Peer sexual harassment is sexual harassment which occurs happens between people who know each other. Sexual harassment is any non-consensual touching or comment that is of a sexual nature. This may seem to be a subjective definition, but for the inclusion of the word “non-consensual”. Consent is a very important idea when you’re talking about any sexual matter--from actual sex, to flirting and playful banter. When you’re attempting to engage someone, whether it’s a conversation or a hug, you should get that person’s consent before continuing. That doesn’t mean you need to explicitly ask everyone every time you want to talk to them; consent includes watching for non-verbal indicators that the other party is okay with your engaging them. As an example, I’ve had numerous people engage me in both harmless and sexual conversation on public transportation--the most memorable, to me, was the one guy who kept trying to talk to me even though I kept going back to my book and answering him (if I did) monosyllabically. It’s easy to say “You should have just told the guy to go away”--I wonder myself what kept me from doing so. Social situations are a two-party system, though, and to any reasonable viewer, I was not consenting to that guy’s attempt to engage me.
I would consider any form of unwanted touching to be sexual harassment. If someone doesn’t want it, they aren’t consenting to it. It is, of course, difficult to know what other people are thinking, but that’s why you have to be proactive in determining whether or not someone is okay with your actions. Don’t assume that if they aren’t speaking up, that they’re okay with it. Don’t be an accidental harasser--even good, well intentioned people can accidentally overstep boundaries. People are human, they make mistakes. That’s not the problem. The problem is when you don’t care enough to establish personal boundaries with other people. It’s hard; I know how hard it is, as someone who’s had to speak up countless times to establish my own boundaries, which seem to be more restricted than is common (I’m not a hugger, for instance, and am uncomfortable with hugging people I’m not in an established friendship with, but this seems to be uncommon in my peers, and I’ve had to have the “please ask before hugging me” conversation a lot). But it’s important to know what other people are comfortable with, especially if you’re trying to improve your communication with them. Having a five minute conversation about what the other person is comfortable with (“Hey, I know I’m a real touchy kind of person, are you okay with that? y/n”) can greatly improve a relationship--it tells the other person that you care about them; and if you respect their boundaries, it shows them that they can trust you.
Showing posts with label response. Show all posts
Showing posts with label response. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
Gender Communication in the Workplace
This post is in response to this video.
The first issue that jumped out at me was the way in which the project manager, Terry, seemed to demand things from her employees. Regardless of the cultural and gender differences between her and her employees, it’s a generally bad idea to be demanding of the people you’re working with. It’s good to expect things from your employees, but to expect that the people you’re working with are responsible for everything that goes wrong is going to breed in your co-workers an inability to trust you. They won’t want to come to you for help because they’ll expect that you’re going to just blame them for the problems, instead of supporting and empowering them to find the solution themselves.
Terry also seemed uninterested in the actual reasons there were problems. She asked what the problems were, but didn’t allow her employees room to explain the issues. Had Carlos been allowed to explain the system of compadres that were in place, the problem with the equipment would have been avoided. Instead, Terry ignored the advice that Carlos gave--clearly not caring about his opinion or experience. There is nothing so demoralizing as thinking that the person you’re working for doesn’t respect your opinions--they don’t have to agree with you, but they should at least be interested and explore what issues come up.
In a gender communications context, women and men are often socialized to communicate differently; when Miguel spoke about how his culture uses a lot of body language and other nonverbal communication, I was reminded of the section in our text which went over how men and women often utilize different communication styles. Obviously, if two people are “speaking two different languages” (communicating differently), there will be roadblocks to effective communication. If one party is unable or unwilling to adapt to the communication style of the person they’re engaging in communication with, communication will break down, and problems like what we saw in the video will occur.
I'm including my response to a student's response to the video here because it's so short:
I agree that the video focuses primarily on cultural differences, but I think if you think of men and women as coming from different cultures, this video becomes applicable to gender communications. Of course, the analogy isn't airtight, as men and women from the same culture tend to share more in common with each other than they do with men and women from other cultures. However, as we've read about in our textbook, men and women often approach problems in communication as though they have been raised in separate cultures--much like cross-cultural communication, cross-gender is possible. I would argue that cross-gender communication is easier than cross-cultural communication; as I said, men and women from the same culture tend to have shared experiences that they can build on. When we speak to someone else, we are very much aware of their gender (gender is one of the first things we notice about someone, in fact), and as such we adapt our communication style to match what we think they expect and what we expect they will best respond to. How you communicate with people changes depending on context, and context includes things like what gender you perceive the other party to be. Men and women from the same culture will know, if only intuitively, how to communicate in a gendered context. Problems arise when these communication patterns are based on stereotypes, rather than being responsive to the individual you're communicating with--much as we saw in the cross-cultural video.
The first issue that jumped out at me was the way in which the project manager, Terry, seemed to demand things from her employees. Regardless of the cultural and gender differences between her and her employees, it’s a generally bad idea to be demanding of the people you’re working with. It’s good to expect things from your employees, but to expect that the people you’re working with are responsible for everything that goes wrong is going to breed in your co-workers an inability to trust you. They won’t want to come to you for help because they’ll expect that you’re going to just blame them for the problems, instead of supporting and empowering them to find the solution themselves.
Terry also seemed uninterested in the actual reasons there were problems. She asked what the problems were, but didn’t allow her employees room to explain the issues. Had Carlos been allowed to explain the system of compadres that were in place, the problem with the equipment would have been avoided. Instead, Terry ignored the advice that Carlos gave--clearly not caring about his opinion or experience. There is nothing so demoralizing as thinking that the person you’re working for doesn’t respect your opinions--they don’t have to agree with you, but they should at least be interested and explore what issues come up.
In a gender communications context, women and men are often socialized to communicate differently; when Miguel spoke about how his culture uses a lot of body language and other nonverbal communication, I was reminded of the section in our text which went over how men and women often utilize different communication styles. Obviously, if two people are “speaking two different languages” (communicating differently), there will be roadblocks to effective communication. If one party is unable or unwilling to adapt to the communication style of the person they’re engaging in communication with, communication will break down, and problems like what we saw in the video will occur.
__________________
I agree that the video focuses primarily on cultural differences, but I think if you think of men and women as coming from different cultures, this video becomes applicable to gender communications. Of course, the analogy isn't airtight, as men and women from the same culture tend to share more in common with each other than they do with men and women from other cultures. However, as we've read about in our textbook, men and women often approach problems in communication as though they have been raised in separate cultures--much like cross-cultural communication, cross-gender is possible. I would argue that cross-gender communication is easier than cross-cultural communication; as I said, men and women from the same culture tend to have shared experiences that they can build on. When we speak to someone else, we are very much aware of their gender (gender is one of the first things we notice about someone, in fact), and as such we adapt our communication style to match what we think they expect and what we expect they will best respond to. How you communicate with people changes depending on context, and context includes things like what gender you perceive the other party to be. Men and women from the same culture will know, if only intuitively, how to communicate in a gendered context. Problems arise when these communication patterns are based on stereotypes, rather than being responsive to the individual you're communicating with--much as we saw in the cross-cultural video.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Ways to Hurt in a Close Relationship
I really can’t generalize from my own experiences to speak to both genders in this regard, but going on what I have observed in my own relationships, and the relationships in those around me, it seems as though men are more likely to use physical violence to hurt their partners. Women are more likely to use emotional violence, or psychological violence, against their partners. Female-on-male physical violence is probably less rare than people tend to think, and it’s usually shrugged off because women tend to be the less physically strong partner. Physical violence, though, often comes packaged with psychological violence, because the receiver of the violence will often feel self-doubt as a result of their partner’s attack--they’ll question what they did to provoke the attack, they’ll convince themselves that it wasn’t that big of a deal. If it’s woman-on-man violence, I can imagine that most men would feel too ashamed to speak up about the violence, given the ridicule the idea of a woman battering a man often garners; men aren’t supposed to be physically inferior to women, so getting “bested” in a physical fight with your female partner is bound to create all kind of self-shame and feel emasculating. Men’s identities are often tied up in how physically strong they are, so having that questioned is going to cause them distress. Domestic violence is often framed as something that only women have to deal with, as well, and that creates a sort of vacuum in which men don’t feel they can speak up in.
