Write an opinion article in which you discuss the idea that women should change their their language.
Audience: Guardian comment is free readers
How a woman can become more successful by changing her language
Women could become more powerful by dropping their defensive language traits
Self-deprecation and an apologetic style may be beneficial in everyday talk when establishing friendships and talking to friends, but using this language in business and high pressure meetings such as 'I am probably speaking out of turn but...' show weakness, uncertainty and a lack of authority - this is, according to studies, frequently used by women and can consequently limit their potential in high profile job roles. "Why is a man's potential not limited?" You may ask; the answer is simple - because they don't use this weak, defensive style of language!
The fact that some language theorists such as Deborah Cameron who believe men and women do not talk differently is simply ludicrous. Cameron, who invented the 'discursive model' [hyperlink to Deborah Cameron wikipedia page] believes that your gender doesn't influence your language, and that the belief that men and women talk differently is "one of the greatest myths of all time". Why is it? Men are direct, discourteous due to their competitive approach to conversations and aim to dominate conversations through holding centre stage and interrupting people, compared to women who are polite, respectful and care more about language. Reputable language theorist Deborah Tannen [hyperlink to tannen wikipedia page] described in her 'difference model' just how much men and women differ in their language use and what they aim for in conversations - men want 'status' compared to a woman needing 'support', and a man wanting 'competition' compared to a woman wanting 'co-operation' are just a few examples of the differences. This translates to make a huge difference in circumstances such as business meetings, where, explained by Tannen, men are competent in speaking in public situations where they are comfortable in taking centre stage in a 'report' style, and are not afraid to have competition with other people in hostile situations.
Conversely, women are more comfortable in speaking in private conversations where they aim to establish connections with other people where they aim for co-operation and support - this could be interpreted as women being weak seeing they need 'support' which could leave them vulnerable in situations such as boardroom meetings.
"Women who try and claim a public voice are treated like freakish androgynes". Explained by classical scholar Mary Beard, it seems it will be a long time until women are treated fairly when claiming a 'public voice' due to the harsh reality of how they are treated, many describe they are merely a 'mute in the public sphere'. This however may be because of a woman's language style, being uncertain, defensive and apologetic. This allows men to take advantage of what they love to do - take control of a conversation.
Robin Lakoff is a highly regarded language theorist, researching women's language use in the 1970's, creating the deficit model, believing that men's language is normal whereas women's language is deficient due to their frequent use of 'uncertainty features' such as back-channelling [hyperlink to dictionary page with backchannelling definition], being uncertain when describing things, eg 'sort of...' and 'kind of...', and the frequent use of declaring a thought and then needing to question their own thought such as "it's cold in here, isn't it?" known as a tag question. These uncertainty features are all very similar to using an apologetic style and self-deprecating which is also a part of a woman's language use which consequently makes them seem weak and defensive, an approach which certainly has no place in work, especially hostile business meetings for example. How men survive in high profile jobs is through their language style of trying to dominate conversations and speaking in a direct manner and consequently talking for twice as long as women due to their perceived superior status, and being able to take the lead in conversations and use techniques to shut down women in conversations known as 'constraints'. Research conducted by theorists Zimmerman and West [hyperlink to dominance model information page] show that in 11 conversations, men interrupt 46 times compared to women interrupting just twice, and men talk for twice as long. Because of a woman's uncertainty in their language, men frequently are forced to explain things to women which they may already know in a condescending manner known as 'mansplaining', a reason which may also be accountable for men needing to be a powerful participant and take the lead in conversations.
If women don't start to change their language and become less defensive and uncertain, people's beliefs and thoughts towards women, their language and competency to take control in challenging situations may never change.
There's a good journalistic register here, a good range of theory and a reasonably effective structure. Where I think you need to concentrate your efforts is consdieration of your audience. Let's say I am a female reader of The Guardian and I might benefit from knowing what the traits are that might make me seem uncertain when I am trying to be co-operative. Does this article make me inclined to read it? What is the hook in the headline? Where is the persuasiveness, the options I could consider in my talk and why theory says I should definitely pay attention? You could have used Cameron much more effectively by saying that she found that women didn't have intrinsically different talk from men and vice versa, that we were socialised to speak in particular ways if we want to appear feminine or masculine but that our talk wasn't dictated by our biology: "your genes don't determine your genes" so you can choose to use more forthright traits if it is suitable to the context. But go easy - current thinking is not only that women who speak that way can encounter hostility (good Mary Beard quote) but also that the value of 'feminine' talk traits and voices should be more valued, not abandoned (same as with local accents and dialects). So it's best to come down on the side of offering options (which you could do more of) and the opinion that once you are aware of the issues, it is down to the individual in their own context to decide how they speak - that would be more suitable for female readers of The Guardian.
ReplyDeleteGood use of quantified findings. Work on including the more subtle aspects of the theories.
genes/jeans :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete