie is set in the Midwest, a part of the country known
for it's conservative attitudes towards gender roles, and occurs over a stretch of time which was
particularly difficult for any person who had same-sex feelings. The two protagonists, Jack Twist and
Ennis del Mar, appear at first to be very typical in their masculinity; they're cowboys who meet while
looking for work with a sheep rancher. However, their masculinity isn't typical, in that they find
themselves attracted to each other and end up in a long-term affair.
The premise of the film—two men who fall in love but are unable to openly act on their love— hides a more complicated critique of heteronormative masculinity. One of the classic archetypes of masculinity in the United States is the cowboy; cowboys are tough, independent, strong, manly frontiersmen, who thrive on adversity and solidarity. Implicit in the traditional view of masculinity is the idea of strict heterosexuality—men can only be attracted to, and have sex with, women. According to Keller and Jones, “[w]hat makes Brokeback unique is the traditional masculinity of the gay protagonists, and one of the principal markers or constructs of this masculinity involves the filmmaker's adaptation of the Western genre to the gay subject matter” (23). By setting a same-sex love story against a Western backdrop, the filmmakers are showing that the idea of masculinity is not incompatible with homosexuality or same-sex attraction. More often than not, gay men are stereotyped in the media as effeminate, emasculated, and feminized; Jack and Ennis are not gay stereotypes, and are allowed to be masculine and in love with each other.
By making the characters of Jack and Ennis cowboys, the writers are undermining the viewer's expectations. “Real” men aren't supposed to develop complex emotional relationships with other men, and definitely aren't supposed to have sexual relationships with them. Men are supposed to dominate their relationships, and “to be penetrated within the heteronormative order is to be feminized” (Benshoff 2008). The presentation of Ennis and Jack as masculine contrasts with their later sexual and emotional intimacy.
Throughout the film, the men are shown to be struggling with their feelings towards each other. In a scene where they are asked by their boss, the sheep rancher, to come down early from the titular Brokeback Mountain, Ennis is clearly upset by the fact that his time with Jack is over sooner than he had expected. He's unable to articulate how he feels, though, and when Jack engages him in what begins as a playful tussle, Ennis ends up lashing out in frustration. Men are socialized to handle their problems with aggression, which can sometimes be expressed as violence, so when Ennis is presented with the problem of losing someone he cares about, he knows no other recourse but to strike out.
In a society where the norm is compulsory heterosexuality, two men who find themselves attracted to each other, and ultimately develop intimate feelings for each other will end up having to repress these feelings or face violence for going against societal norms. Ennis and Jack aren't even able to admit to openly each other what they each feel for the other. They both end up in heterosexual marriages, as is expected of them. Ultimately, however, their marriages become traps, and they can't find happiness in them. Despite the idea that men should be strictly heterosexual, otherwise they lose their masculinity, neither Jack nor Ennis find contentment in following this proscription. Their marriage problems stem from having to repress their sexuality and same-sex desires; an open relationship between the two men might not have worked out, but if they had the option of being able to explore their sexuality rather than being restricted to a single acceptable sexual orientation, it's likely they would have been so miserable in their marriages.
The way in which Jack and Ennis internalize homophobia illustrates the harm gender stereotypes can have. The two men aren't allowed to express or accept their same-sex love because of masculine stereotypes. According to Benhof, “the film is about 'the disastrous emotional and moral consequences of erotic self-repression and of the social intolerance that first causes and then exacerbates it'” (2008). In denying their same-sex attraction, the two men negatively effect not only themselves—they can't be wholly themselves if they're denying that they feel attraction to other men— but other people in their life. Their wives and children also suffer because of the unhappiness these men feel. Compulsory heterosexuality doesn't just make people who feel same-sex attraction repress those feelings; the unhappiness a person who is repressing a part of themselves feels is evident to other the other people in their life.
Brokeback Mountain shows us the damage done when society defines gender roles and expression so narrowly. What it means to be a man is strictly defined in our society, and is policed closely, often with violence. Brokeback Mountain questions our assumptions about masculinity and same-sex desire by putting the two together. The film gives us an alternative to the hypermasculine, heterosexual narrative that is accepted as normal—it shows us that it is possible for masculinity and same-sex desire to co-exist, and it gives us male leads who are complex emotionally as well as masculine, a novelty in modern media.
Sources:
Benshoff, Harry M. "Brokering Brokeback Mountain — a Local Reception Study." Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media. Jump Cut, Spring 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2014..
Keller, James R., and Anne Goodwyn Jones. "Brokeback Mountain: Masculinity and Manhood." Http://pcasacas.org/SiPC/30.2/index.htm. Popular/American Culture Association in the South, Spring 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2014..