I also think that emotional abuse is brushed off as some sort of unserious problem. I’ve had friends who have been in manipulative and emotionally difficult relationships, where their partner made them feel as though my friends were at fault for whatever problems were happening. I’ve seen what that sort of abuse can do to someone, and don’t feel like it gets talked about often enough. It usually involves making the victim feel as though they can’t trust their own feelings, that the victim is just ‘over-reacting’ to something, or just ‘crazy’ and making up stuff. While over-reactions and misinterpretations happen (humans are flawed beings, and mistakes get made), often abusers will deflect any responsibility for the problems that come up. I noticed that in the text, in the sections regarding the two ways abuse affects the abused, and why they stay (Ivy 295-297)--the Blaming Oneself and Blaming External Factors sections didn’t explicitly say it, but what happens in these situations is that the victim isn’t able to attach responsibility to the abuser; from what I’ve seen and experienced, the abuser is complicit in this thinking, refusing to accept that their actions have actually caused harm or refusing to engage their partner in discussion about how they’re harming their partner. It’s easy to point to a bruise and tell someone, “You’ve really hurt me,” but it’s another thing to point to a feeling and tell someone, “You’re why I’m feeling this [sadness, guilt, anger].”
I also think that emotional abuse is brushed off as some sort of unserious problem. I’ve had friends who have been in manipulative and emotionally difficult relationships, where their partner made them feel as though my friends were at fault for whatever problems were happening. I’ve seen what that sort of abuse can do to someone, and don’t feel like it gets talked about often enough. It usually involves making the victim feel as though they can’t trust their own feelings, that the victim is just ‘over-reacting’ to something, or just ‘crazy’ and making up stuff. While over-reactions and misinterpretations happen (humans are flawed beings, and mistakes get made), often abusers will deflect any responsibility for the problems that come up. I noticed that in the text, in the sections regarding the two ways abuse affects the abused, and why they stay (Ivy 295-297)--the Blaming Oneself and Blaming External Factors sections didn’t explicitly say it, but what happens in these situations is that the victim isn’t able to attach responsibility to the abuser; from what I’ve seen and experienced, the abuser is complicit in this thinking, refusing to accept that their actions have actually caused harm or refusing to engage their partner in discussion about how they’re harming their partner. It’s easy to point to a bruise and tell someone, “You’ve really hurt me,” but it’s another thing to point to a feeling and tell someone, “You’re why I’m feeling this [sadness, guilt, anger].”
Monday, April 28, 2014
Conflict and Gender Communication in Romantic Relationships
Conflict, in my experience, arises as a combination of conflicting needs, desires, or wants and poor communication between partners. Even if the partners aren’t experiencing a conflict of needs, if they aren’t communicating with their partner, this will lead to conflict. Poorly communicating to your partner can be just as bad, too--if you aren’t speaking up for yourself, if you aren’t being honest with your partner, or if you aren’t willing to listen to your partner, all of these can lead to conflict within a relationship.
The demand-withdraw pattern seems to me to arise from one or both partners being unwilling or unable to view their relationship as a sum of the parts, rather as being as they want it to be. A relationship isn’t just what one partner wants it to be, it’s got to be a mutual thing, where both partners are defining the parameters of the relationship. In a demand-withdraw pattern, it seems more like one partner is imposing their own desires on the relationship, and doesn’t seem to care about the other partner; this might be for a variety of reasons--maybe their partner has a history of ignoring their desires, maybe their partner doesn’t assert any desires and so they feel the need to fill a vacuum, or maybe they demand things because they haven’t matured to the point where they feel comfortable accommodating the other person. The partner who tends to withdraw might do so for a variety of reasons, as well--perhaps they feel hounded, perhaps they don’t know how to express their own desires, perhaps they aren’t willing to risk the relationship over what they view as a single instance of disagreement.
I think the best way to avoid the demand-withdraw pattern in a relationship is to not avoid conflict, as hard as that can be, and to confront differences in wants, needs, and desires directly. Being honest with your partner about how comfortable you are with certain activities, having boundaries regarding “couple time” and “me time”, and genuinely wanting to be in a relationship with the other person--not to view them as a necessity, or a chore, but genuinely want to build a life with that person (maybe for the rest of your life, or maybe just for six months)--seem like the best ways to avoid demand-withdraw.
My response to another student (it's short so I'm not going to put it in a separate post):
I think you're spot on when you say "Neither of the parties really have to take any responsibility for issues they share [in the demand-withdraw pattern]." The demander gets to put the onus of responsibility for a problem on the other party, and the withdrawer gets to shirk all responsibility by avoiding dealing with the conflict. The problem, meanwhile, is still present in the relationship; ignoring or making someone else deal with the problem isn't going to make it go away. It's also easy, after a while, for the withdrawer to frame their partner as a 'nag' or simply over-sensitive, rather than admit that they have a part to play in maintain the relationship. The demander can frame their partner as indifferent or insensitive to their needs, which will likely only fuel their flaw-finding.
I agree that conflict is often synonymous with fighting, while there are definitely differences between them. I think it's reasonable to expect conflict in a relationship, and I think it's natural to fear fighting with someone you care about. Having an argument with someone you care about is difficult. You don't want to be angry with someone you have deep feelings for. I don't think it's as easy as "not fearing" conflict, but being able to push through the fear, if that makes any sense.
The demand-withdraw pattern seems to me to arise from one or both partners being unwilling or unable to view their relationship as a sum of the parts, rather as being as they want it to be. A relationship isn’t just what one partner wants it to be, it’s got to be a mutual thing, where both partners are defining the parameters of the relationship. In a demand-withdraw pattern, it seems more like one partner is imposing their own desires on the relationship, and doesn’t seem to care about the other partner; this might be for a variety of reasons--maybe their partner has a history of ignoring their desires, maybe their partner doesn’t assert any desires and so they feel the need to fill a vacuum, or maybe they demand things because they haven’t matured to the point where they feel comfortable accommodating the other person. The partner who tends to withdraw might do so for a variety of reasons, as well--perhaps they feel hounded, perhaps they don’t know how to express their own desires, perhaps they aren’t willing to risk the relationship over what they view as a single instance of disagreement.
I think the best way to avoid the demand-withdraw pattern in a relationship is to not avoid conflict, as hard as that can be, and to confront differences in wants, needs, and desires directly. Being honest with your partner about how comfortable you are with certain activities, having boundaries regarding “couple time” and “me time”, and genuinely wanting to be in a relationship with the other person--not to view them as a necessity, or a chore, but genuinely want to build a life with that person (maybe for the rest of your life, or maybe just for six months)--seem like the best ways to avoid demand-withdraw.
________________________________
I think you're spot on when you say "Neither of the parties really have to take any responsibility for issues they share [in the demand-withdraw pattern]." The demander gets to put the onus of responsibility for a problem on the other party, and the withdrawer gets to shirk all responsibility by avoiding dealing with the conflict. The problem, meanwhile, is still present in the relationship; ignoring or making someone else deal with the problem isn't going to make it go away. It's also easy, after a while, for the withdrawer to frame their partner as a 'nag' or simply over-sensitive, rather than admit that they have a part to play in maintain the relationship. The demander can frame their partner as indifferent or insensitive to their needs, which will likely only fuel their flaw-finding.
I agree that conflict is often synonymous with fighting, while there are definitely differences between them. I think it's reasonable to expect conflict in a relationship, and I think it's natural to fear fighting with someone you care about. Having an argument with someone you care about is difficult. You don't want to be angry with someone you have deep feelings for. I don't think it's as easy as "not fearing" conflict, but being able to push through the fear, if that makes any sense.
Monday, April 21, 2014
"How to Win an Argument", Pt 2
Note: For this post, I'm posting the content of the person I'm responding to, as it is important context to have when reading my response. As per usual, all names have been redacted.
Student:
Your opinion is certainly interesting, [Student]. I definitely don’t agree that one partner should ever “give up” when trying to communicate with the other partner. I also find your use of the word “complain” curious, given that we were exploring conflict and arguing with members of other sexes. I think if you view your partner as just “complaining” about something, you’re building a barrier in your communication with them. The word “complain”, to me at least, implies that you don’t consider your partner’s experience as important as they seem to. Complaints, outside of the realm of customer service, are typically treated with less respect than just plain opinions. If someone is a “complainer”, they’re viewed as someone who’s never happy, who isn’t easy to please, someone who’s opinions can be discounted because all they’re doing is “just complaining.”
I think giving up on conflicts, instead of trying to understand why you and the other person have the conflict, is a bad strategy if you’re interested in building strong relationships. The biggest part of any relationship, be it friendship or romance or being coworkers, is empathy--empathy requires that you make the attempt to understand the other person in the relationship. Without empathy, a friendship is hollow, and a romance is doomed. Relationships are complicated, even when they’re just two people. Conflicts don’t have to be negative--I’ve had near-shouting matches with one of my closest friends, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have. Refusing to engage in an argument with someone you’re in a relationship with isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about ignoring the perspective of the person you’re in the relationship with.
Student:
In my opinion, the best tactic is the first one because once a man acknowledges his girlfriend, she will be calm down and tend to not say anything. The more you complain, the more girlfriend complains. Actually, girls complain more than boys, so that men should give up as soon as possible. And also, men should say "I understand you and love you". I think that strategy is the best for keeping relationship. For me, I do not like having a problem and continuing conflict because I am lazy. I will forget conflicts after I walk three steps. However, some girls continue conflicts for long time. That is why I give up conflicts as soon as possible. For the strategy #2, I do not think it is good idea because the talking will be long time. Because I am lazy, I do not listen for long time. I like #3 too because once I acknowledge I am wrong, girls can notice the boyfriend could understand. This strategy relates to #1. To avoid continuing the conflicts, boys should give up as soon as possible. I think only #1 and #3 is the best tactic to win because to compromise first is winning. If men complain a lot, it is not cool and they are childish. Men should be quiet and compromise as soon as possible. So, I think using two tactics, we can build good relationship and friendship. For the other tactics, you probably make girls angry, so I do not think they work.
Your opinion is certainly interesting, [Student]. I definitely don’t agree that one partner should ever “give up” when trying to communicate with the other partner. I also find your use of the word “complain” curious, given that we were exploring conflict and arguing with members of other sexes. I think if you view your partner as just “complaining” about something, you’re building a barrier in your communication with them. The word “complain”, to me at least, implies that you don’t consider your partner’s experience as important as they seem to. Complaints, outside of the realm of customer service, are typically treated with less respect than just plain opinions. If someone is a “complainer”, they’re viewed as someone who’s never happy, who isn’t easy to please, someone who’s opinions can be discounted because all they’re doing is “just complaining.”
I think giving up on conflicts, instead of trying to understand why you and the other person have the conflict, is a bad strategy if you’re interested in building strong relationships. The biggest part of any relationship, be it friendship or romance or being coworkers, is empathy--empathy requires that you make the attempt to understand the other person in the relationship. Without empathy, a friendship is hollow, and a romance is doomed. Relationships are complicated, even when they’re just two people. Conflicts don’t have to be negative--I’ve had near-shouting matches with one of my closest friends, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have. Refusing to engage in an argument with someone you’re in a relationship with isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about ignoring the perspective of the person you’re in the relationship with.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
"How to Win an Argument", Pt 1
Note: This is in response to 'How to Finally Win an Argument with Your Woman' by Laura Snyder. The link I have for this is a deadlink, but I will include the text of the "article" at the end. It's worth reading, if only for the realization that people actually think like that. Like, seriously.
I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine, and she showed me this really compelling video regarding “winning arguments”, and how most people think of arguments as tiny wars to be fought. The argument that the speaker was making was best summed up, I think, as “arguments are more productive if you think of them as learning opportunities.” I definitely find this to be a much more healthy attitude than “trying to win” arguments. When arguments are a battle, there is a winner and a loser, and you can’t gain anything if you’ve lost an argument. Communication should be about the exchange of ideas, and if there’s a loser (who hasn’t gained any knowledge by virtue of having lost the ‘battle’), then the communication is skewed and, in my opinion, failed. I also think that if you’re viewing your relationship as a war, rather than as a partnership to build a life with someone, you might reconsider your approach. Are there conflicts in relationships? Absolutely--two (or more) people who each have their own individual wants, needs, and desires will inevitably find that they have conflicting wants, needs, or desires. That doesn’t mean that one party should “win” at the expensive of the other.
As for the article, I find the tone and outlook rather sexist. “Women love arguments”? Really? And men “hate conflict”? These are statements founded on extremely frustrating and sexist gender stereotypes. They also aren’t consistent with what little I do know about men and women--if men “hate conflict” so much, then why do they play any type of sport? If men are wary of conflict with their significant other (assumed, of course, to be a female partner), is it because they don’t like conflict, or maybe because they’ve been conditioned to handle conflict in a certain manner (through violent means) and have also been conditioned to treat women a certain way (besides the whole “don’t hit girls” mandate, there’s the idea that men need to treat women with kid gloves, because they’re so fragile)? Additionally, the “tactics” to “win” an argument seem like pandering and not about actually communicating with the person you’re attempting to have a life with. Instead of “winning” an argument, maybe you could, I don’t know, try to understand why your partner is upset? I’m not directing this exclusively at men in a heterosexual relationship--I mean that everyone who is in a relationship (romantic or otherwise) should avoid trying to “win” arguments, and instead focus on understanding what their partner is saying, and why they’re saying it. Actually communicate with your partner, don’t try to just score points off of them.
I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine, and she showed me this really compelling video regarding “winning arguments”, and how most people think of arguments as tiny wars to be fought. The argument that the speaker was making was best summed up, I think, as “arguments are more productive if you think of them as learning opportunities.” I definitely find this to be a much more healthy attitude than “trying to win” arguments. When arguments are a battle, there is a winner and a loser, and you can’t gain anything if you’ve lost an argument. Communication should be about the exchange of ideas, and if there’s a loser (who hasn’t gained any knowledge by virtue of having lost the ‘battle’), then the communication is skewed and, in my opinion, failed. I also think that if you’re viewing your relationship as a war, rather than as a partnership to build a life with someone, you might reconsider your approach. Are there conflicts in relationships? Absolutely--two (or more) people who each have their own individual wants, needs, and desires will inevitably find that they have conflicting wants, needs, or desires. That doesn’t mean that one party should “win” at the expensive of the other.
As for the article, I find the tone and outlook rather sexist. “Women love arguments”? Really? And men “hate conflict”? These are statements founded on extremely frustrating and sexist gender stereotypes. They also aren’t consistent with what little I do know about men and women--if men “hate conflict” so much, then why do they play any type of sport? If men are wary of conflict with their significant other (assumed, of course, to be a female partner), is it because they don’t like conflict, or maybe because they’ve been conditioned to handle conflict in a certain manner (through violent means) and have also been conditioned to treat women a certain way (besides the whole “don’t hit girls” mandate, there’s the idea that men need to treat women with kid gloves, because they’re so fragile)? Additionally, the “tactics” to “win” an argument seem like pandering and not about actually communicating with the person you’re attempting to have a life with. Instead of “winning” an argument, maybe you could, I don’t know, try to understand why your partner is upset? I’m not directing this exclusively at men in a heterosexual relationship--I mean that everyone who is in a relationship (romantic or otherwise) should avoid trying to “win” arguments, and instead focus on understanding what their partner is saying, and why they’re saying it. Actually communicate with your partner, don’t try to just score points off of them.
_____________________________________________________
Text of "How to Win an Argument with Your Woman"
Women love arguments. It gives us a chance to talk (or yell) about our feelings, understand each other better, explain to you how you can be a better boyfriend. We're the ones that tell you that conflicts are good for relationships. Men, on the other hand, hate arguments. Maybe because you hate conflict. Or because you just don't want to get into it before the fourth quarter starts. Or maybe it's because we almost always find a way to spank you in a spat, even if your position is seemingly invincible.
If you're going to do battle, boys, you might as well be armed. Here's how to beat her at her own game.
Battle Tactic #1: Evasive Maneuvers
The fastest way to win a fight is to avoid it completely. And there's an almost foolproof way of doing that... it's called "acknowledging her feelings." In most cases, that's all she wants when she picks a fight anyway. Just restate her complaint so she sees you're listening and then hit her sympathy. (Key words: I, understand, you, that, must, feel)
Battle Tactic #2: Actually Listen
Might not sound all that devious, but one of the reasons she consistently kicks your butt in battle is because while you're talking, she's cataloging all the inconsistencies in your story. Listen to what you're saying first, and pay careful attention to what she's saying and when you reply, address her points. At the very least, she'll take you more seriously.
Battle Tactic #3: Admit You're Wrong.
