Blog #9 Guiler and Durndell: Gender Interactions in online discussion groups

I guess first and foremost, I need to clarify that this article focused on educational online discussion groups rather than those used for un-academic subjects.

I was hoping that I would be able to disprove this article and their findings based on my own personal experiences with online discussion boards, but this time, I've fallen into the categories they described. Now whether or not I employ a more female style of response on DB's would take quite a bit of time to determine.

As they mentioned in the article, women have a tendency to use positive language while men use negative more often. So in many of the academic DB's I've looked over I do tend to say "I agree" or in a roundabout way, I agree with what was being said. I have had some professors say that they would prefer that we don't use the phrase I agree because some people may leave their response at just that without justifying their reason for agreement. I rarely try to start confrontations on the internet because many people forget the fact that they are conversing with another human being and the conversation ventures into a bad place. So yes, I'll agree but I will also try to bring up an opposing side politely. There's no way around it.

I have another question in regards to this article. They mentioned that men are more likely to use sarcasm in their responses, but without the lack of tone present in the typed form, how do they know they are being sarcastic in the first place? Emoticons? Typical features of sarcasm? Even if they are following typical features, what if they were being sarcastic?

In comparison to non-academic DB's, I have noticed that girls are more likely to take on a male style of language. There are girls who are willing to start arguments and flaming others. They especially do so when they have a name that doesn't give away their gender until the tell-tale phrase of " As a women, I believe..." or "As a man, I believe...". I think everyone expects women to be more polite online because well, we're women. We are the "gentle" sex. This article shows that we are more polite but I think if they looked at other online discussion boards, they might find different results. Then again, you can never tell who's who on the internet these days.

Blog #8 Advertising for Children

So as I read through the article by Johnson, there were many observations that they made that I had already noticed in advertisements geared towards children. I actually haven't watched commercials geared towards children in a while, but on occasion I see them and they pretty much follow the same old formula. Commercials geared towards boys or advertising boy products are usually voiced over by a man. The man typically doesn't speak in a calm, soothing voice either. He uses a voice that is commanding and sounds very enthusiastic, especially if the commercial is for a toy truck or car. Of course, only boys are present in these commercials and rarely minorities are present.

For commercials geared towards girls, they are voiced over by females and like the boys commercials, only girls are present. Yet the girls do not get the same commanding, enthusiastic voice that boys do. In fact, they usually get a voice that sounds somewhat high-pitched or what I like to call the "Disney-princess" voice. It's very light and sing-songy and is mostly used for commercials advertising girl toys. Now if the product is used for something that is related to tweens, then the voice of a teenage girl is used who talks just the way a teenager would (excessive use of "like").

When boys and girls are present together, they play their roles respectively. More importantly, as I mentioned before, commercials aren't very diverse in terms of race. They are moreso than they were before, but Caucasians still dominate commercials. I have seen some commercials in Spanish that are geared towards Mexican children and they are a complete re-enactment of their English counterpart.

I think it's disappointing that the commercials limit who can buy them or who they are geared towards. Maybe there are some girls who would find boys toys appealing because they seem so cool and maybe there are boys who are curious about products geared towards girls. Of course, another interesting point is how it would be more acceptable for a girl to be interested in toys/products geared towards boys but not vice versa.

Blog #7 Henley on Sex bias in Language: Making a mountain out of a molehill?

There was much to like about this paper because I felt that it provided more explanation in regards to sex bias in language that made it easier to understand. Sure Henley was one-sided in her explanation of sex bias but at least she made her arguments strong! Also, she covered each point very well and addressed any doubts that you might have had in regards to sex bias in language. If I were to explain sex bias in language to anyone, I would most likely refer to this paper. Then again, there were some areas where explanations of cited studies were rather weak.

So our language treat the sexes unequally? Yes it does. According to Henley it does so in the three following ways: it deprecates and ignores women. Also, it stereotypes women as well. Oh wait so how does it do this? One example given was masculine and feminine forms in language. I do have one question though. I still don't quite understand the concept of masculine and feminine in other languages and if it can really be thought of in terms of gender.

Because as far as I was concerned, gender in reference to inanimate objects was somewhat arbitrary. I could be wrong but I remember a class discussion on why certain objects were considered feminine when we thought they were more likely to be masculine. Does that mean we are going by a sex bias? The more I think about it, we probably are. Then again, couldn't it be simply a means of reference without anything else to it? Also, I do understand that when referring to a male or female in another language, there is usually a masculine or feminine form of the word so the context of the utterance can be understood. Is this so bad? I wish Henley could have explained it more so I could better understand this particular concept.