The premise of the film—two men who fall in love but are unable to openly act on their love— hides a more complicated critique of heteronormative masculinity. One of the classic archetypes of masculinity in the United States is the cowboy; cowboys are tough, independent, strong, manly frontiersmen, who thrive on adversity and solidarity. Implicit in the traditional view of masculinity is the idea of strict heterosexuality—men can only be attracted to, and have sex with, women. According to Keller and Jones, “[w]hat makes Brokeback unique is the traditional masculinity of the gay protagonists, and one of the principal markers or constructs of this masculinity involves the filmmaker's adaptation of the Western genre to the gay subject matter” (23). By setting a same-sex love story against a Western backdrop, the filmmakers are showing that the idea of masculinity is not incompatible with homosexuality or same-sex attraction. More often than not, gay men are stereotyped in the media as effeminate, emasculated, and feminized; Jack and Ennis are not gay stereotypes, and are allowed to be masculine and in love with each other.
By making the characters of Jack and Ennis cowboys, the writers are undermining the viewer's expectations. “Real” men aren't supposed to develop complex emotional relationships with other men, and definitely aren't supposed to have sexual relationships with them. Men are supposed to dominate their relationships, and “to be penetrated within the heteronormative order is to be feminized” (Benshoff 2008). The presentation of Ennis and Jack as masculine contrasts with their later sexual and emotional intimacy.
Throughout the film, the men are shown to be struggling with their feelings towards each other. In a scene where they are asked by their boss, the sheep rancher, to come down early from the titular Brokeback Mountain, Ennis is clearly upset by the fact that his time with Jack is over sooner than he had expected. He's unable to articulate how he feels, though, and when Jack engages him in what begins as a playful tussle, Ennis ends up lashing out in frustration. Men are socialized to handle their problems with aggression, which can sometimes be expressed as violence, so when Ennis is presented with the problem of losing someone he cares about, he knows no other recourse but to strike out.
In a society where the norm is compulsory heterosexuality, two men who find themselves attracted to each other, and ultimately develop intimate feelings for each other will end up having to repress these feelings or face violence for going against societal norms. Ennis and Jack aren't even able to admit to openly each other what they each feel for the other. They both end up in heterosexual marriages, as is expected of them. Ultimately, however, their marriages become traps, and they can't find happiness in them. Despite the idea that men should be strictly heterosexual, otherwise they lose their masculinity, neither Jack nor Ennis find contentment in following this proscription. Their marriage problems stem from having to repress their sexuality and same-sex desires; an open relationship between the two men might not have worked out, but if they had the option of being able to explore their sexuality rather than being restricted to a single acceptable sexual orientation, it's likely they would have been so miserable in their marriages.
The way in which Jack and Ennis internalize homophobia illustrates the harm gender stereotypes can have. The two men aren't allowed to express or accept their same-sex love because of masculine stereotypes. According to Benhof, “the film is about 'the disastrous emotional and moral consequences of erotic self-repression and of the social intolerance that first causes and then exacerbates it'” (2008). In denying their same-sex attraction, the two men negatively effect not only themselves—they can't be wholly themselves if they're denying that they feel attraction to other men— but other people in their life. Their wives and children also suffer because of the unhappiness these men feel. Compulsory heterosexuality doesn't just make people who feel same-sex attraction repress those feelings; the unhappiness a person who is repressing a part of themselves feels is evident to other the other people in their life.
Brokeback Mountain shows us the damage done when society defines gender roles and expression so narrowly. What it means to be a man is strictly defined in our society, and is policed closely, often with violence. Brokeback Mountain questions our assumptions about masculinity and same-sex desire by putting the two together. The film gives us an alternative to the hypermasculine, heterosexual narrative that is accepted as normal—it shows us that it is possible for masculinity and same-sex desire to co-exist, and it gives us male leads who are complex emotionally as well as masculine, a novelty in modern media.
Sources:
Benshoff, Harry M. "Brokering Brokeback Mountain — a Local Reception Study." Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media. Jump Cut, Spring 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2014.
Keller, James R., and Anne Goodwyn Jones. "Brokeback Mountain: Masculinity and Manhood." Http://pcasacas.org/SiPC/30.2/index.htm. Popular/American Culture Association in the South, Spring 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2014.
Leadership Survey
Note: for this essay, I was required to collect data from people I know regarding my attributes as a leader. A link to the data is at the end of the post for those interested in looking at numbers.
For the leadership survey, I chose individuals who I thought would give me the most honest response. I made sure that they had worked with me in some capacity, either on a personal project, or in a professional setting. It seemed to make sense to choose people who had experience working with me, whether or not I was explicitly in charge. I wanted to make sure that I’d get honest feedback, because honest feedback is worth more than insincere flattery. If I’m going to get an accurate idea of my own leadership ability, I’m going to need people who are willing to be honest, and not worry that I’ll think less of them for their honesty. Fortunately, I do know a few people who are willing to be this honest with me. I ended up getting feedback from a few more people than the project called for, but the people I know seemed more than willing to tell me what they thought of me. I was able to gather attribute scores from seven individuals: coworkers, friends (close and acquaintances), and one of my roommates.
