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.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
