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.