Based on my responses to the survey, I would say that I would make a decent enough leader. I certain don’t consider myself to possess enough confidence in my own decisions or abilities, and I struggle with being expressing myself (I can pull off articulate in my writing, but when I have to speak on the fly my ability to express my thoughts in a coherent manner falters). I am fairly persistent, as my experience with college has shown. I’m also diligent, and willing to put in the effort to get an important goal completed--again, as my experience in college has shown. I certainly need to work on my self-confidence, not just as a leadership quality. I have been in leadership roles previously, and have risen to the challenge fairly well, if the higher-ups were any indication. The feedback I’ve gotten from previous bosses aligns fairly well with the areas I feel I should focus on improving; namely, my organizational skills and communication skills.
When I averaged the “scores” I received from the people I asked to rate me on leadership attributes, the average score came out either higher than what I gave myself, or equal to what I gave myself. There were some attributes in which the score varied greatly between respondents (perceptive, self-confident, outgoing, conscientious, diligent, sensitive, and empathic), while others were scored fairly consistently (the scores were all in a range of 2: articulate, self-assured, persistent, determined, trustworthy, dependable, and friendly). My highest “ratings” were “articulate”, “persistent”, “determined” (the highest with an average of 4.7), “trustworthy”, and “dependable”. The coworkers I asked all gave me overall higher scores on average than the other people I asked (my roommate and friends).
It’s pretty clear to me from the data I gathered which attributes I’m perceived to be strong in--my respondents perceive me strongly as “determined” (which I agree with) and “dependable” (which I aim to be, but not often sure whether I am). My lowest score was received on the “conscientious” attribute, with an average score of 3.33, which is higher than my own score of 2. It seems that my respondents consider me to be more thorough, organized, and careful than I consider myself, but only just. I obviously know that I need to improve in this area--specifically, I am horribly unorganized. My thoroughness and care depend on the project I’m attempting.
My respondents and I agreed that I’m fairly persistent, friendly, and diligent. The average score of my “sensitive” and “empathic” is slightly lower than the score I gave myself, but those scores were skewed by a respondent who didn’t see those qualities in me. Without that respondents scores for those qualities, the average jumps to match the ratings I gave myself. I suppose the lesson there is “you can’t win them all.” My raters and I were in general agreement about my persistence, determination, trustworthiness, friendliness, and diligence. All of my responders perceive me as more articulate than I consider myself, which was very surprising to me.
The most interesting thing I learned from doing this project was how differently I perceive myself as compared to how others perceive me. My self-confidence and self-assurance are attributes which I consider to be in short supply in myself, but which were highly rated by the people I asked to rate me on those attributes. After years of effort, I’m finally comfortable admitting that I’m decently articulate, though not nearly as articulate as I wish to be; and yet the people I asked seem to think I’m definitely articulate. I went into this project expecting there to be some difference in how I perceive myself versus how others perceive me, but I did not expect such a large difference. Given that it’s important how the people in your life perceive you, I’ve come away from this project feeling pretty good. This project also highlights that you can’t predict with much accuracy how the people you interact with perceive you.
Upon reflection, I’m sure that many of the differences in response I got were due to how I generally interact with each of these people. For instance, my coworkers were more likely to rate me more highly on diligence and determination, whereas my friends and coworkers rated me slightly less highly. I certainly have more opportunity to demonstrate diligence and determination at work, whereas people I know in my social life might not have as many opportunities to witness me doing a task that requires either attribute. The respondent who rated me less highly in sensitivity and empathy is someone who disagrees with me on several subjects which I care passionately about and am more likely to argue passionately about. In fact, I’ve gotten into several back and forth arguments with this respondent via Facebook.
I was certainly not surprised to learn that I’m more critical of myself than people who I regularly interact with. I have to be in my presence constantly, and I also have access to the thoughts which occur in my head, all of which colors my view of myself considerably. While I strive to not be overly critical of myself, I know that I can be overly judgmental of my flaws at times. It was pleasant and a bit confusing to know that, while I view myself as lacking self-confidence, most of my respondents think I’m self-confident. The only person to agree with me about my lack of self-confidence was a friend with whom I’ve discussed my lack of self-confidence before.
Overall, I think this exercise was helpful in that it allowed me to get an outside opinion of myself. It’s reassuring, in some ways, to know that although I still feel a need to improve myself in certain areas, how people perceive me is at the level I want to be at--people perceive me as the confident, articulate, outgoing person that I want to be.
Sources:
Northouse, Peter G. Introduction to Leadership: Second Edition. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012. Print.
A link to data. (I've kept the respondents anonymous to protect their dignity.)
What the data means: The surveyor (me) was required to ask several people* questions from the Leadership Questionnaire from our textbook (Introduction to Leadership). The respondents were asked to rate whether they Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), [were] Neutral (3), Agree (4) or Strongly Agree (5) with each of these 14 statements, as they applied to me (columns B-J). I was also required to respond to the statements (column K).
The statements:
*(I was only asked to survey three to five people, but that is insufficient data by any reasonably standards)
For the leadership survey, I chose individuals who I thought would give me the most honest response. I made sure that they had worked with me in some capacity, either on a personal project, or in a professional setting. It seemed to make sense to choose people who had experience working with me, whether or not I was explicitly in charge. I wanted to make sure that I’d get honest feedback, because honest feedback is worth more than insincere flattery. If I’m going to get an accurate idea of my own leadership ability, I’m going to need people who are willing to be honest, and not worry that I’ll think less of them for their honesty. Fortunately, I do know a few people who are willing to be this honest with me. I ended up getting feedback from a few more people than the project called for, but the people I know seemed more than willing to tell me what they thought of me. I was able to gather attribute scores from seven individuals: coworkers, friends (close and acquaintances), and one of my roommates.
Based on my responses to the survey, I would say that I would make a decent enough leader. I certain don’t consider myself to possess enough confidence in my own decisions or abilities, and I struggle with being expressing myself (I can pull off articulate in my writing, but when I have to speak on the fly my ability to express my thoughts in a coherent manner falters). I am fairly persistent, as my experience with college has shown. I’m also diligent, and willing to put in the effort to get an important goal completed--again, as my experience in college has shown. I certainly need to work on my self-confidence, not just as a leadership quality. I have been in leadership roles previously, and have risen to the challenge fairly well, if the higher-ups were any indication. The feedback I’ve gotten from previous bosses aligns fairly well with the areas I feel I should focus on improving; namely, my organizational skills and communication skills.
When I averaged the “scores” I received from the people I asked to rate me on leadership attributes, the average score came out either higher than what I gave myself, or equal to what I gave myself. There were some attributes in which the score varied greatly between respondents (perceptive, self-confident, outgoing, conscientious, diligent, sensitive, and empathic), while others were scored fairly consistently (the scores were all in a range of 2: articulate, self-assured, persistent, determined, trustworthy, dependable, and friendly). My highest “ratings” were “articulate”, “persistent”, “determined” (the highest with an average of 4.7), “trustworthy”, and “dependable”. The coworkers I asked all gave me overall higher scores on average than the other people I asked (my roommate and friends).
It’s pretty clear to me from the data I gathered which attributes I’m perceived to be strong in--my respondents perceive me strongly as “determined” (which I agree with) and “dependable” (which I aim to be, but not often sure whether I am). My lowest score was received on the “conscientious” attribute, with an average score of 3.33, which is higher than my own score of 2. It seems that my respondents consider me to be more thorough, organized, and careful than I consider myself, but only just. I obviously know that I need to improve in this area--specifically, I am horribly unorganized. My thoroughness and care depend on the project I’m attempting.
My respondents and I agreed that I’m fairly persistent, friendly, and diligent. The average score of my “sensitive” and “empathic” is slightly lower than the score I gave myself, but those scores were skewed by a respondent who didn’t see those qualities in me. Without that respondents scores for those qualities, the average jumps to match the ratings I gave myself. I suppose the lesson there is “you can’t win them all.” My raters and I were in general agreement about my persistence, determination, trustworthiness, friendliness, and diligence. All of my responders perceive me as more articulate than I consider myself, which was very surprising to me.
The most interesting thing I learned from doing this project was how differently I perceive myself as compared to how others perceive me. My self-confidence and self-assurance are attributes which I consider to be in short supply in myself, but which were highly rated by the people I asked to rate me on those attributes. After years of effort, I’m finally comfortable admitting that I’m decently articulate, though not nearly as articulate as I wish to be; and yet the people I asked seem to think I’m definitely articulate. I went into this project expecting there to be some difference in how I perceive myself versus how others perceive me, but I did not expect such a large difference. Given that it’s important how the people in your life perceive you, I’ve come away from this project feeling pretty good. This project also highlights that you can’t predict with much accuracy how the people you interact with perceive you.
Upon reflection, I’m sure that many of the differences in response I got were due to how I generally interact with each of these people. For instance, my coworkers were more likely to rate me more highly on diligence and determination, whereas my friends and coworkers rated me slightly less highly. I certainly have more opportunity to demonstrate diligence and determination at work, whereas people I know in my social life might not have as many opportunities to witness me doing a task that requires either attribute. The respondent who rated me less highly in sensitivity and empathy is someone who disagrees with me on several subjects which I care passionately about and am more likely to argue passionately about. In fact, I’ve gotten into several back and forth arguments with this respondent via Facebook.