One of guys' biggest mistake is overvaluing being right. Any woman can tell you that being right doesn't matter in an argument; admitting you're wrong and winning an argument are not the same thing (Consider the difference between "I was wrong to buy a motorcycle without consulting you" and "I will return the motorcycle.") In fact, by admitting you were wrong up front, you rob her of ammunition and there's nothing left to fight about.
Battle Tactic #4: Don't Be Distracted
Resist the temptation to pounce on her false premises, unsound deductions and blatant falsehoods of her reasoning. Again, this isn't about being right... and she's just firing those shots to find your weaknesses. Other sneaky woman tricks to ignore: false apologies, wildly unreasonable ultimatums, tears and withholding sex. Oh, and don't try to use any of them yourself. You'll never pull it off.
Battle Tactic #5: Know When It's Over
Ideally, you'll end your fight with a sense of closure, usually with a statement along the lines of "I need you to do X" or "I see Minor Problem A as being a symptom of Much Bigger Problem B." >From that point, it should be fairly easy to come to a mutually agreeable compromise. Watch her melt when you say "Can we work on this together?".
Battle Tactic #6: Know When It's Really Over
Before you get ready for the make-up sex, though, make sure it's really over. Watch her body language. Is she nodding her head in agreement, or sitting there wearing a scowl with her arms crossed? If she looks angry, it ain't over, even if she says it is. Proceed to sexual overtures with extreme caution.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Pt 2
I think [Student] makes an excellent point with regards to how men can be insecure about their body image; however, it is interesting to me to note that women are far and away more likely to be diagnosed with an eating disorder than men. I do think that American culture places an unhealthy emphasis on looks, and do think that men and women face their own separate issues when it comes to body image. It seems to me, however, that men are more likely to be forgiven for bucking the trend when it comes to how they look. That is to say, if a man chooses not to put hours into the gym, chooses not to diet in order to keep a trim figure, and chooses not to always wear stylish clothes, he isn’t judged as harshly as a woman who does the same. Having never experienced being male, I can’t speak authoritatively on this, but I do have experience living as a woman who doesn’t conform to American beauty standards. I have felt immense pressure to conform to these beauty standards, both internal and external.
As I mentioned in my first response, I do think that marketers have caught on to the idea that they’ve been neglecting approximately half the population. Magazines, beauty products, and clothing manufacturers seem to be more and more emphasizing a certain male beauty standard, which I find wholly unfortunate and frustrating. The trend is towards an equality between the sexes, but it is an equality that leads to mental health issues, physical health issues, and encouraging all the wrong things. Men falling prey to the same body image problems that have plagued women for quite a long time now is far from the feminist ideal of equality.
As I mentioned in my first response, I do think that marketers have caught on to the idea that they’ve been neglecting approximately half the population. Magazines, beauty products, and clothing manufacturers seem to be more and more emphasizing a certain male beauty standard, which I find wholly unfortunate and frustrating. The trend is towards an equality between the sexes, but it is an equality that leads to mental health issues, physical health issues, and encouraging all the wrong things. Men falling prey to the same body image problems that have plagued women for quite a long time now is far from the feminist ideal of equality.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Pt 1
Watching the Dove Real Beauty Sketches video, I was struck by how critical the women shown were of themselves. I’ve struggled with the same kind of thing, always being more critical of myself than others. It’s startling to me that even conventionally attractive women (which most of the women featured were) can be so pessimistic of their looks. I think it shows how easily and how thoroughly we internalize messages of beauty in our culture. We’re bombarded with Photoshopped images of flawless creations that bear a passing resemblance to what humans look like in the wild, and we begin to think that’s how women should look, instead of realizing that women don’t look like that at all. I know that men as well as women have to put up with idealized beauty standards in the media, but the male friends I’ve discussed this with don’t seem to have the same level of problem regarding not meeting the ideal as my female friends. Body image problems seem to be something that women primarily deal with, which makes me think that women especially feel the pressure to conform to beauty standards. The way to deal with this double standard isn’t to make men feel more poorly about their bodies, of course, but to have more realistic models in the media. I feel like I’ve read something in the recent past about how with the rise of heavily Photoshopped male models, there has been a corresponding drop in positive body image among young men, but I can’t recall where I read it.
The second video, which was an obvious parody of the Real Beauty Sketches, was pretty funny. I think, though, having an inflated sense of your own self isn’t something that most men have. Are men more confident in their looks on average when compared to women? Without having done any actual research, I would say that men don’t think about their own beauty in the same way that women do. Most beauty products are targeted at women, whereas most male hygienic products are simply soap or deodorant. I have noticed that there seem to be more body care products aimed at men that aren’t just soap or deodorant, though, and I find that pretty troubling. The message with most beauty products seems to be, “You aren’t perfect, and that’s wrong, so here’s this thing that will help make you perfect.” Body care products seem less about actually caring for your body and more about creating in real life what we see in Photoshopped magazines. I understand grooming, and wanting to look your best, but there seems to be something more sinister underlying beauty care products that I can’t like.
The second video, which was an obvious parody of the Real Beauty Sketches, was pretty funny. I think, though, having an inflated sense of your own self isn’t something that most men have. Are men more confident in their looks on average when compared to women? Without having done any actual research, I would say that men don’t think about their own beauty in the same way that women do. Most beauty products are targeted at women, whereas most male hygienic products are simply soap or deodorant. I have noticed that there seem to be more body care products aimed at men that aren’t just soap or deodorant, though, and I find that pretty troubling. The message with most beauty products seems to be, “You aren’t perfect, and that’s wrong, so here’s this thing that will help make you perfect.” Body care products seem less about actually caring for your body and more about creating in real life what we see in Photoshopped magazines. I understand grooming, and wanting to look your best, but there seems to be something more sinister underlying beauty care products that I can’t like.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Informational Communication & Relational Communication, Pt 2
[Student] helped me understand something that I think I find problematic with the difference between “informational” and “relational” communications--what, exactly, is the difference between your male friends reaching out to you to share things they’re excited about, and your female friends reaching out to you in order to catch up? It seems to me that the only difference is content of the conversation, not reason for the conversation. The reason for the conversation seems to be the same regardless of the gender of the friend who is conversing with you--they are reaching out to you, in order to maintain a relationship with you. It seems that your friends have differing strategies for achieving that goal--your male friends tend towards sharing common interests, while your female friends tend towards asking about your life (which, in a certain light, could be considered a common interest--assuming you’re interested in your own life, of course).
One thing I think is key from the text is the clarification that “every message carries content and relational meanings” (169). I think I missed that in my first reading of the passage, which led to my confusion. I still think focusing on how different men and women communicate buries the lede--that is to say, I think we have much more in common with regards to how we communicate and what we communicate about than we give ourselves credit for. And especially if we let gender stereotypes guide our interactions with other people, we will tend towards having problems when we’re communicating with other people. Your example of approaching your friend after his loss highlights this, and is similar to my own experience with grief and my friends’ support--I tend towards not wanting to discuss emotional experiences. When I lost an aunt I was close with, I didn’t want to talk about how I felt, but hanging out with my best friend and getting on with normal life was very helpful in dealing with my grief. Had my friend pushed me to focus on how I felt, I don’t think it would have been as helpful.
Sources:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak (5th Edition).
One thing I think is key from the text is the clarification that “every message carries content and relational meanings” (169). I think I missed that in my first reading of the passage, which led to my confusion. I still think focusing on how different men and women communicate buries the lede--that is to say, I think we have much more in common with regards to how we communicate and what we communicate about than we give ourselves credit for. And especially if we let gender stereotypes guide our interactions with other people, we will tend towards having problems when we’re communicating with other people. Your example of approaching your friend after his loss highlights this, and is similar to my own experience with grief and my friends’ support--I tend towards not wanting to discuss emotional experiences. When I lost an aunt I was close with, I didn’t want to talk about how I felt, but hanging out with my best friend and getting on with normal life was very helpful in dealing with my grief. Had my friend pushed me to focus on how I felt, I don’t think it would have been as helpful.
Sources:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak (5th Edition).
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Informational Communication & Relational Communication, Pt 1
I don’t think that I communicate like women are supposed to; at the very least, I don’t feel like I primarily engage in conversation in order to maintain relationships. I’m pretty notoriously bad at communicating for the primary goal of maintaining relationships (just ask my mom). I tend to consider conversations as a means to exchange information between people--information can be anything from what the weather is like to finding out how the other person is feeling. I think you have to do things in order to have something to talk about, and the media image of women who sit around and gossip and talk about their feelings doesn’t appeal to me. I do think the media image of how women communicate is an exaggeration, however, and wouldn’t like to base my ideas of how women communicate on that image.
