Tootsie

I really enjoyed this movie! Dustin Hoffman really outdid himself playing both male and female roles. I liked how it left the idea of one's sexual orientation open to interpretation. Julie was clearly quite drawn to Dorothy, but we are left to wonder what it was that she found attractive. Dorothy, as a man playing a woman, behaved very proper and feminine, with a streak of independence that didn't let her get pushed around, a characteristic considered more masculine at the time. I suppose she displayed the ideal mix (to Julie?) of male and female qualities. Dorothy is like nobody Julie has met before, and while she struggles to admit it openly, the attraction is obvious! Is Julie attracted to Dorothy, the untypical female, or is she somehow attracted to the man that she can perhaps subconsciously 'sense' under the wig and makeup? If she's attracted to Dorothy the female, is it because of her 'masculine' qualities? If she's subconciously attracted to the inner male that she senses in Dorothy, is she attracted to how he is at the same time feminine? I find it is a very interesting dynamic between them!

Some Thoughts on Tannen's Classroom Strategies

Deborah Tannen’s article, “Teacher’s Classroom Strategies Should Recognise
that Men and Women Use Language Differently”, clearly targets teachers and
educators at the tertiary level. Through her article she aims to highlight
the cultural differences between males and females that result in
differing conversational styles, She then uses this to explain how the
resulting classroom dynamics require teachers to rethink the default way
of teaching and assessment, which she believes puts women at a
disadvantage.

What is evident from Tannen’s work is the pains she takes to engage her
intended audience. She seeks to challenge traditional thinking on
classroom strategies, in a conciliatory manner as opposed to a critical
one. Through personal anecdotes and an informal tone, she tries to related
to the teacher’s experience, reaching out to them by drawing upon all to
familiar classroom situations. This is an effective approach, as a more
relatable style lowers the guard of the audience and makes them more
receptive to ideas, than if the author took a harsher position.

However, if more discerning, the reader may find that her conclusions rely
overly on personal anecdotes and observations. This does not always make
for a compelling case. In her article, Tannen mentions that women tend to
use personal anecdotes and a softer style more than men. While she tries
to argue for styles that cater to diversity, she writes in an extremely
‘feminine’ way that may not necessarily cater to the stylistic needs of
her male audience, who in fact would form a significant majority of her
overall target group. Robin Lakoff argues in Language and Woman’s Place,
that the feminine language is taken less seriously in the ‘real’, male
dominated world. If so, then Tannen’s stylistic approach may not have the
desired effect.

The use of anecdotes as a point of relation with the reader does not mean
that her claims are well supported. Cameron, in The Myth of Mars and Venus
makes an interesting point on how selective and inaccurate information is
convincing to the reader simply because relatable examples play into the
tendency of the human to rely on stereotypes. It is easier to accept what
is ‘expected’ than to challenge it. Perhaps the problem with personal
anecdotes is that they can be tailored more easily to fit the desired
argument, but are not necessarily well supported or thought through.

She paints clear gender stereotypes. There is a constant sense that she
sees women as serious and emotional, while boys as playful and insulting.
While Tannen views gender differences to be the result of social
arrangements, her reliance on such stereotypes and her suggestions for
classroom strategies only serve to keep up the inequality that has led to
these differences in the same place.

Also, early in the article, she acknowledges regional, ethnic and class
backgrounds as other factors that affect conversational styles.
Unfortunately, she does not seem to consider these factors as much in her
concluding analysis.

Tannen’s description of her class experiment sees her drawing conclusions
without adequately exploring the possibilities presented in the case
study. For example, she focuses mainly on the all-women group responses
and some general observations, without exploring the dynamics of the
all-male group or the conversational style groups.

Overall, I found that while Tannen’s approach was designed to be
strategic, it didn't quite meet the mark. I also did not find that her
examples and her manner of examining them sufficient grounding for her
arguments.

Pride and Prejudice: A Proposal Gone Wrong

This clip comes from a film adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice. I loved both the book and this film, and I thought this particular scene was quite apt in highlighting different conversational styles between a man and a woman, and how the interpretation of these differences can all go terribly wrong. Here, Mr Darcy declares his love and proposes to Elizabeth, who is somewhat drawn to him, despite some sever misgivings.

It’s not difficult to see why Elizabeth was outraged. Rather than his proposal giving her real confirmation of his love and affection, his focus on how objectionable a partner she was, and how his feelings were unable to find more rational judgement did just the opposite. To Elizabeth, rather than trying to convince her of his love, Mr Darcy gives her every reason to run from him. Of course this is not Mr Darcy’s true intention, but he clearly did not consider how she as a woman might have taken his words. While he was merely being truthful about the incompatibility of their status, especially giving the period this was set in, he did not consider that she probably already knew of these circumstances, add to the fact that he ruined what for her should have been a perfectly romantic moment! He also probably thought that she might appreciate a frank discussion of the murky complexities involved in a potential union, which clearly was not the case! To her it appeared that he really had no reason to marry her at all. To be so negative about what should have been a positive expression of his love, did not giver her any assurance of his feelings for her.

Elizabeth’s interpretation of his proposal was also made without considering his position. Men, by nature can be considered less emotive. Mr Darcy being the stoic and quiet type, would be even more so. Certainly such a declaration of love isn’t something he does every day, so saying the right thing isn’t going to come easy! It’s quite possible that the strength of his feelings towards Elizabeth put him in an uncomfortable position of vulnerability, which perhaps led him to treat the situation like a problem that needed to be fixed- better to get it over and done with. Also, constantly emphasising his elevated status over her, could have been an instinctual attempt to gain back an upper hand in this sea of unknown territory. What she construed as arrogant and pompous, was him dealing with his insecurities in the only way he knew how!

Overall, what I think this scene represents is a situation in which both the man and woman interpret each other’s statements according to their own personal experience, and what they would have done. This interpretation is driven by the expectation that each thinks similarly to the other and therefore should know how to do the ‘right’ thing. Yet in fact they are so different and it should be acknowledged!  I guess this situation might have been turned round if both Elizabeth and Mr Darcy had tried to put themselves in each other’s shoes before either of them opened their mouths or responded!