I was certainly not surprised to learn that I’m more critical of myself than people who I regularly interact with. I have to be in my presence constantly, and I also have access to the thoughts which occur in my head, all of which colors my view of myself considerably. While I strive to not be overly critical of myself, I know that I can be overly judgmental of my flaws at times. It was pleasant and a bit confusing to know that, while I view myself as lacking self-confidence, most of my respondents think I’m self-confident. The only person to agree with me about my lack of self-confidence was a friend with whom I’ve discussed my lack of self-confidence before.
Overall, I think this exercise was helpful in that it allowed me to get an outside opinion of myself. It’s reassuring, in some ways, to know that although I still feel a need to improve myself in certain areas, how people perceive me is at the level I want to be at--people perceive me as the confident, articulate, outgoing person that I want to be.
Sources:
Northouse, Peter G. Introduction to Leadership: Second Edition. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012. Print.
A link to data. (I've kept the respondents anonymous to protect their dignity.)
What the data means: The surveyor (me) was required to ask several people* questions from the Leadership Questionnaire from our textbook (Introduction to Leadership). The respondents were asked to rate whether they Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), [were] Neutral (3), Agree (4) or Strongly Agree (5) with each of these 14 statements, as they applied to me (columns B-J). I was also required to respond to the statements (column K).
The statements:
- Articulate (Communicates effectively with others)
- Perceptive (Discerning and insightful)
- Self-confident (Believes in oneself and one's ability)
- Self-assured (Secure with self, free of doubt)
- Persistent (Stays fixed on the goals, despite interference)
- Determined (Takes a firm stand, acts with certainty)
- Trustworthy (Is authentic, inspires confidence)
- Dependable (Is consistent and reliable)
- Friendly (Shows kindness and warmth)
- Outgoing (Talks freely, gets along with others)
- Conscientious (Is thorough, organized, and careful)
- Diligent (Is industrious, hardworking)
- Sensitive (Shows tolerance, is tactful and sympathetic)
- Empathic (Understands others, identifies with others)
*(I was only asked to survey three to five people, but that is insufficient data by any reasonably standards)
Different Roles I Have
Social roles are identities which people take on depending on social context; they’re ways in which we act in different situations. When I sat down and thought of all of the social roles I have, the first to spring to mind was my role as a college student--which isn’t surprising, given that I was doing a homework assignment. Other roles which came to mind were employee, woman, and daughter. Over the course of my life, I’ve adopted different roles, and come into different identities--I haven’t always identified as a queer person, I haven’t always been employed, and there have been brief moments in my life where I wasn’t in school. The expectations I associate with my roles are often very different from what other people expect.
As a college student, I expect to attend class, do assignments, get graded for my work, communicate any questions I have to my instructor, and participate in the class. Other might expect that a student is always concerned about their grades, studies often, and is concerned with getting a degree in order to land a higher paying job in the future. I don't often encounter people who expect that a college student to enjoy learning--many people assume that I'm in school specifically to get a better job, so that I can make more money. While I'm not opposed to getting a better paying job, my primary focus in school is learning. If I bring up my ambivalence towards having a high paying job, I often have to explain that I'm more interested in finding a job where I'm able to make a positive difference in society and that I find personally fulfilling. I'm practical enough to know that if I do find work which is both fulfilling and helps people, I'm not likely to make a lot of money.
As an employee, I expect to go into work each day I'm scheduled, complete tasks which are assigned to me in a timely manner, interact with customers, and communicate with my coworkers and managers. My employer expects me to interact with customers, communicate with my coworkers, complete tasks in a timely manner, and show up on time for my scheduled shifts. Additionally, I'm expected to present myself in a professional manner, smile and be cheerful when helping customers, and show an interest in advancement. Having to constantly be in a cheerful mood can create conflict when I'm having a bad day, or am dealing with stress from my life outside of work. There has been some conflict between my role as a student and my role as an employee, as well. I've had to compromise my school schedule on occasion in order to ensure that I'm available for my employer--I take as many online classes as I can in order to be as available as possible for my employer. Additionally, I've had to negotiate my work schedule in order to have time to attend classes and do my homework. My classes and schoolwork means that I've had to give up hours at work, meaning I'm not earning as much money as I could if I had a completely open availability.
