Gender issues in communication

Gender-Based Communication Differences

In her article,"Talk in the Intimate Relationship: His and Hers," Deborah Tannen argues that men and women have fundamentally different approaches to interpersonal communication. According to Tannen, women use conversational communication primarily to establish intimacy and interpersonal interconnectedness whereas men typically use conversation mainly to establish status in relation to others. The author details the ways that gender-based socialization differences account for the fact that men rely on verbal conversation to communicate information while women emphasize the more subtle elements of interpersonal communication, such as indirect "metamessages" that consist of a much wider range of non-verbal signals in addition to the informational content of conversations. Tannen presents a very cohesive explanation that does seem to account very well for the communications mannerisms and habits typically exhibited by the respective genders.

Discussion

Virtually any observation of members of the respective genders in public seems to corroborate Tanner's characterizations. First, when males enter a public place, they most often stake out a piece of territory that is in the direct view of others and they position themselves toward others. Females are more likely to seek the least conspicuous territory and to face one another directly when they talk. Males also tend to maintain much louder conversations than women in public. Whereas men generally project their voices so that others in their vicinity can hear their conversations, women usually do the exact opposite, keeping their voices low and also shielding their conversation with body language and deliberate use of their hands to cover their mouths. Meanwhile, men often seem to be talking more for the benefit of others around them, especially to the extent the content of their conversation is flattering to them in their minds. Likewise, whereas women are usually largely oblivious to who else might be around them, men seem to be constantly looking around while they are talking. Two women engaged in conversation in public are most likely to be very surprised if someone walks up to them and interrupts with a question or to introduce himself to them, precisely because the women focus so directly on their private conversation. By contrast, if the same person were to approach two men engaged in conversation in identical circumstances, chances are that both men would be aware of the individual's presence in advance because men seem to notice everybody else in the room even during one-on-one conversations.

In terms of the substantive content of conversations, Tannen's observations would seem to be equally accurate. Typically, men focus on communicating facts and other types of objective information about things. Most commonly, they discuss work, money, sports, hobbies, politics, and, of course, women. Those conversations also invariably include expressions of success or confidence as well. However, they discuss their feelings and those of others relatively rarely. In many cases, even the closest of male friends maintain a relationship that is sustained largely by common interests such as in sports or recreational interests. They may know one another for many years without ever really discussing their feelings or their intimate thoughts about personal matters. Women, tend to do the exact opposite, focussing on discussions about people instead of inanimate objects or impersonal interests. Close female friends typically know everything there is to know about one another and they invariably know one another better and more fully than their respective husbands or boyfriends know them.

As Tanner explains, these tendencies are likely functions of both biology and social learning. From the evolutionary biological perspective, males would have had to worry more about projecting their strength and dominance to groups; in many respects, the same analogous behaviors are apparent in many primates in the way that they express their dominance with their body language and vocalizations. Men would also have had a need to be able to communicate information in the most direct possible way, particularly in connection with hunting and protecting their clans against outside threats. Conversely, females would have evolved biologically to be able to communicate with and interpret the needs of their infants, especially during the first year of life. Similarly, women would have evolved more communicative nonverbal mannerisms to communicate most effectively with other members of their families, groups, and clans.