In my experience with communicating with men and women, there is a blending of these two conversational styles. I think some men and some women tend towards the extremes regarding communication styles, but I strongly disagree with the idea that differences between how the sexes communicate is a fundamental sex difference. I think how men and women communicate is dictated largely by social factors. This means that communicating for information or in order to maintain relationships isn’t inherent in being a man or a woman; all genders exhibit these qualities to some degree, and all genders are capable of learning how to communicate either for informational purposes or in order to maintain relationships. I find the idea that “women are inherently better at interpersonal conversation” deeply sexist, in that it implies the converse: that women are inherently bad at informational communication.
In my experience with communicating with men and women, there is a blending of these two conversational styles. I think some men and some women tend towards the extremes regarding communication styles, but I strongly disagree with the idea that differences between how the sexes communicate is a fundamental sex difference. I think how men and women communicate is dictated largely by social factors. This means that communicating for information or in order to maintain relationships isn’t inherent in being a man or a woman; all genders exhibit these qualities to some degree, and all genders are capable of learning how to communicate either for informational purposes or in order to maintain relationships. I find the idea that “women are inherently better at interpersonal conversation” deeply sexist, in that it implies the converse: that women are inherently bad at informational communication.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Confusing Attitudes, Pt 2
I often have the same problem as [Student]--I don’t find speaking with new people very easy, and am often very conscious of my body when speaking to strangers. In a work setting, where I know the expectations of the customers and my co-workers, I’m more comfortable speaking with people. I don’t find that I have any more or less difficulty speaking with men or women, perhaps because I don’t have any romantic expectations from the people I’m speaking to. I do get a bit tongue-tied speaking with a woman I find attractive, but I suspect this is a universal trait between genders. Talking to someone you find attractive is stressful--you don’t want to appear to be a gibbering idiot in front of them, and your brain is furiously working to figure out things to say to them to impress them. It’s all very tiring.
I think communication hiccups between genders are more likely when both or either party are relying too heavily on gender stereotypes in how they’re communicating. For instance, if while in a conversation with a woman, a man tries to be the stereotypical assertive, dominating male in the conversation, he’s likely to communicate poorly with the person he’s trying to talk to. Or if he considers the woman he’s talking to to be a stereotypical woman (that is, soft-spoken, indirect, and emotional), he’s likely to communicate poorly and make some sort of faux pas. I don’t think someone has to be aware that they’re applying stereotypes to another person for this to happen, either; we’re all of us plagued by unconscious biases that guide our decision-making.
I think communication hiccups between genders are more likely when both or either party are relying too heavily on gender stereotypes in how they’re communicating. For instance, if while in a conversation with a woman, a man tries to be the stereotypical assertive, dominating male in the conversation, he’s likely to communicate poorly with the person he’s trying to talk to. Or if he considers the woman he’s talking to to be a stereotypical woman (that is, soft-spoken, indirect, and emotional), he’s likely to communicate poorly and make some sort of faux pas. I don’t think someone has to be aware that they’re applying stereotypes to another person for this to happen, either; we’re all of us plagued by unconscious biases that guide our decision-making.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Confusing Attitudes, Pt 1
Note: For this question, I ended up with two answers to the question, because I initially misread the question. I present both to you here.
In many of the studies concerning how the media affects our perception of gender cited in the book, I keep wondering how strong the causal link between media and our attitudes about gender are. There seems to be significant correlation between attitudes about sex and gender in the media we consume, but just because the correlation exists doesn’t mean that the media is responsible for these societal attitudes. Or, to put it another way, which came first: the societal stereotypes regarding gender roles and sexual behavior, or the media depiction of these stereotypes?
Another concern I have regarding the studies mentioned are whether the effects which were reported were short-term or long-term. That is to say, if you watch a movie depicting traditional gender and sex roles, how long will those depictions stay with you? Additionally, are these studies showing that media can outright change how we perceive gender, and how we communicate with people of different genders, or do they perhaps show how the media can reinforce the biases we already hold regarding ideas about gender and sex? My initial opinion is that media reinforces biases which already exist in people and in our society; to relate it to the pornography exploration in GenderSpeak (pg 113-120), simply cleansing media of pornographic images won’t change or eradicate the sexist or degrading treatment of women. Sexist attitudes exist independent of pornography, but can be reinforced by their portrayal in media. And to quote a cliche, the answer to bad free speech is more free speech, not less (a rather simplistic view on the issue, but I could probably write a couple of pages on the use and misuse of the idea of free speech, and that’s slightly off-topic).
A third concern I have about studies regarding gender communication are how heteronormative they seem to be. When discussing how the genders communicate, it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that the communication that is happening between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. The author of GenderSpeak, at least, seems to be somewhat aware of this heteronormative bias, but when the text relates a study, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient critique of the heteronormative biases that might have crept into the formation of the study or in how the results were interpreted. I don’t know whether this bias would actually change the studies or their results, but it seems to me that there should be more value placed in seeking out LGBT perspectives regarding gender communication. How a gay man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight) may differ from how a straight, cisgendered man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight), and that would be valuable information regarding communication overall. I feel I might be more interested in the hetero bias regarding the gender communication studies we’ve been reading about than some of my hetero peers, and that I might pick up on them more than my hetero peers.
_________
I feel that I hold a less traditional view of gender roles than many of my peers. I find stereotypical depictions of men and women in the media as grating and abrasive, and can’t easily watch or consume any media which relies heavily on gender stereotypes. This means that I genuinely don’t watch reality TV, and have to leave the room when my roommates decide to watch it. My peers are often surprised when I mention my disinclination to have children--as a woman, it seems to be the assumption that my uterus will eventually override my disinterest in having children and I’ll be as baby-crazy as the next woman. I’ve actually had conversations where the phrase “that will change once you’ve had children” was used (by my mom, who does not push me on the issue of children or relationships).
I’ve noticed a preoccupation in my peers with finding a romantic partner--it’s certainly something that I’m interested in, but many of my peers seem to think of their relationships with other people in primarily romantic ways. What I mean is that I’ve noticed a shortage, in the media and in my own life, of men and women who aim to create meaningful relationships with the other sex outside of romantic framing. Of course, I do know men and women who are friends, but with the proliferation of dating sites (such as OKCupid), there seems to be a lot of pressure to find someone dateable rather than someone friendable. I’ve seen the term “friend-zoning” often thrown at women, meaning that when a man’s romantic interests (which are deemed more important in these contexts) in a woman aren’t reciprocated, the woman has “friend-zoned” the man. As far as I can determine, being “friend-zoned” is supposed to be a form of emasculation, because men apparently aren’t supposed to have meaningful relationships with women without sex. Using the term “friend-zoning” elevates one party’s feelings in a situation over another party’s--a man who accuses a woman of “friend-zoning” him is telling her that her feelings (or lack of certain feelings, such as attraction) aren’t as important as his attraction to her.
Very recently, I’ve been seeing the term “girlfriend-zoned” as a response to the idea of “friend-zoned”; the idea is that women feel undue pressure from some of the men in their life to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with these men, and that there is an unfair expectation by some men that all women should be interested in dating men who show an interest in these women. I think this exposes how absurd it is for men to seek primarily sexual or romantic relationships with women; the idea that being “merely” friends with a member of the opposite sex seems like a dangerous and harmful attitude. Men and women should strive to be friends more often, and men shouldn’t be afraid of being friend-zoned.
In many of the studies concerning how the media affects our perception of gender cited in the book, I keep wondering how strong the causal link between media and our attitudes about gender are. There seems to be significant correlation between attitudes about sex and gender in the media we consume, but just because the correlation exists doesn’t mean that the media is responsible for these societal attitudes. Or, to put it another way, which came first: the societal stereotypes regarding gender roles and sexual behavior, or the media depiction of these stereotypes?
Another concern I have regarding the studies mentioned are whether the effects which were reported were short-term or long-term. That is to say, if you watch a movie depicting traditional gender and sex roles, how long will those depictions stay with you? Additionally, are these studies showing that media can outright change how we perceive gender, and how we communicate with people of different genders, or do they perhaps show how the media can reinforce the biases we already hold regarding ideas about gender and sex? My initial opinion is that media reinforces biases which already exist in people and in our society; to relate it to the pornography exploration in GenderSpeak (pg 113-120), simply cleansing media of pornographic images won’t change or eradicate the sexist or degrading treatment of women. Sexist attitudes exist independent of pornography, but can be reinforced by their portrayal in media. And to quote a cliche, the answer to bad free speech is more free speech, not less (a rather simplistic view on the issue, but I could probably write a couple of pages on the use and misuse of the idea of free speech, and that’s slightly off-topic).