My expectations of my role as a woman were a bit harder to suss out. I’m aware of stereotypes that exist for being a woman--such as being feminine, liking domestic-related activities like cooking, wearing make-up--but I’ve never accepted that in order to be a woman I had to fit the stereotype. In that way, my idea of what it means to be a woman--essentially, that you personally identify as female, though I haven’t always held this to be true--conflicts with the stereotypes that other people can have about being a woman. One expectation people have about women, in my experience, is that we all want to be mothers. When I express to people that I am not currently interested in having children, nor do I think I would ever want children, people often express shock. I’ve had several people tell me that my feelings on the matter would change once I had children, which in my opinion misses the whole point--to have children, I would have to be trying to get pregnant, and I most certainly am not trying to get pregnant. I do not anticipate this changing anytime soon.
One of the roles I’ve had the longest is the role of “daughter”. As a daughter, I think I should keep in regular contact with my parents, that I should respect my parents in all things (even when I disagree with them), visit my parents as often as I can, and try to be a daughter that my parents can be proud of. Many of my expectations of what it means to be a daughter come from what my parents expect from me--that I’ll call them often, that I’ll visit (at least for certain holidays), and that I’ll treat my parents with respect. My parents and I have different ideas regarding how best to show respect, which has been an area of conflict in our relationship. My mom, for instance, considers it rude and disrespectful to swear in polite conversation, whereas I deem it a mark of familiarity and being relaxed in the situation to pepper the conversation with more colorful language. My swearing in conversation generally isn’t related to how much or little I respect the other party, but is usually a marker of how comfortable with that person I am.
Often, I find that when I’m in a social context where one of my social roles is most dominant, other people interact with me as if I am only that particular role. For instance, when I’m at work and my dominant social role is “employee”, customers more often than not treat me in a specific way. Their interactions with me don’t include the possibility that I have a life out of work; they treat me as if all I am is a customer service employee. Not all customers treat me as if I were just an employee, but enough do that I sometimes feel like the people I’m interacting with aren’t interacting with me, the complex individual, but a one-dimensional representation of me. There is a disconnect between who I am, and who some people seem to think I am. If I act in a way which is outside of the character of “employee” or “customer service person”, the interaction between the customer and myself can become uncomfortable. This isn’t something that I’ve observed in my life outside of work, but this might be an artifact of how obvious it is that I’m an employee, and how much time I spend at work versus how much time I spend in other specific social contexts.
Social roles aren’t something that we think about consciously, and so are probably most obvious when there is conflict between what I consider appropriate behavior for a given social role and what someone else would consider appropriate behavior. Given the individual nature of role expectation, conflict is bound to happen over perceptions of social roles. Understanding where the conflict comes from can help to facilitate communication between people, leading to stronger interpersonal relationships and less friction when interacting with other people. Knowing the importance of social roles can make you more aware of how you’re presenting yourself to others, and can add to your communications with other people.
As a college student, I expect to attend class, do assignments, get graded for my work, communicate any questions I have to my instructor, and participate in the class. Other might expect that a student is always concerned about their grades, studies often, and is concerned with getting a degree in order to land a higher paying job in the future. I don't often encounter people who expect that a college student to enjoy learning--many people assume that I'm in school specifically to get a better job, so that I can make more money. While I'm not opposed to getting a better paying job, my primary focus in school is learning. If I bring up my ambivalence towards having a high paying job, I often have to explain that I'm more interested in finding a job where I'm able to make a positive difference in society and that I find personally fulfilling. I'm practical enough to know that if I do find work which is both fulfilling and helps people, I'm not likely to make a lot of money.
As an employee, I expect to go into work each day I'm scheduled, complete tasks which are assigned to me in a timely manner, interact with customers, and communicate with my coworkers and managers. My employer expects me to interact with customers, communicate with my coworkers, complete tasks in a timely manner, and show up on time for my scheduled shifts. Additionally, I'm expected to present myself in a professional manner, smile and be cheerful when helping customers, and show an interest in advancement. Having to constantly be in a cheerful mood can create conflict when I'm having a bad day, or am dealing with stress from my life outside of work. There has been some conflict between my role as a student and my role as an employee, as well. I've had to compromise my school schedule on occasion in order to ensure that I'm available for my employer--I take as many online classes as I can in order to be as available as possible for my employer. Additionally, I've had to negotiate my work schedule in order to have time to attend classes and do my homework. My classes and schoolwork means that I've had to give up hours at work, meaning I'm not earning as much money as I could if I had a completely open availability.
My expectations of my role as a woman were a bit harder to suss out. I’m aware of stereotypes that exist for being a woman--such as being feminine, liking domestic-related activities like cooking, wearing make-up--but I’ve never accepted that in order to be a woman I had to fit the stereotype. In that way, my idea of what it means to be a woman--essentially, that you personally identify as female, though I haven’t always held this to be true--conflicts with the stereotypes that other people can have about being a woman. One expectation people have about women, in my experience, is that we all want to be mothers. When I express to people that I am not currently interested in having children, nor do I think I would ever want children, people often express shock. I’ve had several people tell me that my feelings on the matter would change once I had children, which in my opinion misses the whole point--to have children, I would have to be trying to get pregnant, and I most certainly am not trying to get pregnant. I do not anticipate this changing anytime soon.
