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.
Monday, April 7, 2014
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.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Gender Stereotypes in Children's Literature
The purpose of this essay is to examine how media directed at children, such as fairytales, television, and books impacted my gender identity and how I communicate with my own gender and other genders. The influence the media has on a developing child can be hard to tease out, but it is my hope to better understand how I formed my identity by examining the media that I was exposed to at a young age, and noting the gender stereotypes I was exposed to via that media.
My favorite movie growing up was Disney’s The Little Mermaid. I’ve known for a while how problematic that movie is from a gender perspective. There’s the overarching message that it’s perfectly acceptable to abandon everything and everyone you know for someone you haven’t even met properly--a theme that isn’t unique to The Little Mermaid, unfortunately. I feel like this theme reflects a tendency in our society to over-emphasize the importance of finding The One. That isn’t to say that I think that having a partner isn’t important, but that they narrative of finding your one, true soulmate is a common trope that many teenagers have to navigate when they first begin dating. I started dating later in life, but I still find myself falling into the trap of looking for someone who is “perfect” for me, as though complete compatibility is something that you can discovery within moments of meeting a person. I think it’s disingenuous to sell the idea that a 16 year old is capable of knowing that the person she’s interested in right that moment is going to be the person that she’s interested in when she’s 36.
The Little Mermaid also contains the message that love is something that just kind of happens to you, that it isn’t something that you build through interaction with someone you’re interested in--again, not unique to The Little Mermaid, and probably one of the most damaging messages I know of in media for both children and adults. Having grown up exposed to multiple instances of “love at first sight is the most true love”, I can’t know fully how many opportunities I’ve missed in having a fulfilling relationship with someone just because I didn’t experience that initial attraction. It certainly seems to make navigating personal relationships more difficult, because if you rely too heavily on the expectation that your initial impression of someone (whether or not you feel that first “spark”), you overlook the just as important attraction which develops over time. There seem to be a dearth of media for young people about what to do when you find yourself attracted to someone you’ve been friends with for years, that doesn’t end with the friendship turning into a romantic relationship. If you were to base your expectations of how pursuing a relationship with a close friend solely on movies based on this theme, you would expect nearly one-hundred percent success. This is entirely unrealistic, but it’s certainly something that I had to unlearn.
The Little Mermaid also features the princess who can’t get out of trouble without a prince to come and rescue her. Another problematic idea is how Ariel gives up is her voice--a symbolic gesture of Ariel’s general willingness to give up everything that is dear to her in order to find “true love”. The idea that Eric falls for a woman who can’t speak at all (though she does communicate admirably with gestures and facial expressions) is troubling to me, because it seems like the idea is that a woman who doesn’t have opinions (who is literally without a voice) is the perfect woman. I’m not sure that this was the intended message of the movie, and given how wrong Ariel’s plan goes initially the case can be made that these themes aren’t that problematic.
While it might be easy to overlook the impact of literature and movies aimed at children, I think the above themes tend to reinforce messages that young women get throughout their life; I certainly was exposed to unrealistic ideas about love and romance from the movies, books, and television that I watched as a child. The persistence of heteronormative romantic themes in children’s literature and media was particularly problematic to my development, given that I’m gay. I wasn’t exposed to any narrative but “boy meets girl” growing up, and so felt that I had to conform to this narrative in order to be “normal”. I don’t think that compulsory heterosexuality is the caused by the media, but it is reinforced by the media. Given the number of romance-centric movies which exist and are catering specifically to children, I can’t ignore the idea that these narratives were probably a large part of why I was in the closet for so long. Being exposed to so many stories where the female protagonist wants to marry the male protagonist informed my ideas about what “normal” relationships looked like, and they looked like monogamous, heterosexual relationships.
Aside from all of the bad romantic advice I absorbed as a child, there is the tendency for women to be the passive subject in fairytale-style stories. Sticking with Disney movies for the moment, the majority of Disney princesses, especially the ones from the earliest Disney movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), aren’t really active participants in their own lives. Things happen to them, they don’t act in their own interest. I’m sure that these ideas have influenced the choices that I’ve made with regard to important life choices. The idea that good things will happen to you if you just wait for them and let them happen is a seductive one; Sleeping Beauty didn’t have to find the solution to her curse, someone else was able to do all of the dirty work for her, and she was able to wake up to a castle full of people waiting to cater to her needs.
