Communication and Gender in America

Communication and society constantly change each other, shaping both the words and grammar of the language used to communicate, and the cultural values of the society. Since the majority of societies have different roles for men and women, it is no wonder that they would use their shared language to communicate differently within their societies. It is not fair to judge if any particular style of communication works better than any other, but these differences can shape our perceptions of each other and often even muddle communication between genders. The individuals which make up American society pride themselves on their liberty, independence, and rational equality for all citizens, but at the same time, almost everyone knows that men and women communicate differently. Few people ever bother to think about how each gender communicates, (beyond the obvious stereotypes) or how our society has developed two very distinct styles of conversation. According to linguist Deborah Tannen, the differences are not in what each gender says, but how they say it. Noticeable differences exist at all ages in body language, ways of reassuring one another, willingness to remain on a single topic, and content discussed between males and females in American society. These differences in conversational style can be summed up with the statement: “Men use 'agnostic' or warlike, oppositional formats to do almost anything; thus discussion becomes debate, and conversation a competitive sport. In contrast, women see conversation as a ritual means of establishing rapport.” (Tannen 35) Each gender communicates in a way that directly reflects the expectations placed upon them by society.
The reason men seem to communicate with each other in a competitive manner is because males in America are socialized to see everything in hierarchical terms. From an early age, males in American society are taught that they must compete with each other in order to define their own status in society. On the other hand, women have intrinsic social status because they can give birth to and nurture children, a vital role in all societies. Because of this, women can add to or detract from their intrinsic social status through doing and achieving, or can remain at a “neutral” social status through simply being a part of society. Unfortunately, many women in modern American society choose not to risk their inherent status, and so they are perceived by men as timid, or as simply not having anything interesting to say in a public forum. Thus, men tend to dominate the majority of talking time in public and formal settings.
The counter-balance to this phenomenon is that women dominate the talking time in private settings while men tend to remain quiet. Since men view public conversation as a form of competition, when in a private setting they can relax, no longer feeling obligated to prove themselves. Women see private conversation as a setting in which they can speak their minds without worry about being judged for what they say. This type of talk is not about social status, but instead revolves around building interpersonal relationships, showing that those involved in the conversation are of equal standing rather than hierarchical. Women in private conversations often exchange personal information or experiences as a way of reassuring doubts or comforting others.
Men, even in private conversations, tend to show a competitive edge, reassuring others through introducing bigger problems or simply discrediting the original doubt. When men and women converse with each other, women often find this belittling or demeaning when it is meant as a gesture of compassion. For whatever reason, men also tend to avoid eye contact with each other while engaged in these personal conversations. Women, who frequently make eye contact and “more listener-noise, such as 'mhm,' uhun,' and 'yeah,'” (Tannen 35) can find see this as a sign that the men are not paying attention when in fact, they are. Another area in which the genders clash is “topical alignment.” In examining communication differences between genders at an early age, Tannen found that “The girls in my study tended to talk at length about one topic, but the boys tended to jump from topic totopic,” (Tannen 34). Many women view this too as a sign that the man they are conversing with is not really interested in what she is saying. Similarly, many men can find the agreement and support offered by women in conversation irritating, as they often times prefer the conflict and opposing viewpoints that a male conversational partner would typically offer.
English professor and pioneer in the newly developed field of men's studies, Eugene August, claims that the reason men tend to be so competitive and hierarchical is because they are actually more narrowly socialized towards particular ends than women. Throughout the American male's life, August says, “If he deviates from society's gender role norm, he will be penalized and he will hear about it,” (August 26). Chief among the penalties for this deviation is the questioning of the man's masculinity. Throughout his informational essay on American gender differences, August gives many examples of words whose only function is to describe males who act femininely. Since men in American societies consider this to be a severe psychological attack, it is no wonder that they differ greatly in conversation habits from women. This is not, of course, to say that the qualities Americans value in women are intrinsically bad, but that they are seen as undesirable in males.
In American society, females are also socialized throughout their lives, but in different manners than are males. As mentioned by August, and many sociologists before him, “it is usually acceptable for girls to be tomboys,” (August 23) or, act like boys their age, but it is not so for boys who act girlishly. Yet while females are freer to deviate from their gender norms, they can only differ so much before society starts to disapprove. The ultimate example of this is the depiction of the Amazon women in Greek mythology, who would remove one of their breasts in order to perform better in combat, and displayed many of the qualities the Greeks admired in their own male warriors. The Greeks tended to view the Amazon women as either gender neutral or as men, in essence saying that in order for it to be acceptable for women to act as men do, “they had to trade in part of their femininity,” (Nilsen 10). Thus females were, and still are, taught that they cannot have all the qualities admired in each gender, but instead must pick one.
In the past few decades, American society has rapidly become more tolerant of gender role deviations in both sexes. Women can now be seen as successful, while men can possess strong social skills. Despite this rise in tolerance, “traditional” gender roles are still strongly reinforced through literature and other forms of media. In his 1996 article, “Sex Differences,” Ronald Macaulay offers two lists of 12 verbs used by each gender to introduce speech in novels. “The surprising part is that the two lists are totally distinct. No doubt the novelists intended to be realistic in describing two very different styles of speech but, in doing so, they also reinforce the stereotypes of men and women,” (273). All the verbs used by the males implied dominance or conflict, while those used by females implied obedience or ineptitude. Unfortunately, short of rewriting classic works so as not to reinforce gender stereotypes there is nothing that can be done about this particular form of socialization.
It is interesting to see where gender role tolerance will take American society and how it will change the ways in which we communicate with each other. Already, battles are being fought by linguists over gender neutrality and gender biases within the English language. Some take the position that in a society which can tolerate gender role deviation, all literature and language should be gender neutral to prevent stereotyping. Still others feel that no matter how carefully language and literature are regulated to maintain gender neutrality, some form of bias will still appear. My own opinion on gender regulation within language is that it serves as a bureaucratic false image of tolerance while it in fact breeds conformity to the regulations rather than the actual ideas they are meant to represent. Either way, the battle of the sexes within American society and the English language is far from over, and will likely be an issue that both linguists and sociologists will examine for decades to come.

Works Cited
August, Eugene R. “Real Men Don't: Anti-Male Bias in English.” Encountering Cultures: Second Edition. Ed. Richard Holeton, Balir Press, 1995. 20-31. Print.
Macaulay, Ronald. “Sex Differences.” Exploring Language 12th Edition. Ed. Gary Goshgarion, Longman Press, 2010. 270-275. Print.
Nilsen, Alleen Pace. “Sexism in English: A 1990's Update.” Encountering Cultures: Second Edition. Ed. Richard Holeton, Blair Press, 1995. 10-19. Print.
Tannen, Deborah. “'I'll Explain It to You': Lecturing and Listening.” Exploring Language 12th Edition. Ed. Gary Goshgarion, Longman Press, 2010. 281-293. Print.
Tannen, Deborah. “Sex, Lies, and Conversation: Why Is It So Hard for Men and Women to Talk to Each Other?” Encountering Cultures: Second Edition. Ed. Richard Holeton, Blair Press, 1995. 32-37. Print.