Another interesting part of the paper was when it discussed the term gay and whether or not it was inclusive of lesbians/ homosexual females. It's kind of interesting, but usually it depends. If at any point someone mentions "gay" or "the gays" most people usually think of men, not women. I recently wrote a paper on gay and lesbian hate crime victims and all throughout the paper I had to use gay and lesbian. Why did I have to? Gay is an encompassing term for homosexuality right? Yes but I had to make it clear I was talking about both genders. Of course now that I think about it, I should have tried it and seen what my professor said. So it's no wonder that during the height of the AIDS scare that everyone thought lesbians were at high risk at spreading it when they were the lowest. At that time, gay was inclusive of gender. Nowadays it is but there is still a need to refer to women separately.

Blog #6 Parks and Robertson reveal connections between attitudes towards women's and sexist language

So it seems that this article is investigation the idea presented by Benjamin Whorf's theory of linguistic relativity. I don't mean to give a linguistics lesson in this blog, but basically this theory postulates that there is a connection between language and culture. So in relation to sexist language and attitudes towards women, it would appear that someone's view of women will also influence their view towards women.

This study looked at four different areas and provided some interesting, if not predictable results. I had some difficulty understanding the statistics, as I always have when reading linguistics studies, so I'm more or less going off of what the discussion presented. So of course women are going to be more supportive of women's rights but it's sad to see that men appear as if they don't care about women's issues or not. Of course they wouldn't because in this society, they have more privileges than women, no matter what progressive steps we have made. This isn't right though because women deserve to have these rights, there really aren't any differences between men and women and their capabilities.

I can easily see how this blog can be turned into a rant, haha. Ok, ok I'll try to keep it on track.

I know I have mentioned sexist language here briefly and have made suggestions such as using their/they instead of he/him. It can be done, but whether everyone else wants to use it is another matter in itself. Do I think there is a connection between language and culture? There is somewhat but I need to read more articles to see that. So do I believe that sexism still exists, even in this day and age? Oh you know it. As advanced a society we may proclaim ourselves to be, there is still the presence of many archaic notions that don't benefit those who have been denied certain rights. Might there be a connection between attitudes towards women and attitudes towards sexist language? Yes I think so. I think the problem is that language is a very commonplace thing for native speakers. We just accept it as it is. Only if you study the intricacies of the language do you understand the concept of morphology, syntax, gender, etc. The average everyday person may not understand it so they might need to have it explained.

I do agree though, that having a sample that is 87% Caucasian doesn't help their study very much. I hope someone is conducting a similar study that is taking into consideration other ethnicities, social status and even socio-economic status. I think it would be interesting to see those results with different samples.

Blog #5 " Gender Differences in the Media Interviews of Bill and Hilary Clinton"

I think this study initially had good intentions of what they were studying but I think I would like more studies done on other important current political figures. I do agree though that women have to carry themselves a certain way, especially when they are under the scrutiny of the general public. I mean, look at what happened to Sarah Palin. Although there are some people who absolutely adore her, I think she's a dingbat because of the way she presents herself in interviews and in public speech. For me, I guess you could say that she employed a little too much powerless language? Still, I think it would be very interesting to analyze her speech vs that of Hilary Clinton. Like they President George W. Bush and his various verbal blunders, some people are picking on/making fun of certain aspects of speech that Palin employs as well. Maybe trying to sound like a folksy American isn't the way to go for a politician?

But I digress from the topic of this paper. It was interesting to see though to see some of the differences presented in how Bill and Hilary addressed their interviewers. I think in some cases, Hilary may be aware of the female "tendencies" to address their interlocutors by their first name to establish camaraderie, but if she wants to present herself as someone with power, then she won't address them in that manner. I think it is interesting to see though how they are addressed and it probably does have to do with the fact that Bill was President of the United States. I don't want to diminish her status as a Senator, but Hilary wasn't President although she was a possible option. Still, I'm not sure I agree with the whole concept of powerless language in relation to the phrase " you know." I still like to think in some cases, it may be a dialectal thing or just something someone says. Of course the study showed that women were more likely to use it but does the use of "you know" really indicate a lack of power?