While I’m not entirely convinced that there is a direct causal connection between the media that is consumed by children and the persistence of harmful gender stereotypes and bad patterns of communication in society, these narratives certainly reflect and serve to reinforce the status quo. When a child finds a book, movie, or television show that they like, they become immersed in that piece of media; if that work contains troubling messages about “appropriate” gender roles (such as the passivity of women, or the stoicism of men) or reinforces harmful ideas about how men and women should communicate (women shouldn’t be concerned about talking to men they’re interested in, and men shouldn’t care about what the women they’re interested in have to say), a child is likely to incorporate those views into how they think about the world. The realm of imagination is often very real to children, and if their favorite characters are acting in a certain way, they’ll want to emulate these actions. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to scrub all troubling media from the world, there at least needs to be conversations with children about the media they’re consuming.
Overall, I would say that my experiences with fairytales and children’s media was a net negative. I still have fond memories of many of my favorite books and movies from my childhood, but wish they had included better role models and contained better representations of diversity. At the very least, I wish they relied less heavily on gender stereotypes, though that feels like setting the bar too low. I don’t fault the media I was exposed to for any issues I’ve had communicating with various genders, though it certainly could have done a better job of preparing me for what to expect.
My favorite movie growing up was Disney’s The Little Mermaid. I’ve known for a while how problematic that movie is from a gender perspective. There’s the overarching message that it’s perfectly acceptable to abandon everything and everyone you know for someone you haven’t even met properly--a theme that isn’t unique to The Little Mermaid, unfortunately. I feel like this theme reflects a tendency in our society to over-emphasize the importance of finding The One. That isn’t to say that I think that having a partner isn’t important, but that they narrative of finding your one, true soulmate is a common trope that many teenagers have to navigate when they first begin dating. I started dating later in life, but I still find myself falling into the trap of looking for someone who is “perfect” for me, as though complete compatibility is something that you can discovery within moments of meeting a person. I think it’s disingenuous to sell the idea that a 16 year old is capable of knowing that the person she’s interested in right that moment is going to be the person that she’s interested in when she’s 36.
The Little Mermaid also contains the message that love is something that just kind of happens to you, that it isn’t something that you build through interaction with someone you’re interested in--again, not unique to The Little Mermaid, and probably one of the most damaging messages I know of in media for both children and adults. Having grown up exposed to multiple instances of “love at first sight is the most true love”, I can’t know fully how many opportunities I’ve missed in having a fulfilling relationship with someone just because I didn’t experience that initial attraction. It certainly seems to make navigating personal relationships more difficult, because if you rely too heavily on the expectation that your initial impression of someone (whether or not you feel that first “spark”), you overlook the just as important attraction which develops over time. There seem to be a dearth of media for young people about what to do when you find yourself attracted to someone you’ve been friends with for years, that doesn’t end with the friendship turning into a romantic relationship. If you were to base your expectations of how pursuing a relationship with a close friend solely on movies based on this theme, you would expect nearly one-hundred percent success. This is entirely unrealistic, but it’s certainly something that I had to unlearn.
The Little Mermaid also features the princess who can’t get out of trouble without a prince to come and rescue her. Another problematic idea is how Ariel gives up is her voice--a symbolic gesture of Ariel’s general willingness to give up everything that is dear to her in order to find “true love”. The idea that Eric falls for a woman who can’t speak at all (though she does communicate admirably with gestures and facial expressions) is troubling to me, because it seems like the idea is that a woman who doesn’t have opinions (who is literally without a voice) is the perfect woman. I’m not sure that this was the intended message of the movie, and given how wrong Ariel’s plan goes initially the case can be made that these themes aren’t that problematic.
While it might be easy to overlook the impact of literature and movies aimed at children, I think the above themes tend to reinforce messages that young women get throughout their life; I certainly was exposed to unrealistic ideas about love and romance from the movies, books, and television that I watched as a child. The persistence of heteronormative romantic themes in children’s literature and media was particularly problematic to my development, given that I’m gay. I wasn’t exposed to any narrative but “boy meets girl” growing up, and so felt that I had to conform to this narrative in order to be “normal”. I don’t think that compulsory heterosexuality is the caused by the media, but it is reinforced by the media. Given the number of romance-centric movies which exist and are catering specifically to children, I can’t ignore the idea that these narratives were probably a large part of why I was in the closet for so long. Being exposed to so many stories where the female protagonist wants to marry the male protagonist informed my ideas about what “normal” relationships looked like, and they looked like monogamous, heterosexual relationships.