A third concern I have about studies regarding gender communication are how heteronormative they seem to be. When discussing how the genders communicate, it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that the communication that is happening between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. The author of GenderSpeak, at least, seems to be somewhat aware of this heteronormative bias, but when the text relates a study, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient critique of the heteronormative biases that might have crept into the formation of the study or in how the results were interpreted. I don’t know whether this bias would actually change the studies or their results, but it seems to me that there should be more value placed in seeking out LGBT perspectives regarding gender communication. How a gay man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight) may differ from how a straight, cisgendered man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight), and that would be valuable information regarding communication overall. I feel I might be more interested in the hetero bias regarding the gender communication studies we’ve been reading about than some of my hetero peers, and that I might pick up on them more than my hetero peers.
I’ve noticed a preoccupation in my peers with finding a romantic partner--it’s certainly something that I’m interested in, but many of my peers seem to think of their relationships with other people in primarily romantic ways. What I mean is that I’ve noticed a shortage, in the media and in my own life, of men and women who aim to create meaningful relationships with the other sex outside of romantic framing. Of course, I do know men and women who are friends, but with the proliferation of dating sites (such as OKCupid), there seems to be a lot of pressure to find someone dateable rather than someone friendable. I’ve seen the term “friend-zoning” often thrown at women, meaning that when a man’s romantic interests (which are deemed more important in these contexts) in a woman aren’t reciprocated, the woman has “friend-zoned” the man. As far as I can determine, being “friend-zoned” is supposed to be a form of emasculation, because men apparently aren’t supposed to have meaningful relationships with women without sex. Using the term “friend-zoning” elevates one party’s feelings in a situation over another party’s--a man who accuses a woman of “friend-zoning” him is telling her that her feelings (or lack of certain feelings, such as attraction) aren’t as important as his attraction to her.
Very recently, I’ve been seeing the term “girlfriend-zoned” as a response to the idea of “friend-zoned”; the idea is that women feel undue pressure from some of the men in their life to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with these men, and that there is an unfair expectation by some men that all women should be interested in dating men who show an interest in these women. I think this exposes how absurd it is for men to seek primarily sexual or romantic relationships with women; the idea that being “merely” friends with a member of the opposite sex seems like a dangerous and harmful attitude. Men and women should strive to be friends more often, and men shouldn’t be afraid of being friend-zoned.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Sexist Language & Communication, Pt 2
In his response to the quote from our text, [Student] puts forward the idea that the use of sexist or sexually objectifying language is down to immaturity and lack of guidance as a young person. I agree that immaturity and lack of appropriate role models is a contributing factor to some of this sexism, but I don’t think they’re the only or even the most common factors. Laying the blame for these types of behaviors on immaturity implies that a person will eventually grow out of these behaviors. Unfortunately, sexually objectifying and sexist comments come out of the mouths of more mature people as easily as they come out of immature people.
In my mind, the problem with sexually objectifying language isn’t so much that the person who is being sexually objectified is doing anything wrong (whether they’re fully-clothed or bare naked), but that the person who is directly the sexually objectifying language at them is attempting to force their morality on another person. Calling a woman a “bitch” or “slut” is a way to police her actions; being insulted is a negative experience, and one that you don’t want to happen to you again. I think instead of just telling young people that you shouldn’t call women or men these terms, you get them to think about why they’re passing judgement on others, and why they’re trying to police the actions of others.
I also think there’s too much emphasis in conversations about how men talk about women on how sexual men are. Being a sexual being doesn’t mean that you lose all respect for the target of your attraction. Additionally, I think if we hold to the idea that young men are somehow unable to control or learn to deal with their sexual urges, we’re doing a huge disservice to young men twofold--one, young men are expected to be supersexual beings, and those who don’t feel they meet these expectations are surely going to suffer psychologically; and two, it can become an apologetic for sexual assault: not just for young men assaulting women, but also young men being assaulted. If men are these hypersexual people, they’re expected to say yes to every opportunity that crosses their path; young men may feel pressured to engage in sexual activities they otherwise wouldn’t care to participate in. Young men need to be able to say no to sex just as much as women, and constantly bringing up that young men are supposedly hypersexed puts pressure on young men to say yes when they don’t want to.
In my mind, the problem with sexually objectifying language isn’t so much that the person who is being sexually objectified is doing anything wrong (whether they’re fully-clothed or bare naked), but that the person who is directly the sexually objectifying language at them is attempting to force their morality on another person. Calling a woman a “bitch” or “slut” is a way to police her actions; being insulted is a negative experience, and one that you don’t want to happen to you again. I think instead of just telling young people that you shouldn’t call women or men these terms, you get them to think about why they’re passing judgement on others, and why they’re trying to police the actions of others.
I also think there’s too much emphasis in conversations about how men talk about women on how sexual men are. Being a sexual being doesn’t mean that you lose all respect for the target of your attraction. Additionally, I think if we hold to the idea that young men are somehow unable to control or learn to deal with their sexual urges, we’re doing a huge disservice to young men twofold--one, young men are expected to be supersexual beings, and those who don’t feel they meet these expectations are surely going to suffer psychologically; and two, it can become an apologetic for sexual assault: not just for young men assaulting women, but also young men being assaulted. If men are these hypersexual people, they’re expected to say yes to every opportunity that crosses their path; young men may feel pressured to engage in sexual activities they otherwise wouldn’t care to participate in. Young men need to be able to say no to sex just as much as women, and constantly bringing up that young men are supposedly hypersexed puts pressure on young men to say yes when they don’t want to.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Sexist Language & Communication, Pt 1
Note: My instructor's question:
No, I don't know why they included the bit about the Declaration of Independence. Not sure I want to know.
I do think that using sexualized insults is sexist and demeaning. My own observations of how people use sexualized and gendered language match with the research mentioned in the text. More often than not, people use insults which refer to female genitalia, or are words that are feminine or refer to women; when you use such language to insult someone, you’re implying that being a woman is to be lesser. Telling someone that they “throw like a girl” implies that women are less capable as human beings. It also implies that being feminine is something to be ashamed of. There’s a similar implication in heterosexist insults--insults which tend to call into question the gender or sexual orientation of a person, typically used against men and boys who aren’t “being manly enough”. The worst thing a male person can be is feminine, because there is an association in most people’s minds between being feminine and being weak.
There is a similar trend in using masculine insults against women, though it doesn’t seem as common as using feminine insults. When a woman steps outside of feminine stereotypes, she runs the risk of being shamed for being overly masculine--”butch” and “dyke” are two heterosexist insults that are used against women who don’t conform to feminine stereotypes. The implication seems to be that any woman who is assertive or not feminine enough is wrong in some way; a woman who isn’t “womanly” enough is accused of being homosexual in the same way that a man who isn’t “manly” enough is accused of being female or gay. This type of language--both sexist and heterosexist--seems to me to be an attempt to police the actions and behaviors of people who deviate from the “norm.” Using gendered insults often seems like an attempt to uphold gender stereotypes. Using gendered insults is a way to shame the person you’re insulting into conforming to the ideas of “proper” gender behavior that you have. Calling a woman a “bitch” means that that woman has stepped out of line with “appropriate” feminine behavior. Calling a man a “fag” means that that man has deviated wildly from what is “correct” masculine behavior. Stereotypes, by definition, strip the individuality from people, and dehumanize them. Attempting to shame people into more closely following gender stereotypes seems counter to any kind of communication, let alone communication between the genders.
“Anthropologist Michael Moffat (1989) studied university dormitory residents’ use of language and found that 1/3 of the young men in the study, in conversations with other men, consistently referred to women as “chicks, broads, and sluts,” reflecting what Moffat termed a “locker-room style” of communication about women. More recently, Hopper (2003) analyzed the speech patterns of dozens of men as they commented on women; he concluded that the degree of “objectification” and references to body parts was absolutely startling.
Now, we know that BOTH men and women are capable of using sexually demeaning terminology.
