(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

OK, so let's see what the 1995 book Women, Men, and Politeness by NZ feminist and linguist Janet Holmes has to say about differences in the way men and women talk, and especially how they handle conflict.

First lemme quote you these two bits from chapter 1:

"Most women enjoy talk and regard talking as an important means of keeping in touch, especially with friends and intimates. They use language to establish, nurture and develop personal relationships. Men tend to see language more as a tool for obtaining and conveying information. They see talk as a means to an end, and the end can often be very precisely defined - a decision reached, for instance, some information gained, or a problem resolved. These different perceptions of the main purpose of talk account for a wide variety of differences in the way women and men use language." (p 2 - all emphases in this posting are mine)

"Men's reasons for talking often focus on the content of the talk or its outcome, rather than on how it affects the feelings of others. It is women who rather emphasises this aspect of talk. Women compliment others more often than men do, and they apologise more often than men do too." (p 2)

Or, as someone (ahem) remarked to me the other day: "If you care about interacting instead of lecturing you might consider what I said." Holmes explains that these are the "referential" and "affective" functions of language - one carries information ("It's seven a.m.") and the other expresses feelings ("Sorry to wake you up so early.").

She goes on to say that everyone has "face needs" - the need not to be imposed on, the need to be "liked and admired". When you - when I challenge someone with a bald disagreement, that's a "face-threatening act". (It was this loss of face that used to send me into a terrible panic in online disputes, as recently as racewank '07. "Oh shit, I've fucked this up, everyone laughs at/hates me forever!!!") Defensiveness arises out of the need to "save face" - for example, an older fangirl "pulling rank" on me when I bluntly pointed out she was wrong. (People of lower status are generally more polite to people of higher status.)

Linguists have put forward a variety of explanations for these differences, from the biological (of which I'm personally very sceptical) to socialisation to inequality. Of the latter, Holmes says: "Men's greater social power allows them to define and control situations, and male norms predominate in interaction." (p 8) Add that to the Internet's original male majority, and we have an explanation of why so much Internet discussion was (and is) "masculine" in nature: confrontational, brusque, concerned with winning the argument rather than group bonding or soothing ruffled feathers. Well, that and the urge to save bandwidth.

(Lemme see if I can dig up some examples from Usenet. ETA: here's a thread from talk.rape in which I use a blunt style. It's actually a pretty civil discussion, but there's no mucking about reassuring each other. And ETA again: a discussion in which I made an effort to defuse things a bit with compliments and humour.)

Comments

[outsdr.livejournal.com]

bitextual This may be the best made-up word ever.

At some point I have to confront the problem of my own "status" in fandom. I think when you start thinking about that sort of thing, the temptation follows to start throwing around your weight, so to speak. I honestly don't think you should address it one way or the other- just be who you are, and let other people throw around your status.

Unless you're discussing something in your own books. Kind of hard to not throw around your weight there, as the author.

Throwing my weight around

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YwNi8dzj0S8

Re: Throwing my weight around

[outsdr.livejournal.com]

*loves manatees*