Aside from all of the bad romantic advice I absorbed as a child, there is the tendency for women to be the passive subject in fairytale-style stories. Sticking with Disney movies for the moment, the majority of Disney princesses, especially the ones from the earliest Disney movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), aren’t really active participants in their own lives. Things happen to them, they don’t act in their own interest. I’m sure that these ideas have influenced the choices that I’ve made with regard to important life choices. The idea that good things will happen to you if you just wait for them and let them happen is a seductive one; Sleeping Beauty didn’t have to find the solution to her curse, someone else was able to do all of the dirty work for her, and she was able to wake up to a castle full of people waiting to cater to her needs.
While I’m not entirely convinced that there is a direct causal connection between the media that is consumed by children and the persistence of harmful gender stereotypes and bad patterns of communication in society, these narratives certainly reflect and serve to reinforce the status quo. When a child finds a book, movie, or television show that they like, they become immersed in that piece of media; if that work contains troubling messages about “appropriate” gender roles (such as the passivity of women, or the stoicism of men) or reinforces harmful ideas about how men and women should communicate (women shouldn’t be concerned about talking to men they’re interested in, and men shouldn’t care about what the women they’re interested in have to say), a child is likely to incorporate those views into how they think about the world. The realm of imagination is often very real to children, and if their favorite characters are acting in a certain way, they’ll want to emulate these actions. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to scrub all troubling media from the world, there at least needs to be conversations with children about the media they’re consuming.
Overall, I would say that my experiences with fairytales and children’s media was a net negative. I still have fond memories of many of my favorite books and movies from my childhood, but wish they had included better role models and contained better representations of diversity. At the very least, I wish they relied less heavily on gender stereotypes, though that feels like setting the bar too low. I don’t fault the media I was exposed to for any issues I’ve had communicating with various genders, though it certainly could have done a better job of preparing me for what to expect.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Feminine and Masculine Communication and Management Styles
There many ways people communicate in the workplace. How one co-worker communicates with another co-worker depends on different factors, such as age, level of education, gender, and position in the company. In this essay, the focus will be on how gender influences communication--how one gender communicates with another gender, as well as how gender influences choice of communication style. Gender influences not only how one communicates, but also how others choose to communicate with you. Because of this, it is important to understand how communicated can be gendered. This essay will look at management styles as well as feminine and masculine communication styles.
There are three primary management styles used in the American workplace: the more traditional masculine style, the newer feminine style, and the blended androgynous style (Ivy 318-320). The masculine style of management features “attributes [such] as aggression, competitiveness, control, and individualism” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more direct in their communication, and tend to be less diplomatic. There is less emphasis on ‘playing well with others,’ and more emphasis on being the ‘leader of the pack.’ A manager who manages in this fashion will be more likely to reward the perceived best employee over the other employees under them.
The feminine style of management features “attributes [such] as flexibility, supportiveness, connectedness, and collaborative problem solving” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more diplomatic in their approach to their employees, being more interested in creating a positive work environment to creating a competitive environment. Feminine-styled managers encourage co-workers to work as a team, rather than in competition with each other. It isn’t that the individual is completely overlooked by a manager who prefers the feminine style of management, but rather the individual is judged more on their ability to work with others, not solely on their individual achievements.
The final style of management, androgynous, is a blended style of masculine and feminine. It “involves blending linear, systematic problem solving with intuitive approaches, balancing competition and collaboration, and dealing with power as well as emotion” (Ivy 320). The androgynous style of management utilizes the strengths of the masculine and feminine styles. The style doesn’t restrict managers in how they respond to different contexts in the workplace. A more masculine style of management is sometimes more effective than a feminine style, whereas a feminine style might work better in other situations. A manager who utilizes a more androgynous style of management will be more adroit at adapting to changes in the workplace, as they will have the tools to respond to a larger number of scenarios than either a primarily-masculine or primarily-feminine manager.
Masculine and feminine communication styles parallel their respective management styles in many ways. Masculine communicators tend to be more direct in their speech, more aggressive, and less emotion-focused; while feminine communicators tend towards facilitation, diplomacy, and are more focused on addressing emotions. In the workplace, this translates to occasional conflict between masculine communicators (who tend to be men) and feminine communicators (who tend to be women). When a masculine communicator addresses someone who is either more accustomed to feminine communication styles or who is expecting a feminine communication style, the conflict is a conflict of expectations--the communicator isn’t meeting the expectations of the receiver. An example of this sort of conflict would be if a masculine communicator in a managerial position gave critical feedback to an employee; in a situation like this, it’s possible for that the employee comes away feeling underappreciated, or frustrated with the manager’s communication style. If this pattern continued, the employee would likely experience a lag in work performance. On the other hand, if a manager overly favors a feminine style of communication, they may be missing opportunities to motivate the individuals which make up their team; people like to be recognized for their individual accomplishments, and focusing exclusively on a team may antagonize some employees. A balanced approach--based on context and experience--would seem like the best way to approach gendered communications.