In fact, Hopper determined that WOMEN call or refer to other WOMEN in sexually “objectifying” terms, but primarily use terms that imply sexual promiscuity (e.g., slut, ho, easy). However, Hopper in his research noted that both sexes RARELY talked about men in sexually degrading terms.” (Course Text: GenderSpeak, p. 161)
- Share your thoughts on whether you agree or disagree explaining that conceiving of and communicating about a person in ONLY sexual terms is demeaning and sexist language and communication.
- What are your thoughts observations, and insights regarding sexist language and communication?
- What are possible ways of eliminating demeaning and degrading sexist language in our gender communication?
- The Constitution of the United States essentially declares (meaning and interpretation for the early 21st century) that men and women are created equal and endowed (“by their Creator”) with certain inalienable rights? (based on the Declaration of Independence, July 4,1776). How does the concept of gender equality impact gender communication?
No, I don't know why they included the bit about the Declaration of Independence. Not sure I want to know.
I do think that using sexualized insults is sexist and demeaning. My own observations of how people use sexualized and gendered language match with the research mentioned in the text. More often than not, people use insults which refer to female genitalia, or are words that are feminine or refer to women; when you use such language to insult someone, you’re implying that being a woman is to be lesser. Telling someone that they “throw like a girl” implies that women are less capable as human beings. It also implies that being feminine is something to be ashamed of. There’s a similar implication in heterosexist insults--insults which tend to call into question the gender or sexual orientation of a person, typically used against men and boys who aren’t “being manly enough”. The worst thing a male person can be is feminine, because there is an association in most people’s minds between being feminine and being weak.
There is a similar trend in using masculine insults against women, though it doesn’t seem as common as using feminine insults. When a woman steps outside of feminine stereotypes, she runs the risk of being shamed for being overly masculine--”butch” and “dyke” are two heterosexist insults that are used against women who don’t conform to feminine stereotypes. The implication seems to be that any woman who is assertive or not feminine enough is wrong in some way; a woman who isn’t “womanly” enough is accused of being homosexual in the same way that a man who isn’t “manly” enough is accused of being female or gay. This type of language--both sexist and heterosexist--seems to me to be an attempt to police the actions and behaviors of people who deviate from the “norm.” Using gendered insults often seems like an attempt to uphold gender stereotypes. Using gendered insults is a way to shame the person you’re insulting into conforming to the ideas of “proper” gender behavior that you have. Calling a woman a “bitch” means that that woman has stepped out of line with “appropriate” feminine behavior. Calling a man a “fag” means that that man has deviated wildly from what is “correct” masculine behavior. Stereotypes, by definition, strip the individuality from people, and dehumanize them. Attempting to shame people into more closely following gender stereotypes seems counter to any kind of communication, let alone communication between the genders.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
"How Machiavelli Saved My Family" Pt 2
Note: This is a response to another student's response to the "How Machiavelli Saved My Family." I've redacted that student's name from this text, but left everything else alone.
[Student] brings up an excellent point with regards to Evans’ methods in her quest to make her household what she wanted it to be. [Student] mentions that Evans “was manipulative”, and that is absolutely correct. I think, too, that’s what bothers me about her story. I understand that she’s at her wit’s end, trying to manage a household seemingly on her home (as [Student]also points out, where’s the husband in all of this?), and that her children don’t seem to be interested in her ideas regarding of how they should be raised. What bothers me, I think, is the idea that what matters most are the results (in this case, children ‘not running wild’, or rather that the children conform to Evans’ ideal of how children should be successfully raised). Her emphasis is clearly on the end game, and so she doesn’t seem to be concerned with whether the methods she uses are ethically ambiguous.
There are certainly pervasive stereotypes about how manipulative women are in order to gain what they want, and this story feeds right into those stereotypes. “Can’t get what you want?” it seems to say. “Well, don’t worry, you can manipulate your loved ones in order to get the life that you want.” To me, this is distasteful. I can’t abide the idea that I would ever put my own desires above those of the people I love to the point where I would coerce them into doing what I want them to do. Do I want things from people that I can’t get just by asking? Of course--my desires often conflict with the desires of others. It’s a side effect of being a social animal in social situations. Sometimes you need to reevaluate your desires, and realize you’re just not going to get what you want.
I can’t speak to what Evans desires, but the feeling I got from her article was that she had a specific vision of what a successful family was, and her family wasn’t meeting that expectation. Instead of reevaluating her desires, she decided that she would keep aiming for her goal, and would achieve her desires (seemingly) regardless of the methods used. Now, it is fair to point out that her methods don’t seem overly harmful in the physical sense. She wasn’t beating her children, and the “hand them the only money they’re allowed to spend” bit does strike me as genius (more because it gave her children a concrete idea of what money is, rather than keeping it this abstract thing that their parents used to buy stuff). The two out-right manipulations she used--pitting the brother and sister against each other, and coercing her husband into getting a vasectomy--left a bad taste in my mouth. She doesn’t seem overly concerned with why her son might have been doing poorly in school, only that he was doing poorly in school. Her focus on the results, rather than on how she gets them, strikes me as morally ambiguous at best.
[Student] brings up an excellent point with regards to Evans’ methods in her quest to make her household what she wanted it to be. [Student] mentions that Evans “was manipulative”, and that is absolutely correct. I think, too, that’s what bothers me about her story. I understand that she’s at her wit’s end, trying to manage a household seemingly on her home (as [Student]also points out, where’s the husband in all of this?), and that her children don’t seem to be interested in her ideas regarding of how they should be raised. What bothers me, I think, is the idea that what matters most are the results (in this case, children ‘not running wild’, or rather that the children conform to Evans’ ideal of how children should be successfully raised). Her emphasis is clearly on the end game, and so she doesn’t seem to be concerned with whether the methods she uses are ethically ambiguous.
There are certainly pervasive stereotypes about how manipulative women are in order to gain what they want, and this story feeds right into those stereotypes. “Can’t get what you want?” it seems to say. “Well, don’t worry, you can manipulate your loved ones in order to get the life that you want.” To me, this is distasteful. I can’t abide the idea that I would ever put my own desires above those of the people I love to the point where I would coerce them into doing what I want them to do. Do I want things from people that I can’t get just by asking? Of course--my desires often conflict with the desires of others. It’s a side effect of being a social animal in social situations. Sometimes you need to reevaluate your desires, and realize you’re just not going to get what you want.
I can’t speak to what Evans desires, but the feeling I got from her article was that she had a specific vision of what a successful family was, and her family wasn’t meeting that expectation. Instead of reevaluating her desires, she decided that she would keep aiming for her goal, and would achieve her desires (seemingly) regardless of the methods used. Now, it is fair to point out that her methods don’t seem overly harmful in the physical sense. She wasn’t beating her children, and the “hand them the only money they’re allowed to spend” bit does strike me as genius (more because it gave her children a concrete idea of what money is, rather than keeping it this abstract thing that their parents used to buy stuff). The two out-right manipulations she used--pitting the brother and sister against each other, and coercing her husband into getting a vasectomy--left a bad taste in my mouth. She doesn’t seem overly concerned with why her son might have been doing poorly in school, only that he was doing poorly in school. Her focus on the results, rather than on how she gets them, strikes me as morally ambiguous at best.
Friday, April 4, 2014
“How Machiavelli Saved My Family” Pt 1
Note: This is in response to an article from the Wall Street Journal with the same title. Again, not linking, I am merciful. A Google search should pull up the article fairly quickly, though.
The traditional view of mothers have them as the gentler, more nurturing parent. The idea of motherhood involves bonding, caring, and nurturing. That the author of this piece turned to Machiavelli for parenting advice seems to subvert that. Mothers aren’t often viewed as the dominant parent, even though they are expected to take on domestic roles. At the heart of it, managing people is all about politics, so it makes sense that the most infamous political work would help a mom successfully run her household. Additionally, the stereotypical woman doesn’t scheme or plot, though certain sub-stereotypes of women do manipulate. Manipulation seems to be favored in men, but seen as a huge negative quality in a woman.
If Suzanne Evans’ home follows the nuclear family model, the wife would be the caretaker and the husband would be the provider. What roles are assumed or shared by each parent isn’t explicitly stated, but it seemed like Evans took on most of the caretaking roles herself; how her husband helped her, or which caretaking roles he assumed, aren’t mentioned in the article, which I find to be a glaring omission. In addition, how he wanted another child (as mentioned at the end of the article) makes me wonder if he had fully experienced or understood the frustration and difficulties his wife describes in attempting to raise the four children they already had. This strikes me as a concern that Evans handles well enough, at least so far as she described it (being such a personal matter, I wouldn’t expect transcripts of the conversations she likely had with her husband regarding the vasectomy).
