Week 3: Post 2

Deborah Tannen is one of my favorite authors and linguists who have supported the position that women and me DO use language differently: https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/

I am fascinated with her critical analysis of how “everyday conversation affects relationships”; and how her scholarship intentionally considers how the “way we talk” as gendered beings correlates with access. For example, in her book _You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation_ (1990), Tannen offered this comparison of women and men’s speaking styles:

WOMEN

Women talk too much

Private/Small

Build relations

English language spoken

Overlap

Symmetry

MEN

Men get more air time

Public

Negotiate status/Avoid failure

English language written

One at a time

Asymmetry

Similar to the harm judgments and stereotypes can impose on someone before we know them, socially constructed gender scripts obscure authentic interactions and communication messages between women and men (and individuals who exist along the gender spectrum). Because of the power dynamics created between dominant and subordinated groups, I believe the difference in usage of language by women and men can promote sexism and sexist language; where, as Tannen found, can diminish the female presence and oppress women. I believe the experience of women living in the double-standard is very real. I have been “coached” by my supervisor to navigate this labyrinth where if I am not assertive “enough” I am meek; however, if I am “too” assertive I can be labeled “unapproachable” and, often, “bitchy” or arrogant. As a woman in higher education, I continue to navigate this puzzle. Because of this and my commitment to advising student organizations while wearing my social justice glasses, I have explored the practice of shifting my language to be more gender-neutral/inclusive (e.g., “man” the desk = “staff” the desk; how you “guys” doing today? = how are “you” doing today, “Staci”? /how are “you”?).