Hi: I really enjoy reading Lee's coment and numerous responses. I have
no intention to support either side. However, I would like to coment
a few.
Barbara suggested that McClintocck was ignored and marginalized because
she was female. I do not know her claim is right or not because I have
studied many scholers who was marginalized by the power of esatablishments.
For example,in Ecology, Gleason vs Clements's succession theory is very
famous. Gleason was totally ignored and marginalized at that time. Modern
succession theory takes Gleason's theory. Lindeman's famous ecosystem
study was also rejected at that time. I guess it is kind of risk for a
pionieer scientist to be ignored and marginalized. So it happens for both
genders. My question is "is it fair for a woman to use gender issue when she
is rejected, while it happens both genders?"
I sometimes wonder what kind of futre we have on gender issue. Do we want to
claim that there should not be any gender differences at all? Do we want to
recognize the differences between genders and learn from each other? Or, will
all the gender issue be solved if female take over all the power and male
subordinate under female's control? I do not know.
I feel also offended that a female, like Mary, stereotypes male as abuser.
I was almost say "So what do you want male to do?" Mary can say "You, male
should do..." Then I feel offended because I also do not want to hear someone
to tell me "You should do..."
I could also shut up and say nothing but listen. Then, I may be blamed for
not responding or ignoring them.
Toshihide Hamazaki
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 20 08:32:27 MDT 1995
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wood Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Forwarded message
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Wood Lee wrote:
> It is my believe that cases where women are consciously overlooked or
> bypassed are the exception. Many times, the preferred communication
> style of most women simply does not fit well with the traditional,
> male-dominated, combative style. Most simply are forced to take a back
> seat, though some women try to adapt to such a style. However, I suspect
> that many do not do well and probably make unfavorable impressions on
> their male colleagues, further complicating the overall problem.
I would argue that it is not that we (women) do not "do well" when using
this dominant style of discourse. Some of us do it *very* well, thank
you very much. Even if we don't particularly like it. A *major* part of
the problem is that when we "do well" we are *heard* differently! If my
male colleague uses the same style of speech and says the same thing, he
is assertive. If I do it, I am a "ball busting bitch".
I won't bore you with the details of my numerous experiences in this
regard -- in the academic world and the workplace and the church -- I
will simply say that for *me* the only solution has been to develop a
large repertoire of discursive styles and to learn to use them in a
consciously selective manner. Furthermore, I do not let other people (or
the dominant environment) dictate which style I use. In fact, I am
learning to select a style which counters the dominant one *and* then to
both use it and build a bridge to those using the other style so that
they feel invited to try a different mode of discourse as well.
It is
this "bridge building" component which is *essential* to getting people
to try a new way of talking, thinking, etc. You cannot just tell someone
the way they speak is unacceptable because it is "male" or "dominating"
or whatever. First, all that does is *reverse* the order of dominance
and silence others the way we feel we have been silenced in the past.
Second, it doesn't help anyone *learn* a new way of talking, thinking,
etc. These are skills -- which means they can be learned, practiced,
improved, etc.
One example. I was in a seminar course taught by a prof who graduated
from Harvard Law School. His style is very "combative". People put
their ideas out there and then everyone takes turns poking holes in it.
The theory being that this makes the person build "stronger" ideas in
response to challenges. My discomfort with this was compounded by the
fact that he: 1) labelled me and others in the class (I was the feminist,
idealist) and 2) he used those labels to dismiss my ideas and the ideas
of others. After 3 or 4 weeks of leaving this class with a stomach ache
and high blood pressure even though I was right in there being combative
with the rest of them, it was my turn to "present". Rather than putting
out my ideas in an "assertive" manner, I did two things: 1) I put my
discomfort on the line and 2) I framed what I wanted to say as a series
of questions with a range of possible answers and invited the class to
discuss them.
I did # 1 through a combination of "I" language (I feel uncomfortable)
and a metaphor. I told the class that I felt uncomfortable, not because
I "couldn't take it", but because I had a different vision of what we
were there to do. I said that it felt to me as though we were in a
competition to see who could build the biggest and best tower with our
"Legos" (interlocking building blocks in case there are some on the list
who have not been exposed to this culture specific entity ;-) ) and we
were simultaneously trying to keep others from building a better tower.
I, on the other hand, thought it would be more fun and more productive to
see if we could build a tower together. I could see others in the class
who had "pieces" that I liked and that would add to the tower in an
interesting way if we combined them... etc. You get the idea...
Fortunately, there were others in the class (not all women) for whom this
metaphor resonated *and* the prof (because I did not *directly* attack
him), was able to rethink the way we operated in the classroom.
> Trying to adapt to a style that you really don't feel comfortable with
> is probably not a good idea. In areas such as politics, sports, etc,
> making your opponent play to your game/style is a major part of gaining
> advantage. In what we are discussing, however, the rules/game/style
> simply has been tilted against women, though unconciously in most cases.
I am willing to go along with this, but I don't think it is a matter of
winning or gaining advantage. I really think that it is a matter of
"learning together" and building something new, different, and hopefully more
just. This is not a war we are trying to win by defeating the enemy.
> I don't intend to offer any solutions here. Just want to point out that
> the problem is not simple and that communication is a key. There are
> studies on the difference in communication style between male and female
> but I don't have the sources handy. Knowing the root cause of the problem
> is the first step.
I would only caution against a genetic determinism here. Many of these
same differences in style have been documented across *cultures* as
well. Don't assume that the (white) male combative discursive style of our
culture is universally "male".
Jayne
