Blog Post #1

Reasons for choosing this clip: I chose this clip because the concept of it, a woman using her feminine wiles to persuade a man, is familiar. We all probably have experienced some variation of that concept to a certain extent, whether we were in the woman’s shoes or the man’s shoes, so it should be easy to identify with.

Response: While this video clip shows us the usual ways of communication that men and women are associated with, it also calls into question an observation that Tannen has made in “Can’t We Talk?”

Debra was being deliberately coy in her attempt to dissuade Raymond. This is an indirect approach, and to add to it, not once did she voice out her desire for Raymond not to go golfing. According to Tannen, men dislike being manipulated by indirect approaches. In this video however, Raymond clearly recognizes Debra’s indirect approach, clearly knows that he is being manipulated, but contrary to Tannen’s observations, Raymond likes it. This is because Raymond is enjoying himself during Debra’s indirect approach, which made me realize that in communicating with men, indirect approaches can be effective as well despite the general statement that men prefer direct approaches.

This in turn made me wonder: “Would a direct approach have worked better in this scenario?” After some consideration, I would say probably not. If Debra had asked Raymond directly not to go, he would probably turn her request down on the spot because he had already set his mind upon going. However by using this indirect approach, not only is Debra giving him incentive to stay, she is also giving him time to weigh the respective benefits of staying or not staying and reconsider his final position on the matter. Herein lie the key differences between the two approaches, which in my opinion ultimately determine the success of one and the potential failure of the other. 

Response to "Can't We Talk?" by Deborah Tannen

As an article written for the purpose of educating a general audience about the common causes of miscommunication between the opposite sexes, I think that Tannen has done an adequate job. She attributes it partially to the “different conversational rules by which men and women play” and breaks them down into 6 different categories. On their own, each category is clearly expressed and comprehension is facilitated by the everyday examples which Tannen has included. Put together however, I found the number of categories and respective names a little too overwhelming to digest within the span of 5 pages.

Of the 6 categories that Tannen has identified, I feel that 3 of them in particular, namely “Status vs. Support”, “Independence vs. Intimacy” and “Orders vs. Proposals” can instead be grouped together under another category called “Man’s Desire for Superiority”. In “Status vs. Support”, it has already been explained that it is a case of perceived superiority between the author’s personal marriage and other people’s marriages, so I have merely renamed the category and not added anything new. In “Independence vs. Intimacy”, it is a case of male superiority between friends, as the miscommunication stems from a desire to not appear as a henpecked husband who has to seek permission from his wife, and ultimately being mocked by his friends. As for “Orders vs. Proposals”, since Nathan had already interpreted Diana’s “Let’s” as a command, if he had followed through with her suggestion, he would be subtly acceding to her “authority”, which conflicts with his desire for superiority thus causing him to get angry and resulting in miscommunication. By putting these 3 categories under 1 broad category, I personally feel that it is much easier for me to remember.

On another note, I am also curious about the reasons behind the desire for superiority that is more commonly exhibited in men rather than women in general. As the summary for WP2201C stated, “are men and women different by nature or are gender roles socially constructed?” Perhaps nature plays a role, manifesting in a subconscious, deep-seated insecurity that spurs men to prove themselves (which is the only reason I can think of to explain the author’s husband’s reaction in “Status vs. Support”).  It might also be social norms which dictate that the man calls the shots within the family, which explains the conflict in “Independence vs. Intimacy” and “Orders vs. Proposals”. 

At the same time, there seem to be some hints of bias against men in this article, which is perhaps inevitable as it is written by a woman. While lines like “He doesn’t feel that talk is required at home,” convey the exact sentiment of the man at that moment in time accurately, they nevertheless contain a subtle tone of resentment and reproach behind them. As it is quite impossible to achieve an absolutely objective piece of writing on this topic, I do look forward to reading other readings penned by the opposite sex so to gain a male’s perspective on this issue.

Test Post

test post