Yin & Yang-The one contained wholly in the other creating universal balance
Q: How does this symbol apply to men and women’s communication styles?
Some General Male/Female Differences
Some of the innate, largely biological differences between men and women seem to be:
High-Testosterone People
("Male brains") prefer:
Low-Testosterone People
("Female brains") prefer:
things
people
facts, reason, and logic
power / rank / status
feelings, senses, and meaning
relationships
competing / achieving
harmony / relating
winning
sharing
teams
groups
analyzing / figuring out
intuiting / "knowing"
assertion / aggression
co-operation, mutuality,
reports / information
intellectual understanding
sex (intercourse / orgasm)
companionship / doing
rapport / bonding
empathizing
love / intimacy / sensuality
closeness / being
teaching / leading
nurturing / growing
being focused / specific /
“logical"/efficient
order / rules / structure
thinking
how things work
being "wide-angle"
organic /wholistic
organic, fluid patterns
feeling / experiencing
personal and social impacts
Male & Female Communication Styles-Reading 2
The Feminine Technique:
Men attack problems. Maybe women understand that there's a better way.
by Deborah Tannen
The Los Angeles Times
March 15, 2005
Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, is the author of "The
Argument Culture" (Random House, 1998).
In asking why there aren't more female newspaper columnists, Maureen Dowd confessed that
six months into the job, she tried to quit because "I felt as though I were in a 'Godfather' movie,
shooting and getting shot at."
"Men enjoy verbal dueling," said Dowd, who is the only female Op-Ed columnist at the New
York Times. "As a woman," she explained, "I wanted to be liked -- not attacked."
Dowd put her finger on one reason fewer women than men are comfortable writing slash-andburn columns. But she didn't take her argument to the next level and question the fundamental
assumption that attack-dog journalism is the only kind worth writing.
That is the blind spot that explains why women are missing from many of the arenas of public
discourse, including science (as noted by Larry Summers of Harvard) and opinion writing. (The
Los Angeles Times was recently criticized for not running more women on its opinion pages.)
No one bothers to question the underlying notion that there is only one way to do science, to
write columns -- the way it's always been done, the men's way.
There is plenty of evidence that men more than women, boys more than girls, use opposition, or
fighting, as a format for accomplishing goals that are not literally about combat -- a practice that
cultural linguist Walter Ong called "agonism," from the Greek word for war, agon.
Watch kids of any age at play. Little boys set up wars and play-fights. Little girls fight, but not
for fun. Starting a fight is a common way for boys to make friends: One boy shoves another, who
shoves back, and pretty soon they're engaged in play. But when a boy tries to get into play with a
girl by shoving her, she's more likely to try to get away from him. A recent New Yorker cartoon
captured this: It showed a little girl and a little boy eyeing each other. She's thinking, "I wonder
if I should talk to him." He's thinking, "I wonder if I should kick her."
Older boys have their own version of agonism, using fighting as a format for doing things that
have nothing to do with actual combat: They show affection by mock-punching, getting a
friend's head in an armlock or playfully trading insults.
Here's an example that one of my students observed: Two boys and a girl are building structures
with blocks. When they're done, the boys start throwing blocks at each other's structures to
destroy them.
The girl protects hers with her body. The boys say they don't really want their own creations
destroyed, but the risk is worth it because it's fun to destroy the other's structures. The girl sees
nothing entertaining about destroying others' work.
Arguing ideas as a way to explore them is an adult version of these agonistic rituals. Because
they're used to this agonistic way of exploring ideas -- playing devil's advocate -- many men find
that their adrenaline gets going when someone challenges them, and it sharpens their minds:
They think more clearly and get better ideas. But those who are not used to this mode of
exploring ideas, including many women, react differently: They back off, feeling attacked, and
they don't do their best thinking under those circumstances.
This is one reason many women who are talented and passionate lovers of science drop out of
the profession. It's not that they're not fascinated by the science, don't have the talent to come up
with new ideas or are not willing to put long hours into the lab, but that they're put off by the
competitive, cutthroat culture of science.
