Cross-gender Conversation Difficulties (by Ronaldo Rodríquez)

Breakdowns, an overall lack of understanding and other difficulties in communication have often characterized the relationship between men and women. From a socio-linguistic perspective, Debora Tannen (1990) has shed light on this issue by observing that: “the minor and major frustrations that women and men encounter when they talk to each other lie in the different ways they use language.” Such distinction in the use of language, in addition, is said to be one of the many behavioural patterns society constructs for and expects from individuals of the opposite sex (Trudgill, 1972). In the light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to assess that misinterpretations between males and females can be accounted for by analyzing the distinctive way in which they perceive and produce language and in the differential expectations they have when addressing each other.

Sociolinguists have been able to show that from adolescence to adulthood, females produce more standard language than males. Based on the fact that hedges, tag-questions, adjectives and rising tones on statements are more frequent in women’s talk, it has been suggested that females are more uncertain than men. Males, on the contrary, are found to speak with more assertiveness, to be more interruptive, to tell more jokes and to produce more succinct utterances. As regards politeness, courtesy subjuncts (Quirk, 1976) and other well-bred forms occur more regularly among women, whereas an extended use of expletives and other bad-mannered formulas can be more commonly found among men.

Examples of difficultness in cross-gender communication abound. For instance, it is told that one Sunday, Calvin Coolidge, onetime president of the United States of America, returned home from church. After being greeted by his wife, he was asked: “What did the Priest speak about?” “Sin,” he replied. “And what did he say about it?” she insisted. Cooling made a silent pause and answered: “He said he was against it.” It could be suggested that incidents such as this are good representatives of several daily cross-gender conversations at home. They do not only show that females are by and large more eager to talk at home but also illustrate the fact that both speakers have different assumptions and expectations when engaging in conversation. Tannen further explains that while women’s talk seeks to establish and strengthen interpersonal connections (or rapport) men speak to preserve independence, negotiate status and display knowledge and skill. These behavioural patters explain the reason why when “trouble,” for example, arises as a topic within a cross-gender conversation, males have the tendency to provide a straightforward solution. Such demeanour normally puzzles and frustrates women because they simply want to talk about the problem and to be understood. Phrases such as “I know how you feel,” “It’s just as once happened to me,” or “Tell more about it” are the ones females yearn for when talking. This contention is rooted in the fact that little girls grow up in a world of intimacy, a world in which being a friend means sharing feelings and exchanging secrets. Little boys, conversely, acquire language in the context of making their way in larger, more competitive and hierarchical groups.

Thus, understanding both the different ways in which males and females produce and receive language and the expectation gap between them can enlighten the issue of cross-gender conversation and the difficulties thereof. Scholarly endeavour has also shown that an extended use of adjectives, referring tones, tag-questions and ambiguous remarks distinguish woman’s talk from men’s. The latter, on the contrary, seem to be more easily inclined to use assertions, the language of humour and less polite statements. Particularly at home, males are more likely to produce more concise utterances. It is on the basis of these differences that the conclusion that men are more confident than women is drawn. As far as expectations are concerned, women seem to value connection and rapport over other pragmatic intentions, whereas males are more concerned with status, practical solutions and power. In conclusion, an overall consideration of the phenomenon above described can not only help members of both sexes to know how their conversations may be improved but also ease the burden of not being understood.

Conclusions to Forum 3: Homosexuality in Children’s Literature

Better late than never, I will try to round-up this year’s last forum. The issue, again, revolved around the topic of homosexuality. This time the topic was inserted in the context of children’s literature. The idea was to ponder about whether it is right or wrong to include such controversial issue in stories for children. After considering your very valuable interventions, I think it is possible to reduce the different opinions to two main stances:

1) The first one could encompass those opinions expressing or implying the idea that children are not mature enough to cope with the idea of homosexuality. In a way, this position implies that homosexuality may be ‘confusing’ for children.

2) The second position would include those opinions expressing that it would be good for children to be in contact with the idea of homosexuality, since in this way they would learn to take it as something natural.

Although both positions admit a tolerant view towards homosexuality, those people adhering to the second stance make it explicit that, for them, homosexuality shouldn’t be condemned as a sexual deviation. This is important since everyone in the forum bestows an educative purpose to children’s literature. In consequence, it seems logical that, for a person who sees homosexuality as something normal, the insertion of this topic did not represent a risk in the education of children. Perhaps, unconsciously or not, those adhering to the first position may feel that facing children to the idea of homosexuality may ‘confuse’ them. But this potential ‘confusion’ can only take place if we admit that there is something wrong in homosexuality. If homosexuality were normal, then, what sort of confusion could we think of?

In reality, it is not the issue of homosexuality that is problematic in this discussion, but children’s literature itself. If we take so much passion in discussing such an issue, this is because, in a way, we perceive that children’s literature is a medium for cultural and social instruction. In consequence, no matter how naïve we think stories for children are, they always convey ideology. Although hidden or in disguise, genre roles, class struggles, sexuality, race and a long list of controversial topics have always been part of children’s literature. Why do princesses always await passively for their prince to rescue them? Why should any romance end up in a marriage? Why do marriages mean a happy ending? Why do we usually read about royal families and not about servants? Why most heroes are white, tall and smart? When we analyse stories for children from a critical perspective, it is not so difficult to identify the values, beliefs and principles that they convey. Perhaps, the important conclusion we can extract from this debate is that children’s literature is never innocent or apolitical. In a way, what we consider right or wrong for our children is the reflection of the world we believe in. If we believe that there is nothing wrong about homosexuality, then we wouldn’t find any problem in reading our children a book containing homosexual characters. If we don’t agree in reading our children such a thing, then this might be because, overtly or not, we find homosexuality objectionable.