#10 Gender Bender

This video was absolutely hilarious. Basically it was a break-up scenario and the roles for the girl and boy involved were reversed. Initially it didn't seem as if there was much of a change because it is possible that a girl would want to break up with her boyfriend because she wants to move on in life and a guy could react by taking it personally. As we've seen, it depends on the individual.

After that when each of them went to visit their friends it was very obvious that the roles were switched. The young man basically went crying to his friends as like clockwork, his friends were instantly supportive of his plight. They told him that nothing was wrong with him and that he was too good for his girlfriend anyways. Everyone's attention was on the one with the problem. Now on the other hand, the young woman approached her friends and was unnoticed until she announced that she had broken up with her boyfriend. Her friends were also supportive but in a different way, it was mostly disinterested support and they all didn't speak up at once. Even then, one of her friends was still concerned about another event they were attending during the weekend. Either way, both groups were supportive of their friend, they just showed it in different ways. So I could see how a woman may say that her boyfriend's friends don't care but they do, they just show it in a weird, detached way.

As a young woman, I can immediately see how I identify with the females because I have been supportive and I've even said some of the same things like "oh you're so much better than him anyways." That's what women do, we provide the self-esteem boost after it takes a huge blow. Still, this video was very amusing but it does show that when the roles are reversed, it isn't something we expect.

Blog #4 How conversation indicates power by Fishman

This article is yet again another one of those instances where it seems as if I know where the article is going but then it suddenly makes a jump onto a random tangent, even though the tangent is the point of the whole article. I don't know I think Fishman is thinking a little too much into things in regards to the idea of power and how imposing one's will in conversation indicates the possession of power. Yeah, I understand that women are oppressed and bit by bit, we're trying to not to be, but in conversation? I'm not so sure.

I'm curious to see how the results would pan out in a more recent update on this study but I guess I will have to wait and see later on. Still, just because a woman has to work harder in conversation and works hard to start a conversation, does that really mean she lacks power? To continue on, it seems that Fishman also believes that failed attempts at conversation indicate a lack of power. I hope I interpreted that right, for all I know I missed the point.

I mean, hasn't Tannen already shown us that men use "mhm" and "yeah" in conversation, so...wouldn't that mean the topic hasn't completely failed? Also, hasn't she already known that they more or less seem less attentive in a conversation, which might not indicate lack of power on the woman's part? Maybe the successful conversations started by men just show the women's willingness to "listen" in the conversation? What about individuals who possess the ability to dominate any conversation they're in? Where do they fit in with Fishman's study? Sometimes you have a woman who can dominate a conversation, but I know a few people who don't mind that. Now maybe in the workplace where there are male superiors of the same ranking and as woman, they might view her in a negative light because of her ability to control interactions. I don't know, I think Fishman could use men and women in the workplace instead of a couple. Maybe I missed the point completely.

Blog #3 "Sheldon on Language and Socialization"

This article, while interesting, appeared to be a slight overreaction to the subject of gender and language. I'm guessing that what Sheldon was trying to get at was that there are negative views of women which is due to language. When referring to a mixed group of males and females, we usually use "he." Personally, I no longer like to do that because in the back of my mind, I always think " there are women in the group, he isn't really accurate" so instead I use "they." I might have someone like a professor who wants to change it, but I will stick by using "they" no matter what.

So back to the topic. Do I agree with Sheldon? Somewhat. Though there is a part of me that feels bad for only agreeing partially. Why? As a women, my partial agreement makes it feel as if I am holding back any progression that is to be made in regards to women. But when I agree completely, I feel as if I am overreacting. I would like to stay in my nice place in the middle on this topic. As influential as language is, I still feel as if there are other external factors that are contributing to the negative views on women. There are images in magazines, TV shows, movies etc that show what society apparently wants their women to be like. Now if you have a young girl who is relatively bright or at least has some common sense, they should know that what pop culture shows isn't always what should be. Pop culture continually changes, so what's big now won't be big later (or if anything it will recycle itself). Any sensible girl should realize this and hopefully, they won't depend on those images. Sure you do have those girls who don't have positive female role models to look up to and it really is a shame. They need them.

So we could try changing language to make it more gender-neutral, but that will be a long time coming or at least a difficult process. Honestly, we are taught a lot of things during elementary school that has some sort of bias and only when you get to an institution of higher learning or research that topic yourself do you actually get the full story. Every teacher is different. Some are going to be rigid about what they teach because it has worked for them so far and others like to infuse some of the new school ways of thinking. I guess Sheldon will just have to hope for more of the new school or someone taking it upon themselves to make a change in language.