The assumption that fighting is the only way to explore ideas is deeply rooted in Western
civilization. It can be found in the militaristic roots of the Christian church and in our educational
system, tracing back to all-male medieval universities where students learned by oral disputation.
Ong contrasts this with Chinese science and philosophy, which eschewed disputation and aimed
to "enlighten an inquirer," not to "overwhelm an opponent." As Chinese anthropologist Linda
Young showed, Chinese philosophy sees the universe in a precarious balance that must be
maintained, leading to methods of investigation that focus more on integrating ideas and
exploring relations among them rather than on opposing ideas and fighting over them.
Cultural training plays a big role too. Mediterranean, German, French and Israeli cultures
encourage dynamic verbal opposition for women as well as men. Japanese culture discourages it
for men as well as women. Perhaps that's why Japanese talk shows rarely include two guests
(they'll have one or three or more), to avoid the polarized debates that our talk shows favor.
This brings us to our political discourse and the assumption that it must be agonistic in method
and spirit. If we accept this false premise, then it is not surprising that fewer women than men
will be found who are comfortable writing political columns. But looking for women who can
write the same kind of columns that men write is a waste -- exactly the opposite of what should
be the benefits of diversity: introducing new and different ways of doing things.
In a book about female lawyers, Mona Harrington interviewed successful female attorneys who
said they were more successful when they were not being as aggressive and confrontational as
possible but instead listened, observed and better "read" opponents. In taking depositions, they
got better results by adopting a "quiet, sympathetic approach" (instead of grilling and attacking)
so that witnesses tended to forget that the attorney deposing them was their adversary. But,
Harrington noted, they couldn't tell this to potential clients, who assumed aggression was the
only way. Instead, they had to emphasize that they were seasoned veterans of large aggressive
firms who could slug it out with the best of them.
Of course a political columnist must be ready to expose wrongdoing, look critically at events
and public figures and be ready to offend if necessary. But attack-dog journalism is not the only
way to do this, and it probably is not the best way either.
As Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, has put it, we tend to
think that if you're not an attack dog, you're a lap dog, taking everything politicians say at face
value.
But the true role of journalism should be a third way: a watchdog. And a dog who is busy
attacking is not watching.
College Reading-Male and Female Communication Information
Spring Quarter 2014
Instructor: Richard Alishio
In order to better understand some of the fundamental differences between how men and women
communicate, it is useful to keep in mind some of the following words:
1. Status—men are far more likely to engage in status posturing than women are. Women
do it too, but not as much, not as openly, and not as competitively as men do.
2. Hierarchy—One’s status is determined by where one is in the hierarchies of work,
school, the group, etc. The higher up one is in the hierarchy, the more successful that
person is considered to be. Men compete to get to the top and thus strengthen the
hierarchy; women cooperate more and therefore flatten out the hierarchy. However,
women can also be very competitive, especially when the hierarchy is rigid.
3. Competition—men are competitive not only because of cultural training but also
because boys naturally organize themselves into groups (teams) that follow rules and
they create games that have winners and losers.
4. Relationship—men and women need and develop relationships, but how they do it can
be very, very different. Men tend to create relationships through activities such as
watching a baseball game with buddies or drinking beer or coffee together and talking
about external aspects of themselves—cars, sports, work, etc. Women tend to create
relationships by making personal connections based on concern and empathy for each
other. They directly seek emotional connections that they then continually “upgrade”
through conversation.
5. Talk—men and women can both talk a lot depending on the situation, but they’re
probably talking for different reasons and for different results. Men talk to give
information, establish dominance, show off, etc. Women talk to establish connections,
create rapport. They do this by sharing personal and intimate information.
If you remember these five terms and how they relate to male and female communication styles,
then you’ll have a model for understanding some of the “mysteries” that surround the genders.
College Reading-Male & Female Communication Styles
Discussion Questions & Answers
Spring Quarter 2014
Instructor: Richard Alishio
In your groups, take turns answering the following questions about the reading and the
vocabulary.