One of the roles I’ve had the longest is the role of “daughter”. As a daughter, I think I should keep in regular contact with my parents, that I should respect my parents in all things (even when I disagree with them), visit my parents as often as I can, and try to be a daughter that my parents can be proud of. Many of my expectations of what it means to be a daughter come from what my parents expect from me--that I’ll call them often, that I’ll visit (at least for certain holidays), and that I’ll treat my parents with respect. My parents and I have different ideas regarding how best to show respect, which has been an area of conflict in our relationship. My mom, for instance, considers it rude and disrespectful to swear in polite conversation, whereas I deem it a mark of familiarity and being relaxed in the situation to pepper the conversation with more colorful language. My swearing in conversation generally isn’t related to how much or little I respect the other party, but is usually a marker of how comfortable with that person I am.
Often, I find that when I’m in a social context where one of my social roles is most dominant, other people interact with me as if I am only that particular role. For instance, when I’m at work and my dominant social role is “employee”, customers more often than not treat me in a specific way. Their interactions with me don’t include the possibility that I have a life out of work; they treat me as if all I am is a customer service employee. Not all customers treat me as if I were just an employee, but enough do that I sometimes feel like the people I’m interacting with aren’t interacting with me, the complex individual, but a one-dimensional representation of me. There is a disconnect between who I am, and who some people seem to think I am. If I act in a way which is outside of the character of “employee” or “customer service person”, the interaction between the customer and myself can become uncomfortable. This isn’t something that I’ve observed in my life outside of work, but this might be an artifact of how obvious it is that I’m an employee, and how much time I spend at work versus how much time I spend in other specific social contexts.
Social roles aren’t something that we think about consciously, and so are probably most obvious when there is conflict between what I consider appropriate behavior for a given social role and what someone else would consider appropriate behavior. Given the individual nature of role expectation, conflict is bound to happen over perceptions of social roles. Understanding where the conflict comes from can help to facilitate communication between people, leading to stronger interpersonal relationships and less friction when interacting with other people. Knowing the importance of social roles can make you more aware of how you’re presenting yourself to others, and can add to your communications with other people.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
What is communication?
But first a brief introduction:
For the past 11 weeks, I've been writing about gender communication for school. I've generated quite a lot of content, and thought I should share it with anyone who cares to read the things I write. The first 11 posts will be the essays I wrote weekly for the class. The posts after that (approximately 20) will be responses to discussion questions posted online for the students to answer. Enjoy!
Communication itself, broadly speaking, is about how ideas are transferred from one person’s brain to another person’s brain. Most definitions of communication require at least two parties in order for communication to have happened. Gender communication is a subset of the more general topic of communication. In gender communication, the idea is to explore what differences between the genders might exist in how they communicate, as well as to look at how the genders communicate with each other. Gender communication looks at how men communicate with men, how women communicate with women, how men communicate with women, and how women communicate with men. The discipline tries to determine what, if any, differences there are in how men and women communicate in order to better understand the phenomenon of communication.
As a female person, I have noticed an expectation from my female friends that I will communicate in a particular way--specifically, that I’m more interested in talking about my feelings, or that I’m interested in specific types of gossip (generally gossip which pertains to other friends). I’ve noticed these expectations primarily because I’ve never been comfortable communicating feelings or my personal, inner life; and so, occasionally, I’ve had to express to a female friend that I’d rather not focus on how I feel about something, or that I really am not interested in the complicated social workings of our circle of friends (at least, not in the same ways they are--if I were an anthropology student, I could probably write a term paper on the social interactions of 20-somethings). When one of my aunts passed away several years ago, I was encouraged by a couple of female friends to share how the event made me feel, even though I wouldn’t have naturally thought to share how the event made me feel. My friends were unable to understand why I didn’t want to talk about my aunt’s passing--they expected that I would want to talk about it, and I expected that they knew I didn’t want to talk about it.
I have had many effective conversations with the opposite gender, usually online. Until recently, I was a moderator for an online forum, and was therefore in a position of authority with respect to most of the members of the community. Anytime I had to use my “moderator voice” (that is, I had to remind a user of the rules for posting, or had to explain why the rules were what they were), I was able to successfully communicate the idea I was attempting to communicate. I’m not sure to what extent my gender played into this, as the entire interaction was through a written medium. That I’m female was well-known on the forum, but I didn’t notice any difference in how the users reacted to me and how they reacted to the male moderators (the moderator team was a mixed-gender team). In my face-to-face conversations with the men I work with, as long as we’re discussing neutral topics (such as which tasks need to be completed for the day), we are able to communicate with each other just fine.