In my own personal experience with gendered communication at work, I tend to prefer an androgynous style of communication--both for myself and for my employer. There are some scenarios which require a more direct approach, and there are scenarios which require a more empathetic approach. I have experience in primarily mixed-gendered environments, so I don’t know that I’ve had exposure to a singular masculine or feminine managerial style. I currently have a manager who is simultaneously direct and frank in his communications, but who is also quite empathetic and encourages teamwork as much as individual achievement. My immediate coworkers tend towards masculine communication styles (I work on a team which is composed primarily of men), and while there are sometimes issues regarding our ability to function as a team, our manager is able to keep our team on track. He’s able to balance the needs of the individual team members with the needs of the team and the department.
Works Cited:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender Communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.
There are three primary management styles used in the American workplace: the more traditional masculine style, the newer feminine style, and the blended androgynous style (Ivy 318-320). The masculine style of management features “attributes [such] as aggression, competitiveness, control, and individualism” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more direct in their communication, and tend to be less diplomatic. There is less emphasis on ‘playing well with others,’ and more emphasis on being the ‘leader of the pack.’ A manager who manages in this fashion will be more likely to reward the perceived best employee over the other employees under them.
The feminine style of management features “attributes [such] as flexibility, supportiveness, connectedness, and collaborative problem solving” (Ivy 318). Managers who use this style are more diplomatic in their approach to their employees, being more interested in creating a positive work environment to creating a competitive environment. Feminine-styled managers encourage co-workers to work as a team, rather than in competition with each other. It isn’t that the individual is completely overlooked by a manager who prefers the feminine style of management, but rather the individual is judged more on their ability to work with others, not solely on their individual achievements.
The final style of management, androgynous, is a blended style of masculine and feminine. It “involves blending linear, systematic problem solving with intuitive approaches, balancing competition and collaboration, and dealing with power as well as emotion” (Ivy 320). The androgynous style of management utilizes the strengths of the masculine and feminine styles. The style doesn’t restrict managers in how they respond to different contexts in the workplace. A more masculine style of management is sometimes more effective than a feminine style, whereas a feminine style might work better in other situations. A manager who utilizes a more androgynous style of management will be more adroit at adapting to changes in the workplace, as they will have the tools to respond to a larger number of scenarios than either a primarily-masculine or primarily-feminine manager.
Masculine and feminine communication styles parallel their respective management styles in many ways. Masculine communicators tend to be more direct in their speech, more aggressive, and less emotion-focused; while feminine communicators tend towards facilitation, diplomacy, and are more focused on addressing emotions. In the workplace, this translates to occasional conflict between masculine communicators (who tend to be men) and feminine communicators (who tend to be women). When a masculine communicator addresses someone who is either more accustomed to feminine communication styles or who is expecting a feminine communication style, the conflict is a conflict of expectations--the communicator isn’t meeting the expectations of the receiver. An example of this sort of conflict would be if a masculine communicator in a managerial position gave critical feedback to an employee; in a situation like this, it’s possible for that the employee comes away feeling underappreciated, or frustrated with the manager’s communication style. If this pattern continued, the employee would likely experience a lag in work performance. On the other hand, if a manager overly favors a feminine style of communication, they may be missing opportunities to motivate the individuals which make up their team; people like to be recognized for their individual accomplishments, and focusing exclusively on a team may antagonize some employees. A balanced approach--based on context and experience--would seem like the best way to approach gendered communications.
In my own personal experience with gendered communication at work, I tend to prefer an androgynous style of communication--both for myself and for my employer. There are some scenarios which require a more direct approach, and there are scenarios which require a more empathetic approach. I have experience in primarily mixed-gendered environments, so I don’t know that I’ve had exposure to a singular masculine or feminine managerial style. I currently have a manager who is simultaneously direct and frank in his communications, but who is also quite empathetic and encourages teamwork as much as individual achievement. My immediate coworkers tend towards masculine communication styles (I work on a team which is composed primarily of men), and while there are sometimes issues regarding our ability to function as a team, our manager is able to keep our team on track. He’s able to balance the needs of the individual team members with the needs of the team and the department.
Works Cited:
Ivy, Diana K. GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender Communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)