1. What does “empathy” mean?
Empathy means the ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of another person without
actually having the experiences that create those thoughts and feelings.
2. According to the authors of the article, who empathizes more—men or women? Do you
agree or disagree? Why or why not?
According to the author of this article, women tend to be more empathetic than men. I
agree/disagree with this statement because (in my experience, women have always been more
nurturing and openly supportive than most of the men I have known. While this doesn’t mean
men aren’t empathetic, I believe they aren’t as likely to show or act upon those feelings.)
3. The reading states that women are more “holistic” than men. What does this mean?
Holistic itself means anything that can be described as pertaining to entire systems and not the
analysis or reduction of that system to its individual parts. In women, this means they are more
likely to see a person in terms of that person’s feelings and needs and to communicate this by
building rapport with others.
4. This article claims that men are more competitive and achievement-oriented than women.
Explain what this means and then state whether you agree, disagree, or both agree and
disagree.
Being competitive and achievement-oriented means that a person will relate to others more in
terms of one-up or one-down power relationships than in terms of equally sharing or deferring to
the needs of others first. Being achievement oriented means that a person is primarily focused on
how to reach a particular goal rather on how to build mutually satisfying relationships that may
or may not lend themselves to achieving that goal.
1. This article claims that men are more competitive and achievement-oriented than women.
Explain what this means and then state whether you agree, disagree, or both agree and
disagree.
Gossip is talking about other people, often in exaggerated or even false terms. I sometimes
gossip, but when I do, it usually when I’m talking to a woman. I believe women do gossip more
than men because they are more relationship-oriented than men are and therefore more
concerned with the behavior of those around. I think men don’t gossip as much because they
don’t care as much about relationships outside of their own.
2. Men tend to understand the world by analyzing and systematizing it. Women try to
understand the world on an intuitive and emotional level. How might this difference in
process be expressed in what men and women talk about?
I believe that this results in men talking more about things outside of themselves, things that can
be measure, evaluated, analyzed, or described. Examples of this are politics, sports, business,
technology (such as computers and cars), and abstract ideas in the realm of philosophy and
science. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to share information about people, their
relationships to each other, and how those relationships affect people on a daily basis. Thus,
women are more likely to discuss their husbands, children, co-workers, bosses, neighbors, etc.
and try to establish a sense of how well these relationships are proceeding.
3. Think about your male and female teachers, both here at the UW and back home. How
did you feel about them? Do you see distinct differences in the ways that they
communicate with the students? (Is Richard distinctly different from the women teachers
you have? For example, do you think they are more sensitive to your feelings or take
greater care to get to know you?)
I have no answer for this since I haven’t been a student for many years. However, what I can
remember about my men and women teachers is that I sensed no real differences.
4. On page 23, it states that “Men talk to give information or report. Women talk to collect
information or gain rapport.” What does “rapport” mean? Do you agree with this
“generalization”?
Rapport means a sense of harmony and accord between or among individuals or groups. I agree
with this, but I also believe that a man’s sense of rapport comes from his interactions with others
when discussing external “things.
5. Culture plays an important role in how a person communicates. What are some
differences you see in how American men and women communicate compared to men
and women in your own culture?
Americans in general tend to be more direct and opinionated than people from areas of the world
where being deferential and neutral are considered admirable and desirable qualities. The
resulting difference in communication can make Americans seem pushy and inconsiderate at
times. This is true for both men and women, in my opinion.
6. What can be gained (if anything) from having a better understanding of how the opposite
sex communicates?
Having a better understanding of how men and women communicate can help people avoid some
of the perennial problems that cause people to experience confusion, hurt feelings, anger, and
disappointment with each other. In professional areas such as business, government, and
education, having a good grasp of male and female communication styles can help organizations
function more smoothly and create a more comfortable and caring sense of inclusion for all of
those involved. This in turn can make the organization stronger and more adaptable.