I thought it was particularly interesting that she played her children off of each other--maneuvered them into competing with each other. It bothered me slightly when she wrote, “On the other front, Daniel, whose report card wasn't so stellar, got nothing, other than the shame of losing the competition—to his younger sister no less, as I reminded him.” There’s a connotation of “haha, you’re a boy who lost to a girl” in how this is written, and I’m not totally comfortable with the idea of shaming a boy who’s lost to a girl; I don’t think that was the author’s intent, but I think framing the competition as “boys v. girls” heads in a dangerous direction. I don’t think there’s anything particularly shameful about losing, and don’t believe that shame is a useful tool for correcting behavior. Gendering the competition between siblings doesn’t seem particularly helpful, either.
Overall, I do think Evans’ had the right idea in turning to a political strategy book in order to manage her home. Often, I think parents (mothers especially) are expected to magically come into knowledge about how to successfully raise children as soon as the child is born. There are certainly a great many self-help books devoted to helping parents raise their children, but Evans certainly gets credit in my mind for turning to a slightly more unconventional source for parenting inspiration.
The traditional view of mothers have them as the gentler, more nurturing parent. The idea of motherhood involves bonding, caring, and nurturing. That the author of this piece turned to Machiavelli for parenting advice seems to subvert that. Mothers aren’t often viewed as the dominant parent, even though they are expected to take on domestic roles. At the heart of it, managing people is all about politics, so it makes sense that the most infamous political work would help a mom successfully run her household. Additionally, the stereotypical woman doesn’t scheme or plot, though certain sub-stereotypes of women do manipulate. Manipulation seems to be favored in men, but seen as a huge negative quality in a woman.
If Suzanne Evans’ home follows the nuclear family model, the wife would be the caretaker and the husband would be the provider. What roles are assumed or shared by each parent isn’t explicitly stated, but it seemed like Evans took on most of the caretaking roles herself; how her husband helped her, or which caretaking roles he assumed, aren’t mentioned in the article, which I find to be a glaring omission. In addition, how he wanted another child (as mentioned at the end of the article) makes me wonder if he had fully experienced or understood the frustration and difficulties his wife describes in attempting to raise the four children they already had. This strikes me as a concern that Evans handles well enough, at least so far as she described it (being such a personal matter, I wouldn’t expect transcripts of the conversations she likely had with her husband regarding the vasectomy).
I thought it was particularly interesting that she played her children off of each other--maneuvered them into competing with each other. It bothered me slightly when she wrote, “On the other front, Daniel, whose report card wasn't so stellar, got nothing, other than the shame of losing the competition—to his younger sister no less, as I reminded him.” There’s a connotation of “haha, you’re a boy who lost to a girl” in how this is written, and I’m not totally comfortable with the idea of shaming a boy who’s lost to a girl; I don’t think that was the author’s intent, but I think framing the competition as “boys v. girls” heads in a dangerous direction. I don’t think there’s anything particularly shameful about losing, and don’t believe that shame is a useful tool for correcting behavior. Gendering the competition between siblings doesn’t seem particularly helpful, either.
Overall, I do think Evans’ had the right idea in turning to a political strategy book in order to manage her home. Often, I think parents (mothers especially) are expected to magically come into knowledge about how to successfully raise children as soon as the child is born. There are certainly a great many self-help books devoted to helping parents raise their children, but Evans certainly gets credit in my mind for turning to a slightly more unconventional source for parenting inspiration.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Do women procrastinate more than men OR do men procrastinate more than women?
Note: This was a response to a video we were required to watch for my gender communications class. I will not link to the video, because I am merciful.
I think that the author of Eat That Frog might come to the conclusion that women procrastinate more than men simply because there aren’t more women who focus exclusively on their careers. He seems to think that if one isn’t focused on one’s career, one is failing at life; and not succeeding in your career (success being defined in a very specific way) means that one has been procrastinating. He completely disregards how outside factors have an impact on a person’s life, and I think that this is a huge failing of his advice. Yes, planning is important to completion of goals, but one can’t plan for everything. Your plans needs to be flexible, because you can’t control everything. If your plans aren’t flexible enough, you will fail regardless of how much planning you’ve done. The biggest sticking point for me regarding the author’s viewpoint that one’s career should have greater priority than personal interests (as implied in the section on “ABCDE planning”) is that there is actual research showing that having a balance between your working life and your personal life is a much healthier goal than focusing exclusively on either aspect of your life. This is true for everyone, regardless of gender.
There seems to be an unstated premise throughout the entire audio of “Eat That Frog” that discipline is something which comes as naturally to everyone as breathing; and that the same level of discipline in two different individuals will lead to the same results. This puts, in my opinion, too much blame for failure’ on the individual who is attempting to achieve a goal. One should obviously take responsibility for one’s actions and goals, but one should also be aware of the things which are out of your control. It comes down to knowing your limits, and accepting that sometimes you aren’t going succeed--not because you didn’t plan well enough, not because you didn’t prioritize correctly, not because you’re a failure, but because somethings bad things happen. The idea that the only factors which matter to a person’s success are whether or not that person is capable of “long term thinking” is, in my opinion, a frankly privileged opinion which ignores the realities of living in a world where there are very real and measurable biases against people who are perceived as “other” or “inferior”. The author is implying that we live in a society in which everyone is granted equal opportunity, that the playing field is level, and that’s verifiably untrue.
The general idea of having goals and working towards those goals is certainly a sound idea, and really rather common sense. If the author had focused on exploring techniques to improving your goal setting, and had spent some time exploring research on how to best work towards your goals, I think his insights would have carried more weight. As it stands, I’m expected to take the advice of someone who’s only credentials are “This is what worked for me.” While I’m sure these methods did work for him, and would work for others who are like him, one-size-fits-all tips don’t sit well with me. The world is messy and complicated, and alliterative mnemonics and “7 Simple Steps” don’t address or acknowledge how messy and complicated life can be.
I think that the author of Eat That Frog might come to the conclusion that women procrastinate more than men simply because there aren’t more women who focus exclusively on their careers. He seems to think that if one isn’t focused on one’s career, one is failing at life; and not succeeding in your career (success being defined in a very specific way) means that one has been procrastinating. He completely disregards how outside factors have an impact on a person’s life, and I think that this is a huge failing of his advice. Yes, planning is important to completion of goals, but one can’t plan for everything. Your plans needs to be flexible, because you can’t control everything. If your plans aren’t flexible enough, you will fail regardless of how much planning you’ve done. The biggest sticking point for me regarding the author’s viewpoint that one’s career should have greater priority than personal interests (as implied in the section on “ABCDE planning”) is that there is actual research showing that having a balance between your working life and your personal life is a much healthier goal than focusing exclusively on either aspect of your life. This is true for everyone, regardless of gender.
There seems to be an unstated premise throughout the entire audio of “Eat That Frog” that discipline is something which comes as naturally to everyone as breathing; and that the same level of discipline in two different individuals will lead to the same results. This puts, in my opinion, too much blame for failure’ on the individual who is attempting to achieve a goal. One should obviously take responsibility for one’s actions and goals, but one should also be aware of the things which are out of your control. It comes down to knowing your limits, and accepting that sometimes you aren’t going succeed--not because you didn’t plan well enough, not because you didn’t prioritize correctly, not because you’re a failure, but because somethings bad things happen. The idea that the only factors which matter to a person’s success are whether or not that person is capable of “long term thinking” is, in my opinion, a frankly privileged opinion which ignores the realities of living in a world where there are very real and measurable biases against people who are perceived as “other” or “inferior”. The author is implying that we live in a society in which everyone is granted equal opportunity, that the playing field is level, and that’s verifiably untrue.
The general idea of having goals and working towards those goals is certainly a sound idea, and really rather common sense. If the author had focused on exploring techniques to improving your goal setting, and had spent some time exploring research on how to best work towards your goals, I think his insights would have carried more weight. As it stands, I’m expected to take the advice of someone who’s only credentials are “This is what worked for me.” While I’m sure these methods did work for him, and would work for others who are like him, one-size-fits-all tips don’t sit well with me. The world is messy and complicated, and alliterative mnemonics and “7 Simple Steps” don’t address or acknowledge how messy and complicated life can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)