Blog #2 " Otto Jespersen and Women"

I am not so sure this was the best article for me read right after a recent class that had a very one-sided discussion on the physical capabilities of women. Nevertheless, I read it and well...I suppose I should have taken into consideration that this article was written in 1922 and that things have changed since then. I also realize that shouldn't let my being a woman get in the way of reading this article and that I should read it from the perspective of a linguist. At least, I tried that for about 5 minutes. Needless to say, if it were possible, I would have strangled this article. :)

Initially, the article started out great when it talked about the differences in speech between the men and women in the Caribs and other tribes. It just talked about how women would use certain forms of the words and men use others but make sure they don't use the female forms because that would affect how they were perceived by the other men. It vaguely reminded me of the article by John Bradley and that was that. I didn't really have any qualms with the article so far. Even when they mentioned specific situations where women weren't allowed to eat until their husbands had eaten, I just kept the idea of cultural relativism in mind. Yes, a part of me thought " who would want to wait for their husband to finish and remain mute?" but that is the culture of those people. I guess that is how it goes for them and who was I to question what they did.

I think the problem I had with this article is that it seemed like Jespersen started to get very involved with this article. By involved, I mean personally. I can see how he tried to be academic about his ideas but by the end of the whole thing, he had failed miserably. Then again, maybe those were the times? Once he mentioned the bit about Scandinavian and German men learning English faster than women because they were outdoors more, he lost me. The downward spiral continued with how women appeared to use "so" often in their utterances. Let's not forget how their vocabulary was smaller than men! Surely we have to mention how the women who used Prakrit were " so inferior that they ranked only and had no share in the higher culture which, with the refined language, was the privilege of a small class of selected men." Tsk, tsk! ( Yes, cultural relativism was thrown out the window by this point)

Yet, there was one good thing he mentioned about women. A study by Romanes showed that women were able to read a paragraph faster than men, highly distinguished men I might add, and they were also able to give a better account of the paragraph from memory. While it seemed that the article had redeemed itself I only had to read further and there was a very lovely paragraph recanting the victory for women. From what I gathered, the quick readers (women) only did so because they were filling up the vacant spaces in their mind while the slower readers (men) were apparently examining the significance of every word they read, which drove them into a sort of intellectual overdrive hence the reason for their slow reading.

Well I never!

Blog #1 "What's Gender Got to Do with Grammar?"

The article by Suzanne Romaine was rather informative about the notion of grammar within different languages. I had always heard about the masculine or feminine forms in language but I never took the time to figure out why they existed. Two of the three languages I studied (Japanese, Hmong) didn't contain gender while Spanish did. I remember in one of my Spanish classes where we had asked the instructor why a certain word was masculine when we obviously perceived it as feminine, but she didn't have an answer.

I had always wondered why ships, cars and other similar things were referred to as female. You can imagine my reaction when I read that it was because they were objects that were owned and controlled by men, like women are supposed to be (in a male-dominated society). Did it surprise me? Not really. Did it make me mad? I think frustration is a better word for me to use. Learning that the more disastrous aspects of nature and wildness were also feminized just added to my frustration. Initially, some could just see it and brush it off as coincidence, but from what I read, it seems like it wasn't. A part of me thinks that it's horrible that these destructive forces are associated with women but then another part of me laughs and thinks "well of course, women are a force to be reckoned with!" and it doesn't seem quite a bad.

One of the parts I found most interesting dealt with the French and how they referred to women who were involved in jobs where the title was masculine. What would you do in that situation? They had the option of saying female officer and whatnot, but that must get tiresome. Or they could coin new titles that implies a woman. I know in English, most of the time we don't seem to have that problem since a name is included in the occupational title of that individual. Then again, a name could be deceiving. I've seen some men named Shannon, so how are we to know who they are? Another dilemma I know of is between the words author and authoress. Some women prefer to be referred to as an author, because they think if it's good enough for men, then it is good for them as well! Others prefer to go by authoress because they as a woman, accomplished something, not as an author. This also reminds of a professor who had us refer to her in her maiden name, not her married name. Her reason? She earned her Ph.D, not her husband. While the article was very insightful, now I know I am going to look at everything around me and wonder why it is referred to something masculine or feminine. Of course, that's what Linguistics does, it makes you think twice about a language.

Hello!

Well this is my blog for Linguistics 130, this is just a test entry.