The biggest lesson for me in these experiences of effective and ineffective communications have been the expectations my peers have regarding what I want or should talk about. The problems I’ve faced when communicating with my friends and peers usually arise from their expectation that I want to talk about certain things, and my expectation that my friends and peers will know, without my having told them, that I don’t want to discuss those things.
Three ways in which effective communication can be increased are “talking to make it better”, “being open-minded and willing to change”, and “treating another person as an individual” (Ivy 35). “Talking to make it better” means a willingness to understand where the breakdown in communication is happening. “Being open-minded and willing to change” means putting forth the effort to understand the other person’s point of view. “Treating another person as an individual” means not applying stereotypes to the person you’re communicating with.
Of these three methods to make communication better, I find that treating the person I’m communicating with as an individual helps to best facilitate communication. Not assuming that all women I speak with are interested in shopping, shoes, and feeling, or that all mean I speak with are interested in sports and never want to talk about their feelings, means that I actually get to know the person I’m speaking with. It means getting to know who I’m speaking with, and shows that I have a basic respect for them. Not making assumptions about someone because I think they belong to a certain category means that frustration and hard feelings are avoided.
For the past 11 weeks, I've been writing about gender communication for school. I've generated quite a lot of content, and thought I should share it with anyone who cares to read the things I write. The first 11 posts will be the essays I wrote weekly for the class. The posts after that (approximately 20) will be responses to discussion questions posted online for the students to answer. Enjoy!
Communication itself, broadly speaking, is about how ideas are transferred from one person’s brain to another person’s brain. Most definitions of communication require at least two parties in order for communication to have happened. Gender communication is a subset of the more general topic of communication. In gender communication, the idea is to explore what differences between the genders might exist in how they communicate, as well as to look at how the genders communicate with each other. Gender communication looks at how men communicate with men, how women communicate with women, how men communicate with women, and how women communicate with men. The discipline tries to determine what, if any, differences there are in how men and women communicate in order to better understand the phenomenon of communication.
As a female person, I have noticed an expectation from my female friends that I will communicate in a particular way--specifically, that I’m more interested in talking about my feelings, or that I’m interested in specific types of gossip (generally gossip which pertains to other friends). I’ve noticed these expectations primarily because I’ve never been comfortable communicating feelings or my personal, inner life; and so, occasionally, I’ve had to express to a female friend that I’d rather not focus on how I feel about something, or that I really am not interested in the complicated social workings of our circle of friends (at least, not in the same ways they are--if I were an anthropology student, I could probably write a term paper on the social interactions of 20-somethings). When one of my aunts passed away several years ago, I was encouraged by a couple of female friends to share how the event made me feel, even though I wouldn’t have naturally thought to share how the event made me feel. My friends were unable to understand why I didn’t want to talk about my aunt’s passing--they expected that I would want to talk about it, and I expected that they knew I didn’t want to talk about it.
I have had many effective conversations with the opposite gender, usually online. Until recently, I was a moderator for an online forum, and was therefore in a position of authority with respect to most of the members of the community. Anytime I had to use my “moderator voice” (that is, I had to remind a user of the rules for posting, or had to explain why the rules were what they were), I was able to successfully communicate the idea I was attempting to communicate. I’m not sure to what extent my gender played into this, as the entire interaction was through a written medium. That I’m female was well-known on the forum, but I didn’t notice any difference in how the users reacted to me and how they reacted to the male moderators (the moderator team was a mixed-gender team). In my face-to-face conversations with the men I work with, as long as we’re discussing neutral topics (such as which tasks need to be completed for the day), we are able to communicate with each other just fine.
The biggest lesson for me in these experiences of effective and ineffective communications have been the expectations my peers have regarding what I want or should talk about. The problems I’ve faced when communicating with my friends and peers usually arise from their expectation that I want to talk about certain things, and my expectation that my friends and peers will know, without my having told them, that I don’t want to discuss those things.
Three ways in which effective communication can be increased are “talking to make it better”, “being open-minded and willing to change”, and “treating another person as an individual” (Ivy 35). “Talking to make it better” means a willingness to understand where the breakdown in communication is happening. “Being open-minded and willing to change” means putting forth the effort to understand the other person’s point of view. “Treating another person as an individual” means not applying stereotypes to the person you’re communicating with.
Of these three methods to make communication better, I find that treating the person I’m communicating with as an individual helps to best facilitate communication. Not assuming that all women I speak with are interested in shopping, shoes, and feeling, or that all mean I speak with are interested in sports and never want to talk about their feelings, means that I actually get to know the person I’m speaking with. It means getting to know who I’m speaking with, and shows that I have a basic respect for them. Not making assumptions about someone because I think they belong to a certain category means that frustration and hard feelings are avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)